Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

A Drinking Game for BO's Speech Tonight (9/9/09)

Discussion in 'The Stump' started by texson66, Sep 9, 2009.

  1. IntIron

    IntIron Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    20
    Miguel,

    I believe they found us quite well 8 years ago. Of course the conflict had been escalating long before that.

    On another note: I was watching a documentary on the Twin Towers this morning... I wish I could have hung iron on those! Now that was the 'big' iron!

    Yours,

    Bill
     
  2. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Hi Urgh, IntIron,

    IntIron, Miguel lives in a fantasy world because those terrorist puss bags have not yet attacked anything in Portugal. When they do? then Miguel will change his mind on this stuff.

    Urgh, US defense directly meant or not? will STILL be covering England anyway. Same goes for Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea and God knows where else we have forces still stationed at?
     
  3. Stefan

    Stefan Cavalry Rupert

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    5,368
    Likes Received:
    333
    Carl, the forces the us has stationed over here are not here to defend us and are not here to provide for the defence of the uk. In the case of terrorism they are not legally allowed to intervene in the york of our military and civil authorities anyhow. As for the sic, i'm not arguing, i simply showed you the true origin and meaning of the cartoon. If you want to develop special meanings of your own feel free but unless wu are suggesting that during the cultural revolution mao was planning to redesign rushmore then you are wrong
     
  4. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    953
    Carl once again.. Us forces in uk are here for benefit of usa not uk defence. Have a look at libya actions 70s thru 80s us bases in uk. Your nuclear umberella of cold war days is useless against terrorism. We have own if that was ever to be done. You are leased bases for your benefits. See diego garcia. We do though share information. We are allies not dependants. Again mate..where do you protect me and mine and who from?
     
  5. Jaeger

    Jaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    223
    Urqh

    There seems to be a persistency in the beleif of a bi-polar political system. Once rooted in USSR-USA, to us (or US) and "them".
    The same thing was rife in their armed services back in the 90ies when I had more contact with them. The AirLand Battle doctrine was tailor made on fighting the Red Army, and other scenarios were a bit vague.
    The "transformation of the army" due in 2013 show the lag in shift of thinking there.

    No wonder then that many US citizens still hold a bipolar view of the world.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarity_(power)
     
  6. Miguel B.

    Miguel B. Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Messages:
    956
    Likes Received:
    67
    if they attack us, it's not your base in Azores that's going to stop them. The best way to prevent terrorist attacks is trough (that's right) prevention. Not trough having a big, inneficient force on the field. What would an army do after a terrorist attack? Kill the dead terrorists? Prevent new attacks from happening? how come the Madrid and London attacks still occoured?
    How come ETA is still around even tough, as you correctly pointed, you have bases in Spain?
    Also, how come that all the terrorist arrests in these countries are achieved by local authorities? Seems your bases don't do jack sh** to me.

    You seem to live on a fantasy world of your own where your bases are actually wanted or wellcome or actually, needed to anyone but you. As Urqh says, your bases serve your purposes of trying to maintain a Global hegemony in an effort to fight the growing probems you're facing to keep yourselves above the recession. That's what you get for not having a productive econonomy.

    And again, who will it be covering us against? How would you feel about having a foreign country station forces in the middle of USA. Let's say China deploys within the USA in order to protect you from God knows what. Would you feel safer? Especially when no threat that warrants it exists, would you allow it?
     
  7. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    953
    ah the russians are ..still.. Coming... Well they better get a move on with the updated airland doctrine cos the damn "commies" have.
     
  8. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Stefan, I think I can read and Urgh already covered what the US's responsibilities are over there and a duplication of that effort is not needed thank you. Anyway, YOU look at it, Americans "Umbrella" is still going to be over England.
     
  9. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Ah Miguel, its nice to see that I finally struck a Chord with you. Prevention is absolutely correct. Just what do you think OUR Soldiers have been doing for the past several years? sitting on a log Latrine reading Playboy? No, they are out there killing as many of those s-bags as possible and the ripple effect is that not only the USA has been spared further attacks by these cowards, but might have also helped prevent anything from occurring in Portugal as well. Of course, since AMERICA is one of few to stand up at bat, you will never be able to admit it and give the USA any credit. I KNOW we don't deserve full credit because of other nations like England & South Korea for example-who are involved in this mess, and rightfully so. and what I EXACTLY mean by "and rightfully so" is that I mean that they deserve all due credit for being by our side through the think and thin, of things.
     
  10. Miguel B.

    Miguel B. Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Messages:
    956
    Likes Received:
    67
    Please tell me what have they been preventing in England for example? i'm not talking about information sharing. i'm talking about keeping a military presence in a foreign country wich has nothing to do with prevention. You come and tell me about a war (that is what you're talking about) i'm talking about a country without any conflict. in Portugal and Spain at least, your soldiers sit in their bases while on duty and have the occasional joint drill in wich they grudgingly participate... Other than that, they do nothing. The Azores base serves your purpose of an unsincable aircraft carrier in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean which lowers logistical costs. Nothing else... i still fail to see how we're saffer from having you here. if anything at all, you might make us a target.
    The problem when dealing with horizontal organizations is that they have no leaders per se and are individual, independent cells. when 9/11 happened, i can assure you Bin Laden learned of it trough TV like everyone else. it's the way they work and an army is pretty much useless against it.
     
  11. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Miguel, all I can say is, you please tell me? Also, in case you conviently forgot??????? we and they made a deal between the slimy Roosevelt and Churchill-for the gift of 50 US Navy Destroyers for the rights to maintain military bases in England. Simple as that--Ohhhhhhh.

    Now I await for you and um--stefan to try to debunk what is history.
     
  12. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    953
    Ill do it for em carl.. It has nothing to do with that ww2 deal my friend. You need to look at the nato withdrawal from france. But im intrigued, what package is in this umberella that you think is covering england?
     
  13. Stefan

    Stefan Cavalry Rupert

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    5,368
    Likes Received:
    333
    I'm going to leave this to urqh etc now since we have established that what you say and fact are frequently entirely unrelated. What i will say though, since you seem to think that whether you are right or wrong is directly linked to your contribution to world security, is that you contribute a small portion of your tax dollars. As of next week i contribute a year of my life and risk my personal safety in the same cause. So before you make offensive/ignorant comments about other nations, people and so on, consider that from time to time maybe you don't have a god given priviliged position which allows you the right to be an arbiter of all that it is right or wrong.
     
    urqh likes this.
  14. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Urgh, it certainly was a result of a deal meade between them. Unless of course your reading revisionalist history books? All I know is what I have read in books written and printed in a time when they did not publish tristed revisionalist books like they are chirining out these days. That deal with the Destroyers was indeed part of our rightes of having Bases in England for the term provided.

    Stefan, im not even going to bother with you and to borrow a line from Bill O'Reilly-you have been drinking too much Cool Aid.
     
  15. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    953
    NO Carl, you were not even at war when the destroyers for bases deal was made. The bases in the uk had nothing to do with that deal. The bases here are bases originally granted to your 8th airforce boys on entering the war much later. They were then after ww2 much reduced. Few that were left were given over to Strategic US forces in Europe. Under Truman the Strategic bit was dropped and European included as title.
    The bases in France were thrown out by Degaulle on leaving Nato military arm. Bases in UK were then rotated with a new mission, with new staff and equipment being flown into Burtonwood before deploying to what are now the big 3 plus Alconbury and few others which no longer in use.

    They do not and have never fitted in to the UK defence establishment, but were under Nato command in cold war or rather nato usege for action at Inner German border area and to reinforce your bases in w.germany at times of tension and slso as cover. So fitted into the Nato us nuclear umberalla at that time. Their role today is at Fairford, trasport of heavy materials on route to middle east etc and Isreal...Active b52 activation base in times of tension and exercises..Not as defender of uk but as arm of US strategic forces with US aims not uk. Lakenheath and mildenhall are both fighter bases and do not fit into uk defence esrtablishment. They are used for American puirposes only. And moreso after German draw down of forces. They are an arm of American defence not British. They have no role in uk defence and as proved in bush wars if you like...Iraq Afghanistan, tension in Isreal and mideast, deploy to Turkey et al. on US missions and planning with no thought or prejudice to UK defence.

    Have a look at the Nato withdrawal from France to see the agreement between UK and America on the British bases leases at present. Nothing to do with 50 destroyers.

    And your wrong. The 50 destroyers for bases did not refer to uk mainland bases for your air force.

    Diego Garcia is British maintained supposedly.We removed inhabitants in 60s and were granted the island gp from Mauritus. America use it for strategic bombers and have done successfully. And position marine corps stores on ships there. Also an emergency landing ground for space shuttle etc.

    We both share int and comms facilitiies around the world hot seating for one another to mutal benefit.

    Again who are you protecting me and mine from and with just what package?

    I protected me and mine for years. Together with American Allies.

    Stefan now protects me and mine and thankfull we are to him too. Good luck Stefan stay safe.

    You need to look at the 50 destroyer deal again Carl. American bases in the UK are not part of that deal.

    You do not protect the UK. You work with the UK on mutually beneficial areas.

    But Im willing to listen....Again tell me what package you are protecting me and mine with? Not a general we do so there...be specific please.
     
    Miguel B. likes this.
  16. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    953
    Carl where in the following agreement does it point to UK bases in the UK being granted under this deal. Or are your govt being revisionist here?

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
    805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
    WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
    Destroyers for Bases Agreement, 2 September 1940
    Related Resource: List of Destroyers transferred to Great Britain under this agreement



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The Secretary of State (Hull) to the British Ambassador (Lothian)

    Department of State
    Washington
    September 2, 1940.

    Excellency:

    I have received your note of September 2, 1940, of which the text is as follows:

    I have the honour under instructions from His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to inform you that in view of the friendly and sympathetic interest of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in the national security of the United States and their desire to strengthen the ability of the United States to cooperate effectively with the other nations of the Americas in the defence of the Western Hemisphere, His Majesty's Government will secure the grant to the Government of the United States, freely and without consideration, of the lease for immediate Establishment and use of naval and air bases and facilities for entrance thereto and the operation and protection thereof, on the Avalon Peninsula and on the southern coast of Newfoundland, and on the east coast and on the Great Bay of Bermuda.

    Furthermore, in view of the above and in view of the desire of the United States to acquire additional air and naval bases in the Caribbean and in British Guiana, and without endeavouring to place a monetary or commercial value upon the many tangible and intangible rights and properties involved, His Majesty's Government will make available to the United States for immediate establishment and use naval and air bases and facilities for entrance thereto and the operation and protection thereof, on the eastern side of the Bahamas, the southern coast of Jamaica, the western coast of St. Lucia, the west coast of Trinidad in the Gulf of Paria, in the island of Antigua and in British Guiana within fifty miles of Georgetown, in exchange for naval and military equipment and material which the United States Government will transfer to His Majesty's Government.

    All the bases and facilities referred to in the preceding paragraphs will be leased to the United States for a period of ninety- nine years, free from all rent and charges other than such compensation to be mutually agreed on to be paid by the United States in order to compensate the owners of private property for loss by expropriation or damage arising out of the establishment of the bases and facilities in question.

    His Majesty's Government, in the leases to be agreed upon, will grant to the United States for the period of the leases all the rights, power, and authority within the bases leased, and within the limits of the territorial waters and air spaces adjacent to or in the vicinity of such bases, necessary to provide access to and defence of such bases, and appropriate provisions for their control.

    Without prejudice to the above-mentioned rights of the United States authorities and their jurisdiction within the leased areas, the adjustment and reconciliation between the jurisdiction of the authorities of the United States within these areas and the jurisdiction of the authorities of the territories in which these areas are situated, shall be determined by common agreement.

    The exact location and bounds of the aforesaid bases, the necessary seaward, coast and anti-aircraft defences, the location of sufficient military garrisons, stores and other necessary auxiliary facilities shall be determined by common agreement. His Majesty's Government are prepared to designate immediately experts to meet with experts of the United States for these purposes. Should these experts be unable to agree in any particular situation, except in the case of Newfoundland and Bermuda, the matter shall be settled by the Secretary of State of the United States and His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

    I am directed by the President to reply to your note as follows: The Government of the United States appreciates the declarations and the generous action of His Majesty's Government as contained in your communication which are destined to enhance the national security of the United States and greatly to strengthen its ability to cooperate effectively with the other nations of the Americas in the defense of the Western Hemisphere. It therefore gladly accepts the proposals.

    The Government of the United States will immediately designate experts to meet with experts designated by His Majesty's Government to determine upon the exact location of the naval and air bases mentioned in your communication under acknowledgment.

    In consideration of the declarations above quoted, the Government of the United States will immediately transfer to His Majesty's Government fifty United States Navy' destroyers generally referred to as the twelve hundred-ton type.

    Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.


    Cordell Hull

    His Excellency
    The Right Honorable The Marquess of Lothian, C. H.,
    British Ambassador.

    Source: Private Laws, Concurrent Resolutions, Treaties, International Agreements Other Than Treaties, and Proclamations. Part 2 of United States Statutes at Large Containing the Laws and Concurrent Resolutions Enacted During the Second and Third Sessions of the Seventy-Sixth Congress of the United States of America, 1939-1941, and Treaties, International Agreements Other Than Treaties, Proclamations, and Reorganization Plans. Vol. 54. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1941), 2406-2408.
     
  17. Stefan

    Stefan Cavalry Rupert

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    5,368
    Likes Received:
    333
    Carl, sorry bud, can't get cool aid over here. I'm making a very simple point, you said that we were able to say certain things because the us protects us from terrorists etc and yet of the three of us you are the one making glib comments from the safety of his pc whilst the urqh and I either already have or in the immediate future will be walking the walk as it were. Maybe you should keep this in mind before you make further rude posts about nations i thought were meant to be allies.
     
  18. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    953
    What i find funny is that its some of the so called liberal peacenics on here that actually face the terrorist menace, with apologies of course to formerjughead keys28 a58 jaeger kai pzjagr and a few others i count as amis,
     
  19. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Hi Urgh, in your first post under my last, True, we were not at war but the leased bases deal WAS a part of the RN getting said Destroyers. One of my Uncles was the Co of one of those Destroyers as they were being "shifted" to England. My Uncle "Billy" was one who made more than one trip to England. As he is no longer living, I can't ask him anything to be able to satisfy your curiosity--sorry. Anyway, the little I was able to hear from him about this, is that at I do remember him talking about why we ""loaned"' or gave so many ships to the RN. One of the reasons was indeed that we would be allowed to have Bases in England for 99 years. If im wrong about the number of years-sorry. The last time I was able to talk with my Uncle Billy, was when I was about 10 years old-before he passed away.
     
  20. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    OK stefan, ill send you 10 packs of Cool aid right away as it is not only cheap, but very light to mail off and shouldn't cost more than a few Dolars total-to buy them and send them to you.

    If you wind up not liking Cool Aid-then ill send you some Wylers or even Nehi :lol: :lol:
     

Share This Page