Hello redcoat,
like I said, this posting is getting meaningless and absurd.
Code:
Happily you are not the sole judge on what is, or isn't, meaningless or absurd :P
A fine example of English argumentation skills
Did I anywere mention that I express myself on behalf of all the others??
Is it forbidden to express my opinion towards yours?
Then why do you implement that I am a sole judge?
Code:
I suppose you never thought of the offense it might cause the non-English members of the United Kingdom
A fine example of English logic and double standard
Sorry for Churchill to insult the inhabitants of your Island by terming them English - see your posted newspaper article from 1937.
Code:
You would be surprised how much relevance the so-called minor points often have on the core of the discussion
A fine example for the English and their tendency to exegarate
So far your - minor points haven't proven to be relevant in any way
Code:
I consider your claim to be totally wrong. It has no bearing on your level of intelligence
A fine example for English contradictions
Code:
Be careful when you get on a high horse, you might fall off
A fine example of English witt and mockery
I don't ride horses so don't worry
Code:
"Belgium get themselves into" ?????
Belgium is attacked by Prussia without any provocation, and you claim they 'get themselves into' it
LoL that disproves the British stereotype of Prussians not having a sense of humour. :D
A fine example of English who think that they found a mistake that they can use to lead the topic or the poster into absurdom.
Maybe you try to read my argumentation once more before you place an opinion??
Don't you think the "themselves" applies to GB?
Quote:
|
Of course there were questions asked, and thanks to German atrocities in Belgium ( it wasn't all propaganda ) they were given an answer.
|
A fine example of English tendency to divert from the original question to another absurdom by means of irrational contributions
If the reason for GB's entry into the war was so obious (supposedly only Belgium) according to you, then why did the British public have to ask for the reason two years later?
Quote:
The Entente Cordiale, and Triple Entente were merely treaties of friendship, they didn't commit Britain to come to their aid if they were attacked by another nation.
If Prussia hadn't attacked Belgium it is entirely possible that the British government might not have got enough support in parliament or amongst the British public to declare war on Germany.
As for Japan, they allied themselves with Britain, France, and Russia against the Central Powers in WW1, so I'm unsure how Britain 'abandoned' Japan ?
|
A fine example of English trying to show knowledge by forwarding history irrelevant facts that any child is aware about, in order to build up their onesided case on it and to provide proof as such to their argument
Why don't you start to read about the treaties and causes for WWI?? - obviously you miss some vital facts - see Japan or which diplomatic encounters between which parties failed in 1902.
Quote:
Why would I have had advised this ???
I'm trying to figure out what these diplomatic entanglements are. At no point have I made any comment on the rights or wrongs of the responses of the British government in 1914
|
A fine example of English discussion leading nowere since now the action of blurdom is initiated
For the Kaiser to take a pre emtive strike positon is wrong and leads to war, but for Churchill it seems the right thing to do??
Quote:
|
Again, I have never claimed that WW1 was the fault of just one nation. The point I am trying to clarify is your claim that Britain was a main culprit in the diplomatic entanglements which lead to the war.
|
A fine example of English reversion of their previous argumentation strategy - and sequential demonstration of unwanted confusion
So far your argumentation strategy was based on trying to lure me into forwarding that Britain got involved in WWI due to treaties -which however I never said. Then you tried to push the Belgium argument as being the cause for GB sole entry into war - trying to insinuate that WWI was all the Kaisers fault since he attacked a neutral country.
From the beginning I have tried to point out to you that WWI was caused mainly by two culprits - namely GB and Germany due to the reasons that they were too arrogant and selfminded as to compromise in 1902 and as such avoiding the Entente cordiale which automatically had to lead into disaster or as we call mit now WWI.
You are right in the middle of things to give a fine example of this typical English argmentation style of a specific breed of English persons.
Are you aware that in your entire post you haven't contributed anything meaningfull to the topic ??
Hey I am starting to have fun 
, acctually I love this English argumentation style - since it is so obvious
Regards
Kruska