Just cannot help myself today!
 

You all probably have seen this one but I got it today and thought it was funny!
.......................

After numerous rounds of "We don't even know if Osama is still live," Osama himself decided to send George Bush a letter in his own handwriting to let him know he was still in the game. Bush opened the letter and it contained a single line of Coded message:

370H-SSV-0773H

Bush was baffled, so he e-mailed it to Condoleezza Rice. Condi and her aides had not a clue either, so they sent it to the FBI.

No one could solve it at the FBI so it went to the CIA, then to MI6 and Mossad. Eventually they asked Australian Intelligence (ASIO) for help.

Within a minute ASIO emailed the White House with this reply: "Tell the President he's holding the message upside down."

Thanks Liz, I needed a chuckle too.

You might like this one:

At the mall food court the other day, I noticed an old man watching a teenager sitting next to him. The teenager had spiked hair in all different colours: red, green, orange, blue.

The old man kept staring at him. The teenager would look and find the old man staring every time. When the teenager had finally had enough, he sarcastically asked, "What's the matter, old man, never done anything wild in yur life?"

The old man did not bat an eye in his response: "Got drunk once and had sex with a peacock. I was just wondering if you were my son."

This one was reported as a true story some years ago.

A punk with brightly coloured, spiky hair boarded a bus in Kings Cross and asked the driver "How much to the City, mate?" The driver replied "That'd be a dollar, son. And fifty cents for your parrot".

Hey LizzyF -

No fair making fun of the President. He may be an idiot - but he's OUR idiot.

"A nation always gets the government it deserves."

Ken

LB, not sure that a Nation always gets the Government it deserves. I always thought it depended on who paid who and by how much and that has nothing to do with the bulk of the nation. At least you are not "forced" to vote like we are. That must at least cut your "donkey" vote by half - no offence to donkeys ( the animals ) intended.

Ken, in both countries about 52% got the government they deserved - to which you'd have to add those who don't bother to vote, or in our case only turn up to vote because they'll get fined if they don't. Count me among the 48%.

The "donkey vote" Liz mentioned is probably a uniquely Australian term. In our system you get to number the boxes against each candidate's name in the order of your preference, and the "donkeys" are those who vote 1-to-whatever straight down the page. Drawing the highest position on the paper therefore confers an advantage, which is actually pretty small, an estimated 1%.

Neil - you should be ashamed of yourself.

You vote "donkey" - then you do get the government you deserve.

I find the compulsory voting provision in Australia odd. I also find it odd that right wing Lizzie - she loves JH - thinks he's the best since sliced bread - has seen fit to post this.

Actually I don't think it's funny.

It's deadly serious.

A vote for JH is a vote for .. well we won't go anywhere near domestic issues - but a vote for JH is a vote for unquestioning acceptance of whatever the US wants to do.

Which suits you, Lizzy, just fine. I just hope the coerced voters of Australia turn up and vote him OUT.

DITTO Dubya.

Sorry folks. Still stand by that quote. While specific individuals may not get the government they deserve, the nation as whole always does - whether that simply be an incompetent democratically elected one or an unelected totalitarian regime. In the former case the people as a whole were either taken in and made a foolish choice or couldn't be bothered to vote. In the latter case, they are too stricken with fear to fix the problem that most definitely needs fixing. Either way, their actions - or inactions - led them to their situation.

It may sound cold and callus but the fact is - if you don't like your government, then do something about it - otherwise nothing will be done. You can't expect others to fix it for you.

That's my take anyway,

Ken

Never mind all this political talk, post some more great jokes.

I loved the one with the parrot.

If you Chimani, Neil or whoever else is out there thinks that if there was a labour Government in Australia they would not have backed the USA in Iraq then you are sadly mistaken. I have a feeling, that the Labour/Socialist Government in England went with the USA on this one. Seeing that the USA in the past 2 World Wars came to the aid of England/Australia I do not think it would be politic to reject them. As silly as I think Rudd the Dud is I don't think he is that silly!
Now before you all attack me for being political may I note that I did not state this debate - I only posted the joke!

Another thing Chimani, I may be politically right but that does not mean that I do not have a sense of humour. Had it not been so sad the way Hawke and Keeting fleeced this country I would be laughing about their incompetence till the cows came home!

Thanks LizzyF,
Now that's a good joke!!

C'mon kids ... back on track please :)


Many aspects of human sexuality are very puzzling. Take celibacy. This
can be a choice in life, or a condition imposed by environmental factors.


While attending a Marriage Encounter Weekend, Tom and Mary listened to the
instructor declare: "It is essential that husbands and wives know the
things that are important to each other."

He addressed the men. "Can you each name and describe your wife's
favourite flower?"

Tom leaned over, touched Mary's arm gently and whispered,
"Self-raising, isn't it?"

Thus began Tom's life of celibacy.......

I'll get flamed for this seeing as the consensus is you can post a joke that is political but it's out of order to reply in a serious political vein.

I don't get that logic. But well ..

Yes Blair's government is Labour - but you should know Lizzie, that Socialism is dead (discuss). It's all Democratic Socialism or Social Democracy in Europe now. There's a difference but that's not up for discussion here. Enough that both labels at least have the merit of believing that the market cannot be trusted to run everything.

Interesting to see Kevin Rudd manoueving in just the same way as Kinnock once did.

But the real reason for this reponse is your comment about the USA "coming to the aid of" the UK/Australia in WW2.

True. They entered the war. Took them a long time to decide which side was right. HHHmm???? Oh - and what was it that made it clear to them - an event called "Pearl Harbour" I believe.

Nothing about their entry into WW2 was about "coming to the aid of". That's just nonsense. It was purely and totally self interest.

And very nicely they did out of it too.

End of story.

Chimani -

Pardon me for letting the Historian in me peek through (I'd originally intended to the teach the subject, specializing in WW II). While there is indeed some truth to what you say (the American people were not enthusiastic about getting involved in what they perceived as "foreign troubles" - I might add that neither was Britain or France to begin with, which was why Hitler got away with so much in the mid-late 30's)) the fact is that the US did make solid steps towards entry into the war on the side of the allies long before Pearl Harbor and in fact it was those steps that led Japan to feel that they had no choice other than to attack the US. These steps by the US took several forms, the best known of which was Lend-Lease - whereby starting in early 1941 vast quantities of material were made available to Britain, China, and the Soviet Union. Prior to that, in 1940 we transfered 50 badly needed destroyers to Britain in exchange for bases in Newfoundland and the Caribbean. Though this was technically a "trade" the fact is both aspects of the deal benifited Britain enormously as it meant that the US would take over patroling the areas around the bases for u-boats, thereby freeing up overly-stretched Commonwealth forces. It was essentially a win-win deal for Britain (while admittedly extending US influence). Even without an actual declaration of war it was very clear which side we favored and indeed many concrete steps were taken along the path to war.

In any event, yes, the US was reluctant - but Roosevelt and others like him recognized the danger that Germany and Japan posed and took solid steps to help the allies whenever possible. In fact, here in the US there is a small (but vocal) minority that still claim that Roosevelt deliberately engineered the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to get the US directly involved in the war. Though this is utter garbage, the stories continue to pop up. It is interesting to note (and serves as evidence of the US's lingering reluctance to get involved even after Pearl Harbor) that Roosevelt did NOT declare war on both Japan and Germany in his famous "Day of Imfamy" speech - only on Japan. Offical war with Germany came a couple of days later - only after Hitler declared war on the US first.

So, yeah, we were reluctant, but eventually the Axis powers decided that we were essentially at war with them already and simply made it official. We did indeed come out of the war pretty good - at the expense of not only Germany and Japan, but one could argue, Britain and the rest of Europe as well. WW I and WW II - as is often the case with wars - served as transition points in a shifting of the balance of power from Europe to the New World and America ended the war as the strongest nation on earth, but one must remember that our contribution, though hesitantly given at first, was vital to victory by the Allies.

Though the Soviet Union arguably played the domininant role in the defeat of Germany, there is no doubt that the US was the overwhelming reason for the defeat of Japan. This is not to minimize the heavy contributions of the Commonwealth forces there, but the fact is that victory over Japan was largely a result of naval warfare (due to the nature of the area) - and so it came down to who could product the most ships and planes. This was something the US, with it's vast resources and undamaged industrial might, could do like no one else. We started the war with generally the same number of aircraft carriers as Japan (7 or so - depnding on what one considers a "carrier") and ended the war with around 100 (plus having given/loaned Britain another 20 or so). Japan had no chance against such massive construction capability. Commonwealth forces (mostly Aussies and Kiwi's but also British, Indians and South Africans) played key roles on land and their contributions were vital, but in the final analysis it was the vast naval power of the US (notably the aircraft carriers and submarines) that crushed Japan.

Ken

Chimani, it was a joke, pure and simple, it was not a political joke as such either.
I think you are English Chimani and as such would not have appreciated the danger that Australia came all to close to in WW2 with the Japanese advancing at a rate of knots. In fact it was your Prime Minister at the time, Churchill, who decided that if push came to shove and the Japanese did get on Australian shores then the Brisbane line would come into effect and everything north of Brisbane would be surrended to the Japanese. My father, a US Marine in the Coral Sea arena fought with the Australians when the US came to our aid in that area and as I don't like fish, least of all raw fish, I am particularly happy that there was the American Armada there otherwise people like yourself would not have come to Australia and we would be saying Konitchi-wa ( phonetic spelling).
Liked your joke too Bokara!

Ken, thanks for a balanced summary. You did miss your calling.

Liz, Harold Wilson declined to accede to Lyndon Johnson's request for British troops in Vietnam. In so doing he showed a great deal more sense that the Menzies conservative government of Australia.

What a British Labour government did has no bearing on what a Labor government in Australia would have done. A former Australian Labor prime minister (who I won't name for fear of inducing an apoplectic fit) said of the US in Vietnam that when you see a friend doing something foolish and self-destructive, rather than egg him on you should help him extract himself from the problem. The very same comment has been made in relation to the Iraq fiasco.

Now, if I can think of a printable joke that's also funny I'll post one.

OK, here's my contribution - an authentically Australian story.

An old swagman, lost in the forbidding wastes of the Outback, exhausted, hungery and thirsty, reached a small billabong and made camp for the night. After starting a fire and using up his last few tealeaves for a cuppa, he turned to his faithful and footsore cattle dog, Blue, and said with a catch in his throat,

"Well, Blue, old mate, you've been a good pal, but it's time to call it a day. There's only one last thing you can do for me, mate, so I'm going to have to eat you."

Later, as the swaggie threw the last well-chewed bone onto the pathetic pile beside the fire, he said to himself sadly "Jeez, I wish old Blue was here. He'd of loved them bones."

For those with teenage boys:

>
> A young boy had just qualified for his driver's permit and asked his
> father
> if they could discuss his use of the car. His father said he'd make a
> deal with his son. "You bring your grades up from a C to a B average,
> study your Bible a little, get your hair cut and we'll talk about the
> car."
>
> The boy thought about that for a moment, decided he'd settle for the offer
> and they agreed on it. After about six weeks his father said, "Son, I'm
> real proud. You brought your grades up and I've observed that you have
> been studying your Bible, but I'm really disappointed you didn't get your
> hair cut."
>
> The young man paused a moment then said, "You know, Dad, I've been
> thinking
> about that, and I've noticed in my studies of the Bible that Samson had
> long
> hair, John the Baptist had long hair, Moses had long hair and there's even
> a
> strong argument that Jesus had long hair.
>
> To this his father replied, "And did you also notice they all walked
> everywhere they went?"

I loved the jokes - I can't post any as the ones I know would get me a vacation from Fodors:Þ)

Hey I rather enjoy political cartoons - even the ones that contradict my personal feelings - humor is humor

Chimani -I think you may have done better to simply start a political thread if that's what you wanted.

Great post Ken - Neil is right, you missed your calling.

I personally like JH - of course that has more to do with the fact that on our first holiday visit to Oz my wife and I were going to our room at the Hilton at the same time that JH and his wife were leaving. They both stopped to say hello to us before entering the elevator. I can assure you we could not have been within a block of a US President do to our security here.

3.5 months and counting until our next holiday down under

Cheers

Steve and Andrea

I appreciate both parts of this thread. Ken, thanks for your part in this. For the Brits out htere do not forget that your PM sent Australian troops to Burma rather than allow them to return home to defend Australia.

On the part of the thread about Australian subservience, it was a Labor government which held its tongue while Indonesia invaded East Timor. (And murdered five journalists) The US wanted access to a deep trench for its subs to pass undetected between the Pacific and Indian Oceans and gave the go ahead to Djakarta. It was a shameful act.

To the more important part:-
I feel like my body has gotten totally out of shape, so I got my doctor's permission to join a fitness club and start exercising. I decided to take an aerobics class for seniors. I bent, twisted, gyrated, jumped up and down, and perspired for an hour. But, by the time I got my leotards on, the class was over.

Saltuarius, Churchill didn't send Australian troops to Burma. He certainly wanted to, in fact I think he issued orders to turn the troop ships in that direction, orders that were countermanded by the Australian prime minister, Labor's John Curtin.

Churchill also got Roosevelt to agree to send an equivalent US force to Australia in their stead, but Curtin declined this option. Presumably he took the view that it would be better to have our troops under our control, especially given the dire fate of the Australians captured when the British surrendered Singapore. He might also have had regard to Churchill's poor record as a military tactician, proven most spectacularly when he devised the disastrous Gallipoli campaign in WW1.

But I don't know why British readers should feel embarrassed over this. Churchill was focused on the defence of British interests, which after all was his job. There are times when it becomes a case of "every man for himself, and the Devil take the hindmost", even among allies.

Morally I don't disagree with you in regard to the Indonesian annexation of East Timor, but it's hard to see what Australia could have done except talk when faced with the reality of US support for the corrupt Suharto regime. The conservative Menzies government had also found this out when they lobbied the US over the Indonesian takeover of West New Guinea (Irian Jaya) and were told to get back in their box.

Well, we may have got the PM we deserved or even voted for 10+ years ago, but did we really have to have him for this long!

I appreciated your summary too, Lord B.

Well said, and accurate except for one thing. You forgot to say that "Lend Lease" meant that the UK had to pay for those ships, etc, afterwards. It was only "Lend" short term.

The US certainly wanted its pound of flesh. Now - go on - tell me I am wrong.

As for Steve W - seems you like to be less than even handed. Fine for Lord B to be an historian in reponse to my post. Not fine for me to post it in the first place.

Wow - that's some double standard.

Now all I'm interested in is truth. Can't be doing with half-baked or revisionist history.

Chimani -

Regarding repayment of Lend-Lease - true enough - the material was to be paid for, but it was sold at a very substantial discount, the interest rate was low (2%), and it was to be paid back over a very long period of time (50 years) - and in fact the last payment did not occur until the end of 2006 (after being deferred). All in all, very generous terms. Keep in mind too, that repayment was not a certainty. Had the Allies lost the war, there would be NO repayment.

You must remember that at that stage in the war the American people were still opposed to involvement (as the British were in 1938, when they gave up Czechoslovakia). We were still barely coming out of the decade-long Depression and folks felt that we had a lot of problems here at home to deal with, so the US government was limited to doing what Congress and the American people would accept. No one wanted WW II (except the Axis) - not the British, not the French, and not the US - but don't mistake a reluctance to go to war with uncertainty as to which side deserved support.

In regards to the "lend" aspect of Lend-Lease - well, short term lending of the material was what was needed. As it turned out, it was lent for as long as it was required (or in some cases until the US entered the war - at which time it reverted to US control, but was still being used in the Allied cause).

Remember too that American volunteers fought with both the RAF and the Chinese forces (notably the Flying Tigers) - and this was done with the unofficial approval of the US goverment. Pilots who wanted to leave the US Army Aircorp to serve with either the British or the Chinese were freely allowed to do so - despite their current military commitments (and at a time when the US was trying frantically to build up it's own military forces). In fact, under secret Presidential order, they were actually encouraged to do so.

It was indeed, America's support of China (and the American supplies being brought in to China through Burma) that more or less forced the Japanese to occupy French Indo-China (now Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam) so that they could interdict these supplies that were bolstering up the Chinese in their ongoing war with Japan. This in turn led the US (and the Dutch government in exile - which still controled the oil-rich East Indies) to place the embargo on Japan and freeze their assets. With no source of oil at all, the Japanese then decided that the war with the US was necessary and the Pearl Harbor strike was authorized to neutralize the US fleet so that the Japanese navy could sieze SouthEast Asia.

So yeah, as mentioned, the US was reluctant to enter the war (who wasn't?), but the US government did what it could while technically remaining "neutral" (but not really doing so). For one thing, like Britain, and France in 1939, the US military was not really ready for war yet, so FDR walked a fine line - trying to prepare the US military (which like the British and French had been neglected in the interwar years), trying to support the Allies (without appearing to do so - so as to not provoke Germany and Japan), and all the while trying to convince Congress and the American people that the coming fight was both absolutely necessary and worthwhile.

America did a LOT for the allies in the years before it's involvement. Some of what they did they made money on (that was one of FDR's selling points for such programs), but much of it they didn't - so it was not for purely commerical reasons that the US supported the Allies. If their motive had been commercial, then the US would have sold equally to BOTH sides - which we did not!

We favored the Allies from the very beginning, we were just not militarily or psychologically ready to enter the war yet. Going to war is a BIG step - one not to take lightly (as the current administration is finding out, much to their dismay). Though the US involvement was late and somewhat hesitant, in the final analysis it was almost certainly the right approach to take, allowing time for US industry to gear up to meet the upcoming challenge.

Yes, the US watched out for it's own interests (EVERY county ALWAYS has), but it also did the right thing, and for the right reasons.

So yeah, I'm afraid you are wrong. It was NOT about the money. Money was involved in SOME of the US aid (but not all) - but that was not primary focus. As mentioned - if that was, we'd have sold to BOTH sides.

Ken

PS to Chimani -

Not meaning to sound harsh. Just think you are off-base on this. While there was indeed some self-interest involved to dismiss US actions as purely self-serving is just incorrect - and not born out by the facts.

Ken

Resentment of America's late entry into both world wars still seems widespread in the UK, but I've never really understood this. It's almost as though many British people feel that America was under an obligation to step in. Maybe there's some unspoken feeling that the US owed the "Old Country" for ... well, something.

Ken, you might like to comment on this, but my understanding is that America's East Coast establishment, which predominated in high goverment circles at the time and which in many cases had family ties or residual sympathy with Britain, wanted to get involved. Most ordinary Americans, though, descended from Irish, German, Italian and many other backgrounds, felt no such connection. FDR of course was quintessential East Coast establishment.

I also have the impression that there was a good deal of resentment about the loss of American lives in defence of the British and French, with no apparent benefit to the world at large and certainly not to America.

Of course, for Britain it was WW1 that began the bleeding process that eventually resulted in the loss of the Empire and America's rise, although that didn't become apparent until after WW2.

(LizzyF, pity your thread got hijacked - but it's nice to have a discussion that isn't narrowly travel-related. Hasn't happened on this board for quite a while.)

Be my guest Neil/Ken - it is better than " which hotel should I stay at in Bullamakanka".

To those who think that change for the sake of change is a good thing, remember the old saying " when you are on a good thing - stick to it" OR " if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Neil,
you are right and a properly chastned gecko would wander off with his tail between his legs but I have just lost it!
Lizzy,
Lots of things aint broke but too many are.
The shifting of power has a cleansing effect on the system. This has been more strongly true since the politicisation of the public service. Maybe we could change all our governments if we change the one in Canbera first.

Neil_Oz -

Well, I've never personally noticed such post WWI/WWII resentment from the British - and I've a close personal connection to the country as my mother is British (well, technically born in Dublin but raised outside of Manchester - and thinks of herself as British) - and so I've cousins over there and many of my mom's friends as well. Also having been an Air Force Brat during my childhood and having spent about half of that childhood in Europe I did spend some time in England. In any event I've never encountered any of that particular resentment (though other kinds of anti-US feelings true enough - I was a teen in Europe during the Vietnam War). My mom tells me that she knows of folks who still dislike America because we won the REVOLUTIONARY WAR (LOL).

To a certain degree, yes I think you are correct in that FDR was an upper-crust Eastcoaster and indeed their ties to Britain were stronger than the average American.

Except among a few right-wing wackos who quite frankly hate anyone/anything that isn't American ("Freedom Fries"????? Come on, how stupid is THAT???) I don't think Americans resent the loss of life in WWI/WWII. For one thing (sadly), most Americans don't really think about it. It's ancient history to them. Secondly, I think most folks who do think about it, recognize it was entirely necessary.

Finally, you are quite right to group WWI & WWII together, for in many ways they were part of the same general changes that were going on during the first half of the 20th century. In fact, in the 3rd World, it's not uncommon for people to consider them to simply be part of the same conflict. In other words the view is that "the European Powers, having conquered the world, then squabbled among themselves how to divide it up." That view, while not at all complete, is essentually correct.

Ken

Ken, you have the advantage of me. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "widespread". Or perhaps I've been talking to too many transplanted Englishpersons here. The comments I've heard have been pretty much along the lines of the old standard complaint "Overpaid, oversexed and over here". BTW, my father was English-born too - Nottinghamshire. His father was killed in France 7 months before the Armistice.

I wasn't suggesting that Americans have ever resented the involvement in WW2 - I had the impression that many in the between-wars period felt that nothing much had been achieved by getting involved in WW1, which contributed to isolationist sentiment. But that's very much based on what academics would call secondary sources.

I'm surprised that anyone in Britain would give a rat's fundament about who won the Revolutionary War (even if they knew!)

Neil_Oz -

No, you are right about the isolationist opinions during the interwar years. It was pretty widespread at that time. After WWII it was different though. Few folks thought we shouldn't have gotten involved in that (after the fact anyway)

Regarding the Revolutionary War - my mother says the English never forget. I doubt you'll find MANY folks that hold that sentiment about a war that distant, but she says she knows a couple. LOL

Certainly during the war there was some resentment and tensions because the US servicement did tend to steal the girls (they had the money to do stuff - AND they were training in England while the British men were largely elsewhere). I was referring to more recent times when I mentioned not really running into resentment. The British folks I meet nowadays are almost all very friendly towards Americans.

Ken

Ken, interestingly I've noticed a couple of posts on the Lounge forum dealing with the Queen's US visit which suggest some Americans have difficulty letting go of old Revolutionary War grudges. Very much minority opinions, though, I'm sure. Actually there was some sympathy and even financial support for the colonists in England at the time. And followed by the French revolution it was probably a good wake-up call for the British ruling classes, accelerating the pace of reform.

When we made our own royal tour of Colonial Wiliamsburg we learnt quite a bit about the divided opinion in the colonies themselves at the time of the war. Very interesting and well-balanced talks and exhibitions.

The same resentment (in some quarters) of US servicemen occurred in Australia in WW2, leading to the Battle of Brisbane in 1942, in which an Australian soldier was killed by an American MP. Naturally wartime censorship ensured that news of the incident was suppressed.

Saltuarus, it is not so much that I don't like change or even don't want change it is more to do with the fact that as an ex-Queenslander who lived through the NO MORE DAMS issue led by Rudd the aspiring (to be) Prime Minister at the next election who was so very vocal about not making any more dams in the S.E Queensland area for the burgeoning polulation and the 3,000 per week entering that corner of the World it has come back to bite the bums of those people in that area who are now restricted to such an extent with their water supplies. In retrospect it was the most stupid decision by Rudd that I can only say that if that situation applied to the rest of Australia we would all be in a terrible state of affairs. It was not just a decision but he actively fought against having any more dams. For those people in other areas who are not sure of what I am talking about - Brisbane the capital of Queensland is on a level 5 water restriction which means that they are not even allowed to wash their car windows, house windows or anything else for that matter even if they have water tanks. The Gold Coast is also on water restrictions although they have had plenty of rain and have water but their water will have to be piped to help out Brisbane. They have had rain yesterday but only a small amount has fallen into the catchment areas and it will still mean a level 6 state by September - from now till then it is very unlikely that there will be any rain.
So for my money the Rudd the Dudd should be lynched. That then would be a change for the better!

Liz, you might like to watch your hero holding forth on a subject he devoutly wishes had never been raised to interrupt his slumber. For American readers who won't have heard our Fearless Leader, this guy is almost pitch-perfect.

www.getup.org.au/campaign.asp?campaign_id=86

Wow - what a conversation.

LordB seems to think that the USA acted perfectly ethically during the early years of WW2. I disagree - all those loans had to be paid back.

Now I ask you to imagine a country that had been bombed to hell. Stood alone for 18mths before the glorious USA pulled its finger out.

Don't tell me about lend lease - like I said - the UK paid for it. Being an honourable country it did pay it back - every f**in last cent.

And was the glorious American Homeland (a new word with terrible connotations) ever bombed? NO OF COURSE NOT.

The first time the USA "Homeland" ever has suffered was on 7/11 - whooopps - that's a 60s perfume - 9/11 or in more sane speak 11 Sept 2001.

And geez - what has that lead to?

Chimani -

Yes, indeed I do. While the US, like very other major power in history, has done it's share of dishonorable things (extremination of the American Indians, last major county to abolish slavery, treatment of Japanese Americans during WW II, etc, etc), like Britain, on the whole it's activities in WW II were probably it's "Finest Hour". So yeah, I believe we did behave honorably in the years leading up to direct US involvement.

Some of the same complaints you have against the US can be lodged against Britain and France as well. Yes, they declared war on Hitler after the invasion of Poland (something that they were LEGALLY bound to do, since they had formal treaties with Poland - something the US did not). However, they had done nothing for Czechslovkia - other than sell it down the river - and really, they did nothing for Poland other than talk a lot. They also did nothing for China in her long prewar struggle with Japan, nor anything for Ethiopia when that country was flattened by Italy.

Like the US later on, they simply did not want to get involved. One could argue that had they stood up to Germany and Italy in those early years, WW II might never have happened. The fact was neither country was prepared economically, military - or more importantly - psychologically, to go to war at that time, just as the same was true of the US later on.

The same is true today. There are troubles going on around the world all the time. The US and Britain, and a handful of other fairly powerful nations pick and choose those which they want to get involved in - and usually only after hundreds of thousands or even millions have already died.

Is it hose countries responsibilities to maintain peace around the world? Technically no. The fact is, no single country (or even groups of countries) can always do that everywhere. It is just not financially or logistically possible - nor in the long run is it even appreciated. Look at all the heat the US takes for trying to be the world's policeman. If we don't get involved then it's our fault that folks are dying. If we do get involved, then we're bullying tinier nations.

Involvement in a war (any war) is not to be taken lightly - even when it's clear who is right and who is wrong. Conventional wisdom in 1939 and even 1940 was that Britain would win a war against Germany even without US aid. At the time, Britain was perhaps the most powerful nation on earth after all - certainly their navy was second to none. France had a large, supposedly powerful army with very strong defenses on the German border and actualy had more tanks than Germany did. In WW I Germany had not been able to conquer France in 4 years - who was to know they would do it in essentially 6 weeks? Total victory took a bit longer, but the issue was decided in the first 6 weeks. The success of the German Blitzkrieg tactics took pretty much everyone by surprise. And so a war which most in the US expected Britain to win, turned instead into a desperate battle. All that took time to happen. All that took time for Americans to digest.


And what's with acting like it was somehow our fault that America was not bombed? In fact, we were shelled(slightly) on each coast (at different times) by surfaced submarines and (on the west coast) by fire ballons. Admittedly, these were minor attacks, but your statement makes it sound like an accusation that we were fortunate to be an ocean away. I might remind you that it was a 20 mile stretch of such ocean that kept German panzers out of London. True, Britain was heavily bombed, but they were never under the NAZI boot - simply because of those 20 miles of open water.

In any event, clearly you have your mind made up that it was somehow the responsibility of the US to come immediately to Britain's aid (for free) - even though we had no treaty or legal obligation to do so. I don't think I can change that opinion so I probably shouldn't even try.

Ken

Neil_Oz -

Yes, though basic American history books make it sound as though the decision to revolt against the Crown was unanimous among the American colonists, the fact is, opinion was very divided - and there were many in the colonies who felt the Revolution was wrong and that Washington and the other Founding Fathers were simply traitors. Some of these folks were booted out of the country either during or after the war - or simply made to feel uncomfortable enough that they chose to leave on their own.

I also agree completely with your statement: "followed by the French revolution it was probably a good wake-up call for the British ruling classes, accelerating the pace of reform." Most definitely, change was on the horizon.

Not been to Williamsburg - though I have always wanted to go.
One day...

Ken

Bit of a rant there, chimani. I certainly can't see why expecting Britain to repay its debts constituted bastardry on the Americans' part.

As someone (I think an Englishman) said, nations have no permanent allies or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

I have no argument with you as to the Iraq folly, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the subject under discussion, except to provide another excuse to beat up on Americans. But none of us has clean hands in that department. It was, after all, the British and the French who screwed the Arabs after WW1 and set the scene for the mess in Iraq. Just read T. E. Lawrence's report from the then Mesopotamia in 1920.

It was also the British and French whose insistence on ruinous war reparations created the conditions for the rise of Hitler. You might even say that WW2 was a case of self-inflicted wounds.

Chimani, the US did not "make" the UK go to war, it did not "make" the UK want the war machines and you can be sure that there are countries around the World, Australia included, that didn't ask the UK to poke their bib into their affairs. Now let me see, how many nations owe the UK money and how many of them are paying right up to this date?