510 Forum Posts by "zzzzd"
At 9/1/07 02:11 PM, zzzzd wrote:
Cheers for listening buddy
sorry peoples, wrong thread, should of been a PM to Southasian
At 8/10/07 04:36 PM, SouthAsian wrote: England should be called New Germany
Germany only formed in 1815. And alot of the germanic peoples who invaded Britain were not from what is now modern day germany.
Also English blood is more Romano-British (Roman-Celtic) rather than Germanic. England has very little in common with Germany. It has more in common with the the rest of the British isles. Infact it probably has more in common with the french as well. Allthough English Culture is very much a culture of it's own. Or was until the creation of the US, Canada, Australia .etc and the influence of the shitty british empire
The English is a mongrel Race, English culture has it's roots in the Romano-British, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans. The English language has its roots in Germanic, French and Latin.
I'm proud of my Celtic heritage, my Roman heritage, my Anglo-Saxon heritage and my Norse (viking) heritage. Not so proud of my Norman heritage but because they were the aristocratic class, It's not very likely I have Norman heritage.
I'm sorry about my rant to you, But BY GOD we are not GERMAN. fuckin beat the shit out of them in two world wars and then in the 1966 world cup. Jammy Bastards
Cheers for listening buddy
At 6/26/07 05:30 PM, Memorize wrote:
So technically, we still won.
But you still consider 1812 either a stalemate or a victory?????
Even if America hasn't technically lost a war, Out of the 10 major wars america has fought. 3 Stalemates is a pretty shit record.
Running away when its looking like you may lose is fairly pathetic.
At 6/26/07 02:45 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Vietnam was a political defeat, the US military succeeded in protecting South Vietnam. Every single engagement between the US and the NVA or Viet Cong ended in a US victory. Every major attack by the Communists was soundly defeated even though, despite what people say, they were very well equipped and well led, they were supplied and funded by the Soviets.
It also goes the other way, pretty much every operation into North Vietnam resulted in failure.
A huge number of wars could be called only political defeats, but only Americas war is called that.
I think your trying to salvage that pathetic pride of yours matey.
At 6/6/07 07:16 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Holy shit, that is the first time you've ever proved something you claimed... ever. I'm proud of you. Too bad you have to fuck it up by the rest of your post.
Mate I prove you wrong all the time. I still love the '70% of the allied effort was from the US'
Has me in stitches all the time.
Actually I'm identifying one of the various things you say that never make sense, or are entirely false. You continually humiliate yourself by making false claims that get disproved by me, so I couldn't help but laugh when you suggested that Normandy and France were separate.
Funny, I don't feel humiliated, because I didn't even say it as if it was another country, I know it's not another country. Unlike you I've been to Normandy several times on day trips an shit. I think i would know if i was going to France or a whole different country all together.
I love it how you try to pretend that since the British and Canadians stayed behind, it was because they stayed to fight the Germans, when really it was that they couldn't move forward at the pace the US did because they weren't given as much responsibility, and weren't as successful.
Erm, actually it was because they were up against the majority of the german armour in the east.
Your a fuckin mug mate, were talking about the Battle of Normandy here, In the Battle of Normandy.Which the US led, and had the most objectives and troops in, as for every other part of the Campaign. And the campaign was commanded by who? That's right, an American General, Allied Supreme Commander Eisenhower.
because the US had a little sissy fit, saying they would only fight as long as they had supreme command.
The British Second army had the most objectives, substained the most casulties, fought the most germans and inflicted the most casulties.HAHAHAHA you're so full of shit. You NEVER, EVER say anything based on facts, you only pull random claims out of your ass and expect me to believe it. Since you love Wikipedia so much, take a look at the casualty rates for the Battle of Normandy.
United States: 29,000 dead, 106,000 wounded and missing
United Kingdom: 11,000 dead, 54,000 wounded and missing
Canada: 5,000 dead; 13,000 wounded and missing
Wait... didn't you say that the British "sustained the most casualties"?? Guess you were full of shit, just like always.
Thats blatently wrong, no one knows the real statistics for the battle of Normandy, different sources claim different things, So i'm hardly going to belive Wikipedia which you could of edited, especially when I had a look at that yesterday and it didn't even have casualty rates on it. The only known statistics of the battle of normandy are the Dead who were buried and that goes as follows...
Allied dead in Battle of Normandy Buried in war cemeteries:
US: 9,386
UK: 17,769
Canadian: 5,002
Poles: 650
[Total: 32,807]
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/battles.htm
In actuality, the US had more dead and wounded than the British and Canadians combined, probably due to the fact that the US had more men, more objectives, and had fought twice as many Germans as the British and Canadians combined. Just like the US had the most landing points on D-day, with the most objectives then. So you're wrong for the 100th time.
lol, your full of shit, the Operations of the battle of Normandy were...
Operation Overlord (The overall invasion plan)
Operation Neptune (The assault plan)
Operation Chicago (US 101st Airborne)
Operation Detroit (US 82nd Airborne)
Operation Tonga (UK 6th Airborne)
Operation Pluto (Pipeline Under The Ocean)
Operation Fortitude (Deception plan)
Battle for Caen (UK,Canada, Poland)
Operation Epsom (UK)
Operation Charnwood (UK)
Operation Atlantic (Canada)
Operation Goodwood (UK)
Operation Spring (Canada)
Operation Cobra (US)
Operation Bluecoat (UK)
Operation Totalize (UK, Canada, Poland)
Operation Tractable (UK, Canada, Poland)
so no America didn't have the most operations, And the British fought far more germans in the battle of Normandy. Not only more Infantry divisions but the large majority of Armourd Divisions. If you actually knew anything about the battle of normandy, you would know that the majority of germans were concentrated to the east with the british while the Americans broke out into france.
Yeah it was, and no they didn't. The ONLY operation that the British led from D-day until the fall of Berlin was Operation Market Garden. The US General Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander and only ONCE allowed British Field Marshal Montgomery to command combined allied forces. What happened when this took place? It was a TOTAL FUCKING FAILURE, it was the first and last time the US allowed the Brits to lead an operation, and it was the first and last time the US forces lost an operation in Europe. The British command was utter trash, they couldn't plan and lead a war worth shit. That is why the US was appointed as the allied command, and that is why every major operation the US planned and commanded was a success.
The US was appointed as supreme command because they refused to fight otherwise.
Operations in the western front, as you can see, market garden was not the only operation...
Therefore the US contributed more than the British and Canadians combined.
I'm fairly sure your source is wrong because it says what I said on the main Normandy article and other sites, but then its also said in other places a whole different amount of divisions.
Um actually US operations appeared to be going up against little resistance only because the resistance was defeated more easily by Americans than by the British and Canadians. The US was the main punch, the British and Canadians swept up afterwards, and even got stuck doing that. They didn't fight more Germans. They only had a bunch of little operations in the wake of the US forces' larger-scale operations.
You don't no what the fuck your on about, the british and US went seperate ways you prick. Britain didn't tag along behind the US. The US went West, British went East. The large majority of german forces were in the east, so as the the british fought heavily to take Caen. America broke threw with relitive ease in Operation Cobra. It was nothing to do with America being superior fighters (they actually werent as highly trained as the British and Canadians) but it was because there was far far more german armour in the east.
Goddamn you never, EVER, EVER know anything about what you claim, zzzzd. All you ever do is make up bullshit as you go along, which always gets disproved.
You havn't proved me wrong at all, you have directed me to various wikipedia articles which are wrong. I mean in the main Wiki article on Normandy, it states there were 47 divisions, 25 in british army and 22 in US army in normandy. But in the Wiki article you used it says there were only 31. Unfortunatly it was the one I quoted which was correct
Hahaha I study Military Science you silly bitch, I actually have seen FACTS about what ACTUALLY happened. All you do is make shit up off the top of your head, later to be proven wrong. I proved that YOU don't know what you're "on about".
I have proved your wrong so far, all you have done is use fake wiki articles which you most probably edited your self. I don't give a shit what you study, you don't know shit about WW2 as i have proved in this post.
At 6/6/07 04:00 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
You want to support that claim? What changed in Canada between WWI and WWII that caused them to all of a sudden have a choice? What happened to Canada between 1918 and 1939 that made Canada a sovereign state where it wasn't before?
I know that sources are like poison to you but... link please?
Statute of Westminster 1931 prick
"Break out into France?"... um... Normandy IS A PART OF FRANCE. Yeah, good job at further proving you don't know what you're talking about. Normandy was just an area of France, not a country.
You fucking dick head, of course I know Normandy is in france. I ment break out into the rest of france if you like, are yous so stupid you can't understand that. Or are you just picking up on little things to make up for being wrong with everything else.
Besides, the US forces were what caused the Germans to retreat, and caused the fast US push South and East. I love it how you try to pretend that since the British and Canadians stayed behind, it was because they stayed to fight the Germans, when really it was that they couldn't move forward at the pace the US did because they weren't given as much responsibility, and weren't as successful.
Your a fuckin mug mate, were talking about the Battle of Normandy here, In the Battle of Normandy, The British Second army had the most objectives, substained the most casulties, fought the most germans and inflicted the most casulties. Because Britain took on the majority of Germans, it allowed the US to Break out into 'the rest' of france. I don't deny the US did more in france after Normandy and once the US 3rd army came into play. But in the Battle of Normandy the Second army did alot more.
Dude, you never know wtf you're talking about. Canada barely took any towns, barely fought the Germans head on in major offensives, and NEVER led a large operation like US forces did for the majority of the compaign (but hey, the British didn't either, the only operation they led was a total failure, Operation Market Garden).
Lol Operation Market Garden wasn't the only operation the British led, they led loads. Anyway, if you even bother to research Market Garden you can see that everything went wrong for the allies, it wasn't anything to do with the british being shit. Personally i think it was to risky a plan, but Eisenhower fully backed it up anyway. Britain led a huge amount of succesfull operations.
And Canada fought alot in a number of campaigns
Money-wise, the US funded basically the entire allied war, so it's a joke you try to pretend that Canada did more in its power than the US did.
The US didn't fund the entier allied war you ignorant fool. Russia contribuated similar amounts of money and still had to scrounge money of America. Also I think the Commonwealth spent a little over half what the US did, although I wouldn't put my money on it.
Lol, Canada and Britain took 3 beaches America took 2.Beaches yes, but not landing points. Once again, there were 3 coastal landing points that the US took (2 beaches, 1 cliff) as well as 3 aerial landing points. The Canadians and British had together 3 coastal landing points, with only 1 aerial landing point, Look.
Anyway, just beaches alone, the US landed more troops than the British and Canadians combined, and had taken the most heavily defended areas as well as fought against the most skilled and heavily entrenched German defenders. The US did much more than the Canadians and British combined.
Not after D-Day, after D-Day the British and Candians did alot more than the US.
47 divisions were commited to the battle of Normandy. 25 in the British Second army (19 British, 5 Canadian and 1 Polish) and 22 in the US first army (21 American, 1 Free French)
The huge majority of the axis forces were concentrated on the British Second army, where as the US after D-Day quite easily broke out into the rest of france with little resistance.
Utah was the easiest only because it was about equal in terms of defense as the rest of the beaches, but Americans did better on Utah than the British did in a similar situation, making it appear to be the easiest. It WAS the easiest TAKEN, but it wasn't the least defended.
it was actually not as well defended as the Commonwealth beaches.
Omaha though, was just a fucking disaster because of faulty intelligence. The US and the Brits were supposed to be divided evenly to take an equal brunt on the beaches, that didn't happen. The US ended up going head to head against the German units that were supposed to be further inland and later be engaged by reinforcements after armor and artillery would be brought inland to support infantry advancements.
That was just luck of the draw though. And the 'Brits' made up for it in the rest of Normandy, were the americans had the easy route. (untill of course after normandy)
As for Inland, Britain and Canada took on the majority of the Germans which allowed the US first army to easily break out. Britian and Canada took the most casulties.Um actually the US took the majority of land, fought the majority of Germans, and took the majority of casualties because of it.
lol, no the Second army took on the far majority of Germans, had more objectives, was up against more armour, took more casulties and inflicted more casulties.
The US marched quite easily in the west with little resistance, were as the British were in the East where most of the germans were.
Goddamn you never, EVER, EVER know anything about what you claim, zzzzd. All you ever do is make up bullshit as you go along, which always gets disproved.
Read up on the Battle of Normandy. Because you blatently don't know what your on about, or your getting confused with the rest of the french campaign.
fucking penis
At 6/5/07 03:11 PM, Madferit wrote:
If you want to see more information about how you guys lost, you can check.
Mate theres no way Canada (british north america, watever) lost. It may be either classed as a stalemate or a british victory. but by no means an american victory.
America invades Canada and fails against Militia. Britain strikes back with a number of raids(never actually to take the US ) The only side which holds a large important part of land for the duration of the war is Britain where it gave it back in the treaty.
Britain stopped harrasing the US because it didn't need to any more, not because of the war of 1812.
Personaly i think it was a stale mate but find it quite amusing how americans think they won.
The last time I looked Canada was free of your 'freedom'
At 6/4/07 11:13 PM, Wardawn wrote:
Of course we're drunks, thats a plus when you have the best beer.
Canada has the best cheap lager, not the best beer.
At 6/4/07 09:17 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 6/4/07 09:08 PM, bifgis wrote:At 5/31/07 10:02 PM, ElementalSoldier wrote:
year and a quarter to join in.
Canada only declared war on Germany because Canada was and still is in the British commonwealth. Canada didn't declare war, the British did, therefore that put Canada at war with Germany.
Canada had it's own choice to join WW2 unlike WW1. Canada was in no real danger but still joined the war.
We were also the only ones to reach our objectives on D-Day thank you very much.First of all, Canada was given the easiest tasks during WWII, Canadians didn't lead any large-scale operations or battles, they were mainly supplemental units for the British. Secondly, the US didn't reach its objectives on D-day, and that was even though the US had taken more land, had more objectives, had attacked the mostly heavily-defended beaches, and had been put up against the most skilled German units.
America took the most heavily defended Beach. but then The Commonwealth (Britain and Canada) took 3 beaches rather than 2. Also after D-Day Britain and Canada faced the large majority of German forces and Armour and generally did alot more in the battle of Normandy allowing America to break out into france.
Canadians in know way were given the easiest tasks. Canada did alot more than the US per Capita, lost more men, gave more money. Canada was a vital part of the allied force.
Canada, Britain, and the Free French had taken the easiest beaches, and had been given less active roles inland than the US. The US was the main combat effort, therefore the US took more casualties.
Lol, Canada and Britain took 3 beaches America took 2. Yes Omaha was the hardest but then Utah was the easiest. As for Inland, Britain and Canada took on the majority of the Germans which allowed the US first army to easily break out. Britian and Canada took the most casulties. Britain and Canada also did the majority on the naval side as well.
So actually Canada did a huge amount (more per capita than the US)
Only one thing i have to say against canada during WW2 is the french Canadians allthough not all of them, alot of them didn't join the war because they saw it as an Anglo-Saxon war. Even so it was 3 Primary Anglo-Saxon countrys liberating france... canada included.
At 6/4/07 03:32 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:At 6/4/07 02:50 PM, zzzzd wrote:Just like it wasn;t the continental army but the militia in the american war of independence who really won the war.Yea, but the french did a lot of it too.
so did the continental army.
I don't see why he wants to point missiles at europe for something Americas doing, regardless of what americans intentions are.
I wonder how many gays actually want to join the military. I thought generally with that type of lifestyle, not many want to join and spend most of their life with strait men. Also theres alot of Bullying in the Armed forces, if i was gay it would be the last place i'd want to go.
But I guess they should be allowed in if they want.
Cellardoor, the white house was burnt by a raiding party. They werent supposed to stay there. And york being totally burnt is laughable, I think the only building they completly burnt was a libary. The only actuall large and important amount of land which was taken and occupied for most of the war till the treaty was taken by the British.
Americans aim was to take canada. Britains aim was never to take the US but to just carry out various raids.
Americans think they won because the british stopped harrasing US ships and stopped the impressment of sailors from America, but in actuall fact, The War of 1812 had no actuall effect on it. It was because Britain was no longer fighting napoleon.
Allthough I personaly see it as a stalemate. Judging by some of your previous posts in other topics you have stated that Korea was a victory because the US stopped the invading force. So you cant say 1812 was a stalemate and Korea wasn't.
Also about Canadians fighting in the war..... The assaults into the US were done by British, but at the beginning of the war, with the american invasions of Canada. It was the Militia who defeated the americans and pushed them out.
Just like it wasn;t the continental army but the militia in the american war of independence who really won the war.
I ..... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
Thats apparently Britains Oath of allegance, it's only used for members of parliment. Normal citizens aren't generally brainwashed as much as US citizens.
At 6/2/07 06:49 PM, gameguy151 wrote: this reminds me of call of duty 3.
"where's our reinforcements"?
"the canadians are just over this ridge"!
"so were on our own huh"?
I've never played that game, but that seems an unfair quote.
Canada was probably the largest contribuater to the allied effort outside, Britain, the soviet union and the US.
They also put alot more into the war and lost alot more men Per Capita than the US, Did huge amounts in the Battle of Atlantic and took the brunt of the German forces along with the British in the Battle of Normandy. As well as stetching there forces across the globe in nearly every theater.
They did all that, when they were much smaller than the 'big three' when they were not obliged to enter the war like they were in WW1, they were an ocean away unlike Britain and they weren't forced into the war unlike America.
Canada has a very succesfull and Grand Military history.
At 5/31/07 10:03 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
B) The war was pretty even, the US burned the colonial capital of present-day Canada to the ground. British-born, British soldiers, under the British Army then razed the White House, but were then pushed back out of the capital before they could do anymore.
The razing of the white house was done in numerous raids by the British forces, they were hardly pushed out, they never ment to stay. It was really a stalemate in the end, but the only large amount of land held for a large period of the war to the treaty was by the British.
Also the first years of the war The British didn't do much because they were fighting in europe, and the American army, who by which time were fighting conventional tactics were fighting militia and lost to unconventional gurrelia tactics. Similar to how the british lost in the American war of independence. So Canadians did do alot of the fighting.
I also don't see how you can call the Korean war a victory and 1812 a stalemate like you have done so many times in the past. It's just you distorting history I guess.
At 5/26/07 02:59 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
I actually think theres somthing seriosoly wrong with you. You need to calm down a bit and stop thinking everyone should respect you for being american, because your the sort of wanker who gives america a bad name.
At 5/26/07 03:32 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 5/25/07 09:42 PM, zzzzd wrote:Using almost entirely American supplies, aircraft etc... And no matter how you delusional Brits interpret it. The Battle of Britain wasn't even a full attack, it was a small scale air war. Not an invasion attempt or a naval attack as big as Germany could have mustered. Germany was probing Britain's defenses, that's all.At 5/25/07 09:13 PM, Tancrisism wrote:Britain won the battle of Britain before America entered the war and the axis would never of been able to get passed the Royal Navy.At 5/25/07 09:10 PM, zzzzd wrote: Unfortunatly some peoples experiences with Americans is with people like cellardoor who only know how to make completly false claims like the old 'We saved your asses in WW1 and WW2' Which is bollocks.I'm not saying that the USA is solely responsible, but how do you figure? The USA did a lot in WW2, although not so much in WW1 except a tad of a morale boost.
It's cute how you British think that fending it off was some huge feat hahaha.
We don't paticually. and your right It was a small scale air war, and if they had won Hitler still wouldn't of got passed the Royal Navy But the battle of britain was fought with nearly no help from the americans, most certainly not aircaft. The only contibuating factor the US played in the batlle of britain was the good quality fuel the US sold to the brtish.
Britain was well capable of defending itself.Yeah that must be why Churchill BEGGED the US to join the war with troops you silly fool. That must be way British troops were getting raped on every single front right? That must by why the initial British attempt of invading mainland Europe after Holland, France, and Belgium were lost was entirely defeated easily by the Germans. That must be why the British were LOSING ON EVERY FRONT against the Germans. That must be why all the allies were losing until the US joined with forces.
Churhill begged Ireland to join the war, Stalin begged any country to join the war. Of course they fuckin begged you complete prick. It was a world war, they did everything in there power to find allied, but even then America didn;t join the war until pearl harbour.
Britain was loosing but if america joined the war at the same time as Britain, and Britain didn't. America would almost cetainly lost its first campaigns (it did loose its first campaigns in the PAcific and Africa) America sat on the side lines for 3 years watching and learning from britain and allies mistakes so when America joined the war they were at the same stage as Britain without the 3years of war. In WW1 America joined and were hopeless, making the same mistakes as the British an fench did at the start of the war.
Hitlers plans of invading Britain were cancelled before america entered the war. And if Britain couldn't defend itself then how on fuck did it manage to be the primary force in the Atlantic, the Med, Africa, South East Asia and the Middle East as well as doing about half as much as America in Western Europe.You always make up nonsense every single time you ever talk about WWII. You're absolutely delusional.
Hitlers plans were cancelled, you ignorant prick, and look in a fuckin history book on the Atlantic, med, African, south east asian campaigns as well as italian and western europe campaigns. you fuckin dick
The US fought equally with the British in Africa, did more in the Med, more in Italy. More in Western Europe, and did virtually ALL of the fighting against the Japanese land air and sea. This is all while the US provided the vast majority of war material to ALL OF THE ALLIES, including the Soviets.
LOL, you make me fucking laugh. the US was no were near Equal to the Commonwealth in Africa or the MED. Italy was pratically equal Anglo-American. as was the rest of western europe. The only Theater America did more is in the Pacific, allthough even there the Commonwealth were fairlu heavily involved in certain campagins most notably Australia.
I also Find it funny how you never talk about the Naval campaign of the Atlantic and the MED which was dominated by the Commonwealth and were the majority of AXIS ships were sunk.
The US fought simultaneously against the Japanese and the Germans. This is while British troops were fighting to about 1/3rd the degree in Western Europe as the US was. Do the fucking math, the US did far more than Britain, and far more than the Soviets who only fought the Germans to any significant degree.
The British Commonwealth did the far majority against the German and Italian NAvys just as America did the majority against the Jap navy. Britain also did a considrable amopunt to the japanese army in SE asia.
America did about equal to the British in terms of Land gained, enemys killed. America did more in terms of supplying. Britain did more in terms of strategic postioning and russia did much much more in terms of enemys killed. as well as about the same as the US in supplys and equipment.
zzzd, We've been through this probably 10 times. EVERY SINGLE TIME you run away once sources get thrown around. You are wrong every time, and you know it. But you keep perpetuating your myths in order to salvage your pride. So please, keep talking because I have a link to another thread in which you got meticulously proven wrong and humiliated with a host of facts about WWII.
Fuk up mate, every time we have this 'debate' you don't post back except last time when it got locked.
The fact is that Britain and Commonwealth did the most in the Atlantic, the Med, Africa, the Middle East, SE asia as well as equal to the US in western europe and the Italian campagn.
It's just funny that you keep lying about WWII over, and over, and over again, even though you get proven wrong over, and over again.
Shall i Link to the thread that you continusly stated that the US contibuated 70% to the allied victory.lol
The Allied effort was equal between the US, Russia and the British commonwealth all in different ways. Hardly any historians would say the US was the largest contribuating factor.
Because they werent. In anyway.
At 5/25/07 09:13 PM, Tancrisism wrote:At 5/25/07 09:10 PM, zzzzd wrote: Unfortunatly some peoples experiences with Americans is with people like cellardoor who only know how to make completly false claims like the old 'We saved your asses in WW1 and WW2' Which is bollocks.I'm not saying that the USA is solely responsible, but how do you figure? The USA did a lot in WW2, although not so much in WW1 except a tad of a morale boost.
Britain won the battle of Britain before America entered the war and the axis would never of been able to get passed the Royal Navy.
Lend-Lease started right at the end of the battle of britain and even then Lend-Lease HELPED Britain fight overseas. Britain was well capable of defending itself. Hitlers plans of invading Britain were cancelled before america entered the war. And if Britain couldn't defend itself then how on fuck did it manage to be the primary force in the Atlantic, the Med, Africa, South East Asia and the Middle East as well as doing about half as much as America in Western Europe.
By all means say America saved the frenchies asses but remember so did the British Commonwealth.
I've hered of people pretending to be Canadian, and i think thats quite sad really,
I know that Were I'm from, all though there is some Anti-Americanism we still like americans. A couple of weeks ago there was a thing near me commemerating the 400th aniversary of the first settlers in jamestown, The American flag was flown alongside St
georges cross an the Union jack an the American an british soldiers put on a parade.
I live near the two American bases so I know plently of yankie squaddies an I get along with them fine, good ol boys. So I try an judge America on americans like that rather than arrogant wankers like Cellardoor.
Unfortunatly some peoples experiences with Americans is with people like cellardoor who only know how to make completly false claims like the old 'We saved your asses in WW1 and WW2' Which is bollocks.
At 5/25/07 08:30 PM, Tancrisism wrote:
British slang technically isn't good ol' fashioned English. But I'll give it a go.
none of them are slang terms, there all the correct english words for them.
At 5/25/07 08:17 PM, psycho-squirrel wrote: well there is new england american english, brooklyn american english, sothern american english, cajin (in south Louisiana), texan, west coast with south west.
we have many different dialects.
Written English English to written American English.
Asking you to translate various Cockney or Geordie words to there Texan or brooklyn counterparts would be a bit tricky. There dialects, there words don't appear in the dictionary.
At 5/24/07 09:58 PM, strumpy wrote: LOL he's probably happy he's not with you anymore
that was pretty mean..
lol that was pretty mean. Made me laugh though. you harsh cunt
At 5/24/07 09:14 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
And Canadian media outlets are forced to keep things that could damage national pride out of their broadcasts, publications etc...
Why do you always have to bring up some shit about another country in every fuckin thread, your such fuckin prick.
Anyways That Iranian police officer in the pic looks very american and western with the baseball hat and the blue uniform.
Funnily enough American English is more old fashioned than English English in most cases.
After the war of independence American English stopped copying whatever route British english went down and went down another route. So many words that Americans use are words British used to use.
Even Americas Measuring system is the old english measuring system. Britains Changed it's Measuring system from the old one which america uses to Imperial and now to metric.
At 5/22/07 10:51 AM, Frank-The-Hedgehog wrote: Emos! Chavs is like the new age wigger.
Chavs are completly different than wiggers.
Wiggers are white Americans who imitate Black Culture.
Chavs originated from the Casuals and the Football hooligans back in the 80's
They are by no means the British version of 'Wiggers'
At 5/22/07 01:06 PM, SirXVII wrote: American English is hard for people to learn because we have different slang and many different meanings for words that we use.
I think you'll find English english has alot more regional variations and slang terms than American English.
Football Is the greatest of all
Followed by rugby league and Aussie rules
At 5/15/07 08:32 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Yeah... that must be why your country got raped by non-military American colonists armed with rifles and pitchforks. Because your tactics were so much better... in that you lost a war to your former colony that had no standing Army when the war began.
Your talking bollocks. The standing inline tactic was the best tactic there was.
OMG you don't understand do you. ONLY THE PATRIOTS could use the tactics they do just like only the taliban, Viet Cong, IRA could use the tactics they did. Only the Colonists knew the land like they did. It would of been impossible for the British To deploy tactics like that.
You don't understand that the best style of warfare at the time was that of Large block formations, only they could hold as much firepower as well as keeping discipline over the troops. Sniping and ambusing was only succesfull if you knew the land and were up against large armys.
Could you tell me why in the VIetnam war how nearly every US assault into North Vietnam failed. Was it because the North Vietnamese and viet cong Were so tactically advanced compared to the Largest most powerfull nation in history?? NO it wasn't
I hate to keep bringing in Vietnam but You have to think, you don't understand the warfare of the time if you think the British and every other nation including the US Continental army was way behind the times in warfare compared to the Patriots.
Just to give you another example, In the Napoleonic wars... In the Spanish Campaign which was mostly the French and the British fighting. In terms of Casulties the Spanish Gurrelias inflicted many more deaths on the french than the British did. Did they have much better tactics than the french or the British?? In the area they fought in yes, But if they fought in france they would of been destroyed.
You have no idea of warfare at that time.Yeah because 2 years in Military Science as a major is totally useless against your knowledge, even though you get proven wrong in everything you ever say.
I honestly dont give a shite what you have learnt in university, You are talking out of your arse, You have no idea of that era of warfare, Except 'The British empire was defeated by farmers with pitchforks'
In the war of 1812 America couldn't use the tactics they did in the war of independence and that is why they did shit. They fought the conventional warfare of the time which was 'standing in line' If you knew anything about the warfare of that era you would know that it was the best type of warfare.You NEVER... EVER, ever,ever ever know anything about what you're talking about. Once again, in the war of 1812, the US fought with mainly militia, but this time they were under the command of the US Army at the time. And even then, the US still managed to burn the entire capital of Canada (then a British colony) to the ground with MILITIA, then later on... the British Army only managed to slightly burn the White House before they were kicked out of the capital... by militia.
I always go into a debate if I know what i'm talking about. In the war of 1812 Nearly all of the offensive by the US was done by the US army, you don't even seem to understand the concept of Militia you tit.
I'm not going into who won the war of 1812, I'm just using it as an example as how the US used conventional tactics and failed to fight succesfully on foreign lands.
Gurrelia warfare has been used since the dawn of time mate.Um... yeah. However, it wasn't used in the way it was by the American colonists before then. Just like how now in the 21st century gorilla war isn't going to be much like it was in 1780 because there are still new technology that is used to facilitate it. Tactics evolve... the tactics used in the Revolutionary war were just that... revolutionary. And that is why Americans won, not because we had a infinitesimally small standing conventional army.
Gurrelia warfare of course as with all types of warfare has evolved over time, but the basics have always been the same, Ambushes, Attacking supply lines, Taking out officers, causing panic and confusion.
As for the french, they destroyed the British Navy in the American war of independence.Making it incedibly hard for the British war effort.Actually they destroyed the British Navy that was in EUROPE at the time because there was a simultaneous war going on. The British navy had little affect on the Revolutionary War anyway, because there were little to no naval battles. Americans made the use of attacking them when they were at port, or attacking supply lines once they made their way inland.
Your right the British Navy had little affect on the Revolutionary war, and that is one of the reasons the US won its independence. Once again you fail to understand the tactics of the time.
The British used a huge navy and a very small standing army, And Britain relied mostly on Militias in its colonies, Take away the Navy and have the militias rebel causes trouble.
The French destroyed the British Navy making Britains war effort incredibly hard.
Also because your american and you distort historyActually you distort history. Every single time you ever try to debate me you just lie and make up nonsense as you go along.
I don't distort history, I don't lie, And nonsense??? wait a minute what do i remember you saying once..... America contribuated 70% to the Allied effort in WW2 lol I still can't get that one out of my head. I know this has nothing to do with this thread but, I talk nonsense?????
Nearly every 'debate' i have with you ends with me telling you how it actually is, and you conveniantly not posting anymore.
The Continental Army actually got raped for the majority of the war up until the end. And once again, the battles towards the end of the war were insignificant in scope compared to how bludgeoned the British army became by American militia.
The Continental Army had some impressive victories throughout, and anyway even when it lost it made it possible for the Militia to carry out the tactics they did.
At 5/16/07 09:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
But this is just like "America" in reference to the US.
We are only one of dozens of nations in America, but we are more important, more powerful, and the most visible so people tend to have little inclination to make the distinction.
Allthough being the most powerfull and 'important' may be a small reason why people call the US America, I think you will find the main reason is that the USA has America in its name, other countries in the americas have real country names like Canada, Mexico, Brazil... Technically mexico is also a United states of America as it is really the United states of Mexico.
Also the Ancient Britons were the tribes who inhabited modern day Wales and England. Northern England and Scotland were not part of the province that Romans called Britannia.
Great Britain the correct name for the whole island. Except geographically, then its just Britain.
