Germany 4 English.Sheep.Shaggers 1
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
From: Hog on 30 Jun 2010 09:03 M J Carley wrote: > In the referenced article, "Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> > writes: > >> See I would call the war in the Pacific against Japan all out >> war. Vietnam was a very badly misjudged side show. I think the >> respective results speak for themselves. > > Vietnam was more heavily bombed than Japan was. What you said ignores the geographic scope of the Pacific war and the two Nukes -- Hog
From: Two Dogs on 30 Jun 2010 09:11 On Jun 29, 5:54 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > "Two Dogs" <nzre...(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > > news:e8756de1-7599-4a6f-94fb-90388794eac4(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 28, 5:21 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...(a)ntlworld.com> > wrote: > > > > > "Two Dogs" <nzre...(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > > >news:b7c08416-77da-428c-a6d6-ecf3dc39facb(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > On Jun 28, 1:05 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...(a)ntlworld.com> > > wrote: > > > > "Alister" <alister.w...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message > > > >news:xYNVn.30962$U%7.30457(a)hurricane... > > > > > On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 12:17:35 -0700, Lclawitcx wrote: > > > > >> On 27 June, 19:58, Tosspot <Frank.Le...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> On 27/06/10 19:12, Lclawitcx wrote: > > > > >>> > Oh dear, we destroyed you English racists. Thousands of you > > > >>> > started > > > >>> > off spouting your xenopobic chants about black people and the war > > > >>> > outside the stadium, then it finished with you crying. This brings > > > >>> > to > > > >>> > an end the months of embarrassing English flag waving nationalism > > > >>> > that even made Americans cringe. > > > > >>> > A video summing up the English limeys world cup. > > > >>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5kvpm_bTk4 > > > > >>> > "The English are a nation of cowards" > > > > >>> Yeah, but we're still 2:0 on World Wars. > > > > >> The English contribution to WW2(which was laughably) consisted of > > > >> running away like cowards and diving in to the sea at Dunkirk. Then > > > >> waiting 4 years while the Americans and Russians won the actual war. > > > > > The Russians almost certainly won the war which would have been very > > > > bad > > > > for the USA if we had not Won the battle of Britain ( which was fought > > > > before the USA even entered the war). > > > > There would have been no staging post for the 'D' day landings which > > > > would almost certainly handed the whole of Europe to the USSR. > > > > > So far from saving our bacon in truth we saved yours. > > > > >> 1 on 1 against Germany the English would have been annihilated. > > > > > Did you check the score line for the Battle or Britain? I though not. > > > > The Stuka was a shinning example of German efficiency - the only fighter > > > in > > > WW2 that needed a fighter escort and every time our lads shot one down > > > they > > > got 2 Nazis for the price of one. > > > > And if the Yanks start on about saving our bacon, remind them that > > > Hitler > > > had his boffins working on dirty nukes (the best they could do without > > > all > > > their Jewish scientists) and the means to drop them on the USA. > > > > There were several versions of the "Amerikabomber" on the drawing board > > > along with plans for a long range booster stage for the V2 rocket. > > > > And the Yanks weren't doing us any favours, Hitler formally declared war > > > on > > > the US a few days after the Japs hit Pearl Harbour - from that point on > > > we > > > were basically running up a lend-lease debt to fight their war for them. > > > Oh dear Ian, get your facts from war comics, do you? Or from reading > > Rainer Karlsh? Next you'll be quoting from the Hitler Dairies. > > > To have a dirty bomb you need material that has been passed through a > > working nuclear reactor, > > > -------------------------- > > > What a complete and utter load of bollox. > > > What they were striving for was radioactive material sufficiently refined > > to bring together something approaching critical mass to produce some > > degree > > of chain reaction. > > Who are "they"? Work stopped in Germany on using any kind of nuclear > source as a weapon by 1943. Feel free to quote reliable sources to > prove otherwise. > > ----------------- > > The Germans were definately up to something right up to the end of the war. > > At the time of the German surrender a U-boat was intercepted on its way to > Japan - apparently there were a few cases of U235 in the cargo. Apparently. There are a lot of conspiracy theories around about Germany and Japan at the end of the War, few of them proven. How about some facts? Tell you what, rather than spending your time googling, why don't you tell us why Hitler, *if* he had the ability, would use a dirty bomb on New York rather than London, Moscow, or a military target? This was the guts of your initial statement, front up. Two Dogs
From: steve auvache on 30 Jun 2010 09:13 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:20:20 +0100, Alan LeHun <try(a)reply.to> wrote: > >Political interference is however necessary. Without it, North Korea >would still be radioactive. I don't recall it ever being radioactive but then I am no expert on the matter, when did it stop? -- steve auvache
From: Two Dogs on 30 Jun 2010 09:14 On Jun 29, 4:19 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > "Two Dogs" <nzre...(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > > news:05d0b21b-29fb-4c83-9709-4f1532ea6158(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 29, 1:10 pm, "ian field" <gangprobing.al...(a)ntlworld.com> > wrote: > > > > > "Alan LeHun" <t...(a)reply.to> wrote in message > > >news:MPG.269325986271a9e5989827(a)news.x-privat.org... > > > > In article <b7c08416-77da-428c-a6d6- > > > ecf3dc39f...(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, nzre...(a)verizon.net says.... > > >> Oh dear Ian, get your facts from war comics, do you? Or from reading > > >> Rainer Karlsh? Next you'll be quoting from the Hitler Dairies. > > > >> To have a dirty bomb you need material that has been passed through a > > >> working nuclear reactor, something they didn't have. > > > > Not true. A dirty bomb is simply a conventional explosive device > > > designed in such a way as to spread radioactive contaminant when it > > > detonates. > > > That would qualify, but I suspect most potential nuclear terrorists (and > > the > > WW2 Nazis) would be aiming for some sort of chain reaction - it produces a > > significant radiation burst and disperses much more radioactive fallout > > much > > further than just conventional explosives under a pile of radioactive > > medical waste. > > Not mention, of course, that there was no radioactive medical waste > in 1945......but you knew that > > Two Dawg > > Of course not - radiation didn't exist until the Americans invented it. What a silly thing to say. Are you now claiming there *was* radioactive medical waste in 1945? If so, you've gone off the reservation and I probably have been trolled... Two Dogs
From: M J Carley on 30 Jun 2010 09:32
In the referenced article, "Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> writes: >M J Carley wrote: >> In the referenced article, "Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> >> writes: >> >>> See I would call the war in the Pacific against Japan all out >>> war. Vietnam was a very badly misjudged side show. I think the >>> respective results speak for themselves. >> >> Vietnam was more heavily bombed than Japan was. > >What you said ignores the geographic scope of the Pacific war and the two >Nukes The nukes were symbolic heavy bombing: the firebombing of Tokyo killed far more people. The `conventional' bombing of Vietnam was far worse than the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings. -- Si deve tornare alle basi: Marx ed i Clash. Michael Carley: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/ |