Iran overflights

Post by **spot** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:57 am

Does anyone think overflying Iran with spotter drones is an aggressive act?

If Iran flew spotter drones over the USA, would that be acceptable?

If the US brought down foreign spotter drones over US soil, would that be laudable?

If Iran gives full analytical access to the Chinese, will anyone cry foul play?

Or are we looking at another instance of American Exceptionalism here.

BBC News - Iran shows film of captured US drone

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:01 pm

I'm more concerned with the assassination of Iranian scientists with no evidence of their complicity in anything. Completely innocent men with families. And the explosion of a missile site, not considered to be connected to nuclear science at all.

As for drones, I think it's Orwellian and disgusting. We should all fear drones regardless of which country they are flying over.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:48 am

Nobody has yet proven who was responsible for the assassination of Iranian scientists this year, though it undoubtedly happened. On the other hand, nobody can deny whose spotter drone is currently being flaunted before the cameras in Iran this week. They're not Russian, for example.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:57 am

We're allowed to take your lunch money too.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:19 am

SnoozeAgain;1378220 wrote: We're allowed to take your lunch money too.

I think you'll find more and more people and countries around the world are regarding the US as an impotent collapsing irrelevance. Not before time either.

I don't suppose you'd like to focus on the questions in the OP?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:56 am

spot;1378222 wrote: I think you'll find more and more people and countries around the world are regarding the US as an impotent collapsing irrelevance. Not before time either.

Sigh

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:45 am

spot;1378222 wrote: I think you'll find more and more people and countries around the world are regarding the US as an impotent collapsing irrelevance. Not before time either.

I don't suppose you'd like to focus on the questions in the OP?

Apparently my comment was too subtle. Who takes lunch money? Bullies. Do I need to continue or do you get the gist now?

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:55 pm

I put the thread up with serious intent. You're allowed, you say. By whom would be a fair question.

Instead of having to beg the return of Gary Powers, this time it seems you have to beg the unexamined return of all your shiny tech. I doubt you'll get your way.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:44 pm

spot;1378222 wrote: I think you'll find more and more people and countries around the world are regarding the US as an impotent collapsing irrelevance. Not before time either.

I don't suppose you'd like to focus on the questions in the OP?

I'll respond------------My country (USA) has no right to fly drones or anything else for that matter over another countries air space. We certainly would not tolerate it over our air space. I wish the US would take a totally defensive position and if attacked then totally demolish the attacker. This presumption that another country is building WMD and that we must prevent that from happening is insanity. We do this in my opinion to protect Israeli interests. Our so called friendship with Israel is costing us big time. Unfortunately this is not likely to change.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:17 pm

This was a rather interesting protest held in the US

"Hancock 38" Defendants Found Guilty for Bold Army Base Protest Against U.S. Drone Attacks Abroad

One of the Hancock 38 was not charged as he was 91 and the court found him not strong enough to stand trial.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:55 am

Are these drones aggressive weapons or merely spy planes ?

Not that it matters much either way.

Post by **spot** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:57 am

Bruv;1378336 wrote: Are these drones aggressive weapons or merely spy planes ?

Not that it matters much either way.

They're spy planes. Nobody mentioned aggressive weapons. I called the overflight an aggressive action.

If Iran flew spotter drones over the USA, would that be acceptable?

If the US brought down foreign spotter drones over US soil, would that be laudable?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:07 am

spot;1378337 wrote: Nobody mentioned aggressive weapons. I called the overflight an aggressive action.

It's not all about you.........Koans post says.....

"Having people who are actually killing human beings in Afghanistan working right in Syracuse really makes Syracuse and upstate New York a war zone." Clark says drones are "a weapon of extreme provocation and extreme danger, extreme inaccuracy... International law, I believe, does prohibit the use of drones."

Which.......to me.......says they are being used aggressively, rather than the spy planes I had previously thought they were.

Post by **spot** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:10 am

I apologize, I was editing my post while you were replying to to it. I should stop doing that. L'espirit d'escalier is a distressing affliction.

The drones referred to in koan's post are aggressive weapons, they deliver missiles which explode and kill people. Mostly non-combatants, far too many of whom are women and children. The drones overflying Iran are, so far, spy planes. Both sorts are called drones because their squalid gameboy-trained pilots are safely tucked out of harm's way in a military compound in another country where they can't be shot at, surrounded by armed guards. I wonder whether they'll get theater medals? I wonder what will happen to the concept of awards for bravery?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:24 am

Oh you are an education.......L'espirit d'escalier......indeed.

War is a dirty thing, it could be judged that somebody in a sniper role firing from a hidden position is an evil cowardly act.

I would agree though, spying or using remotely controlled 'flying bombs' especially from another continent is beyond the pale.

Post by **spot** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:48 am

Bruv;1378340 wrote: I would agree though, spying or using remotely controlled 'flying bombs' especially from another continent is beyond the pale.
I don't personally recall the V1 attacks on London's East End but I imagine there's a similarity.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:58 am

spot;1378341 wrote: I don't personally recall the V1 attacks on London's East End but I imagine there's a similarity.
Any air bombardment could be said to be the same, I believe we razed several German cities indiscriminately .

Post by **spot** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:19 am

Bruv;1378342 wrote: Any air bombardment could be said to be the same, I believe we razed several German cities indiscriminately .

At least those Allied pilots risked their own lives in the process. The pissant war criminals steering the drones can offer no such counterweight to their killing sprees.

Post by **spot** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:40 pm

I don't see anywhere in this article which describes an incentive for the Iranian government to do as they're asked. On the other hand I can think of a lot of reasons for them not to.

BBC News - US asks Iran to return captured drone

Would anyone like to post a good reason to comply?

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:34 pm

Drones are being used inside the US now too. I hope the Iranians are able to decipher the extent of info that was being mined.

Post by **jones jones** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:08 am

Does anyone think overflying Iran with spotter drones is an aggressive act? Nope … not me.

If Iran flew spotter drones over the USA, would that be acceptable? Certainly not.

If the US brought down foreign spotter drones over US soil, would that be laudable? Sure would.

If Iran gives full analytical access to the Chinese, will anyone cry foul play? The Chinese and Russians are already negotiating this and Iran sure as hell won’t give it to them for free. A quid pro quo agreement has no doubt already been signed with one or both of them.

Or are we looking at another instance of American Exceptionalism here. Of course we are and why not? America is qualitatively different from other countries and any person who doesn’t know why this is so, has probably been living in another galaxy and only just arrived on earth today.

Now to this typical piece of Spotspeak aka wishful thinking.

“I think you'll find more and more people and countries around the world are regarding the US as an impotent collapsing irrelevance. Not before time either.”

It’s a great pity that there are not more American members on Forum Garden to express their disgust and indignation at the way in which this member constantly attacks and tries to belittle the United States. However he has managed to drive most of them away by making just such remarks as the one I have quoted above. However, there are one or two who are still here and I for one will remain and make my opinion known.

First of all Spot, who gives a toss what Iran says, does or wants? They are an aggressive nation who constantly sponsor Islamic terrorism; they are a rogue nuclear state and a threat to world peace. America is the only western country with the guts to inhibit their aggression and to cut off the head of this viper.

So the Iranians have got their bloodstained hands on a RQ-170 Drone, highly classified and only six years old – allowing it to be taken by Iran really compromises the United States technologically ... or does it?

For instance, why would the United States use a slow drone to overfly a country like Iran which has a high tech air defense? Their Kennan "Keyhole-class" (KH) spy satellites provide them with a gazillion times more information than any drone could.

Perhaps the Chinese/Russians might wanna take a good look at that drone before coughing up a lot of money for it.

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:15 am

The thing is, "more and more people and countries around the world are regarding..." is quite true. Twenty years ago it was a very small proportion, these days it's far more widespread an idea and it's getting bigger all the while. You can call it wishful thinking all you like but you can't refute its accuracy as a statement.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:22 am

I thought you were South African (or whatever you all call yourselves over there), JJ.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:23 am

Not all Americans are crybabies.

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:50 am

jones jones;1378531 wrote: Now to this typical piece of Spotspeak aka wishful thinking.

“I think you'll find more and more people and countries around the world are regarding the US as an impotent collapsing irrelevance. Not before time either.”

Coincidentally I just found this by John Simpson, written today.America seems to have shrunk as a direct result of its imperial adventure in Iraq. It will have to work very hard to persuade the rest of the world that it is strong again.

BBC News - Assessing America's 'imperial adventure' in Iraq

As for "who gives a toss what Iran says, does or wants", BBC News - Iran 'influenced' Iraq over US troops' exit is on today's BBC news site too:Iran influenced Baghdad's decision to refuse to allow the US to keep troops in Iraq beyond the end of this year, a senior adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has told the BBC. Under the current agreement, the US must withdraw all its remaining forces from Iraq by 31 December. The admission will fuel speculation about Iran's growing influence in Iraq, as US forces leave.

Iraq's decision was a humiliating moment for the United States. Washington had lobbied hard, and publicly, for a new agreement that would allow the US to keep a contingent of several thousand soldiers in Iraq.

"They are an aggressive nation", applied to Iran and in contrast to the USA, is plain laughable. The US has defined international aggression for the 21st century, it's established the sort of behaviour which from any other country would have US spokesmen and commentators foaming at the mouth. A threat to world peace? Iran? On the contrary, Iran's a regional power. The threat to world peace is what you get when a country sends its armed forces outside its Homeland. Iran's a haven of culture by comparison.

Post by **jones jones** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:56 am

Ahso!;1378535 wrote: I thought you were South African (or whatever you all call yourselves over there), JJ.

Ah Professor Ahso, or may I call you Salacious B. Crumb to Spot's Jabba the Hutt?

No I better not or I might get a contraction ... I mean an infraction or worse cos I have been warned by the gaffer about name calling. So I herewith withdraw the above remark about both Salacious B. Crumb and Jabba the Hutt.

In any event Ahso, may I call you Ahso? I have said on several threads/posts that nothing is ever what it seems, especially in "cyberworld."

My father (MHDSRIP) was of English orgin in that his father, ergo my dear old departed grandfather, came originally from York. My mother (MHDSRIP2) on the other hand was of American origin in that her parents, ergo my dear old departed grandmama and grandpappy, both came from the state of New York. So as you can see sir, I sort of fall between two stools.

But yes, I do live and work in South Africa and yes, over here in South Africa the people call themselves South Africans (as if you didn't know.) ... however, just as an American President once said, "Ich bin ein Berliner!" ... I say: "I am an American" and I will defend the USA as long as I have a breath left in my body.

Hope that answers your question.

Post by **jones jones** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:13 am

spot;1378546 wrote: Coincidentally I just found this by John Simpson, written today.America seems to have shrunk as a direct result of its imperial adventure in Iraq. It will have to work very hard to persuade the rest of the world that it is strong again.

BBC News - Assessing America's 'imperial adventure' in Iraq

As for "who gives a toss what Iran says, does or wants", BBC News - Iran 'influenced' Iraq over US troops' exit is on today's BBC news site too:Iran influenced Baghdad's decision to refuse to allow the US to keep troops in Iraq beyond the end of this year, a senior adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has told the BBC. Under the current agreement, the US must withdraw all its remaining forces from Iraq by 31 December. The admission will fuel speculation about Iran's growing influence in Iraq, as US forces leave.

Iraq's decision was a humiliating moment for the United States. Washington had lobbied hard, and publicly, for a new agreement that would allow the US to keep a contingent of several thousand soldiers in Iraq.

"They are an aggressive nation", applied to Iran and in contrast to the USA, is plain laughable. The US has defined international aggression for the 21st century, it's established the sort of behaviour which from any other country would have US spokesmen and commentators foaming at the mouth. A threat to world peace? Iran? On the contrary, Iran's a regional power. The threat to world peace is what you get when a country sends its armed forces outside its Homeland. Iran's a haven of culture by comparison.

In the early hours of last Sunday we were hit with a massive lightning strike which knocked out all our telephones. As a result I only managed to enter cyberworld again at lunchtime today. I swear I musta almost wore out my Microsoft Office Word from typing. I did so much work on my latest novel its almost ready to go out in search of a publisher.

I only mention this because I am so pleased to have internet access again that I don't wanna spoil things by being nasty to anyone.

So I will only make the following statement:

"Spot dear chap, were it not for the good ol' You Ess Of Ay, you and every other citizen of your island paradise would be posting in German now."

I rest my case.

Post by **jones jones** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:15 am

Ahso!;1378536 wrote: Not all Americans are crybabies.

Oops! I almost missed this. I can see why.

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:15 am

The traditional inaccurate fallback to the Third Reich when all other ideas fail? How sad.

Post by **jones jones** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:05 am

spot;1378551 wrote: The traditional inaccurate fallback to the Third Reich when all other ideas fail? How sad.

No ... not sad at all.

I guess it just depends on how and what you read on the subject. I like to use

Blood, Tears, and Folly An Objective Look at World War ll By Len Deighton as my reference and not the tomes written by Winston S. Churchill.

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:11 am

The Soviet Union had full control of many of the Iron Curtain countries for over forty years, I don't recall their citizens speaking Russian by the end of it. Hence the "inaccurate" bit about your "posting in German now" twaddle.

theia · Post by **theia** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:29 am

spot;1378554 wrote: The Soviet Union had full control of many of the Iron Curtain countries for over forty years, I don't recall their citizens speaking Russian by the end of it. Hence the "inaccurate" bit about your "posting in German now" twaddle.

Good post, spot.

Post by **jones jones** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:31 am

spot;1378554 wrote: The Soviet Union had full control of many of the Iron Curtain countries for over forty years, I don't recall their citizens speaking Russian by the end of it. Hence the "inaccurate" bit about your "posting in German now" twaddle.

Twaddle? Twaddle? Twaddle is as twaddle does ... Vielleicht haben sie den punkt verpasst mein herr.

Would you accept English with a Deutsche accent uber alles then?

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:36 am

I suggest you ask a few Poles whether they've acquired Russian accents. You'll give offence but you're used to that.

Post by **jones jones** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:42 am

spot;1378558 wrote: I suggest you ask a few Poles whether they've acquired Russian accents. You'll give offence but you're used to that.

I can see I'm starting to annoy you cos you're getting personal. As I am not allowed to do that I shall have to unfortunately remain silent.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:00 am

Actually the one nation you could say is behind all the radical islamic fundamentalism is Saudi arabia. It wasn't Iraqi terrorists that attacked on 911 they were saudi arabian. Osama Bin laden was a Saudi, Al-Qaeda i funded by Saudis, Iran is the only power in the middle east that has any kind of moral claim to lead the muslim world iran and saudi arabia are involved in a religious sectarian conflict and the saudis have managed to get the americans to fight their wars for them. Iraq will be battleground between sufi and shia Muslims and will probably be partitioned in the course of the next decade will possibly the kurds going for independence except then turkey will step in which will be fun since as a nato ally the US is committed to defending it if attacked. The Iranians aren't stupid they just want to be left alone and all American policy is doing is keeping the fundamentalists in power longer than they would otherwise be.

The drone flights are an act of aggression that the US would not dare use with china or russia but do with Iran because they know essentially there is not much iran can do to stop them. The question should really be why would the US allow itself to be conned in to fighting a proxy war for the Saudis yet again? Saudi arabia is developing it's own nuclear programme, now that is worrying. Why do they want nuclear weapons?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:13 pm

spot;1378137 wrote: Does anyone think overflying Iran with spotter drones is an aggressive act?

More aggressive say than deliberately supplying weapons to enemy Afghanistani terrorists or trying to build a nuclear weapon with the intention of "wiping Israel off the face of the map?"

no.

If Iran flew spotter drones over the USA, would that be acceptable?

That's not possible for them, they don't have that ability. Let's stay real, shall we?

If the US brought down foreign spotter drones over US soil, would that be laudable?

Of course. We are the good guys. Remember?

If Iran gives full analytical access to the Chinese, will anyone cry foul play?

I sure hope so. Any country that has ruthlessly suppressed, repressed, tortured, and killed it's own people doesn't need more technology.

Or are we looking at another instance of American Exceptionalism here.

America is Exceptional...in lots of ways. Thank you for pointing that out.

You know, Spot, sometimes I get the idea that you don't like America.

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:35 pm

Saint_;1378573 wrote: We are the good guys. Remember?I'm coming more to the opinion that that was never the case. It certainly isn't these days.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:06 pm

Saint_;1378573 wrote: More aggressive say than deliberately supplying weapons to enemy Afghanistani terrorists or trying to build a nuclear weapon with the intention of "wiping Israel off the face of the map?"That's between Israel and the rest of that region and is none of our business.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:57 pm

I don't want to get into American bashing, and to be honest I don't think Spot is actually bashing Americans as such, just some of America's policies regarding their position in the world. But Spot doesn't need me to defend him or his opinion strident as they may be.

I have only popped into this thread to make an observation about attitudes, namely the quote that follows and it's apparent blind adherence to Nationality

I say: "I am an American" and I will defend the USA as long as I have a breath left in my body.
No doubt JJ is verbally more adept than me and more widely read and better educated, but the idea that the world was freed from Germany's tyranny mainly because of America's efforts , followed by that statement that she will defend the USA as long as there is breath in her body.........................seems to echo the same German nationalistic attitude that made America step up to end Germany's advance across the world.

I think that's what they call irony ?

Funny old world ennit ?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:02 am

posted by jones jones

But yes, I do live and work in South Africa and yes, over here in South Africa the people call themselves South Africans (as if you didn't know.) ... however, just as an American President once said, "Ich bin ein Berliner!" ... I say: "I am an American" and I will defend the USA as long as I have a breath left in my body.

My country right or wrong hitler would have loved you he expected his people to defend him to the last breath of his body giving their lives and those of their families over to the state. Tell me though which bit of your country do you call your own? What you are told it is by your leaders or is it the homeless family whose parents used to have a job and a mortgage and expectations that their children would have a good life or do you feel they are life's failures beneath your contempt as so many of your politicians seem to believe. You have to choose a side when there is no middle ground so where do you stand

Which south africa do your co workers favour, the one under the jackbooted national party so beloved of the reagan administration as a bulwark of freedom standing against the threat of communism or the state created after the release of nelson mandela?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:53 am

spot;1378551 wrote: The traditional inaccurate fallback to the Third Reich when all other ideas fail? How sad.Godwin's Law.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:10 am

"Spot dear chap, were it not for the good ol' You Ess Of Ay, you and every other citizen of your island paradise would be posting in German now."

I rest my case.

No, we'd be talking Russian. Most of the killing and most of the dying happened on the Eastern Front. 95% of German casualties happened there and 65% of Allied ones. They fought more or less alone from 1941 to 1944 before we got ashore in Normandy and it was them, not us, who got to Berlin. We've found out a lot more about the war there since the Sov Union collapsed

It is certainly arguable that without the USA we'd have lost the war. Without the Soviet Union taking the incredible strain it did it's almost certain the Allies would have lost. Or at least not have won. Britain's contribution was survival and just enough distraction of German forces that Moscow was not taken. Thanks to US help we were able to provide 50% of the manpower for D-Day (more if you include the Canadians), something like 80% of the naval forces and at least 50% of the air power. It was a damn close thing as it was...

It took a huge effort from each of the three major Allied powers to win the war. But the Soviet Union did by far the most.

Post by **jones jones** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:46 am

Bruv;1378619 wrote: I don't want to get into American bashing, and to be honest I don't think Spot is actually bashing Americans as such, just some of America's policies regarding their position in the world. But Spot doesn't need me to defend him or his opinion strident as they may be.

I have only popped into this thread to make an observation about attitudes, namely the quote that follows and it's apparent blind adherence to Nationality

No doubt JJ is verbally more adept than me and more widely read and better educated, but the idea that the world was freed from Germany's tyranny mainly because of America's efforts , followed by that statement that she will defend the USA as long as there is breath in her body.........................seems to echo the same German nationalistic attitude that made America step up to end Germany's advance across the world.

I think that's what they call irony ?

Funny old world ennit ?

Funny old world indeed ...

A VERY VERY SHORT STORY ABOUT Jj, BRUV AND THE NEW GIRL.

BY JONES JONES.

"Gasp!" Jj's baby blue eyes widened in horror and a tiny teardrop glistened on each of his long lashes. He raises his hand on high and clicks his finger repeatedly.

"Jj," teacher says sternly, "if I've told you once I've told you a gazillion times, we do NOT click our fingers when we raise out hands." Seeing the hurt look in in his eyes her heart melts. "Now what's wrong dear?"

"He's crying." the new girl observes, concern in her eyes.

"Oh he always does it so he can get his own way." the boy in front of her says.

"Its ... its Bruv," Jj says softly, his full lower lip quivering, " Bruv just called me a ... a ... SHE!!!"

"He did?" teacher asks. "How odd. Why we all know that Jj is a HE ... don't we class?"

"Well not all of us." the new girl says pouting cutely.

Later when the class had settled down and Jj had blown his upturned nose, he passed a note to the new girl who read it, nodded and smiled seductively at him.

"MEET ME BEHIND THE TOOLSHED AT RECESS. I PROMISE NOT TO CRY UNLESS YOU BITE ME."

THE END.

(And Not To Be Continued.)

Post by **jones jones** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:54 am

gmc;1378658 wrote: posted by jones jones

My country right or wrong hitler would have loved you he expected his people to defend him to the last breath of his body giving their lives and those of their families over to the state. Tell me though which bit of your country do you call your own? What you are told it is by your leaders or is it the homeless family whose parents used to have a job and a mortgage and expectations that their children would have a good life or do you feel they are life's failures beneath your contempt as so many of your politicians seem to believe. You have to choose a side when there is no middle ground so where do you stand

Which south africa do your co workers favour, the one under the jackbooted national party so beloved of the reagan administration as a bulwark of freedom standing against the threat of communism or the state created after the release of nelson mandela?

(Note to self: What on earth does gmc mean by this? Isn't this Spot's thread about Iran overflights?)

Post by **jones jones** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:24 am

Ahso!;1378679 wrote: Godwin's Law.

Yeah you got ya Meme on Professor!:wah:

Post by **jones jones** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:26 am

Clodhopper;1378692 wrote: No, we'd be talking Russian. Most of the killing and most of the dying happened on the Eastern Front. 95% of German casualties happened there and 65% of Allied ones. They fought more or less alone from 1941 to 1944 before we got ashore in Normandy and it was them, not us, who got to Berlin. We've found out a lot more about the war there since the Sov Union collapsed

It is certainly arguable that without the USA we'd have lost the war. Without the Soviet Union taking the incredible strain it did it's almost certain the Allies would have lost. Or at least not have won. Britain's contribution was survival and just enough distraction of German forces that Moscow was not taken. Thanks to US help we were able to provide 50% of the manpower for D-Day (more if you include the Canadians), something like 80% of the naval forces and at least 50% of the air power. It was a damn close thing as it was...

It took a huge effort from each of the three major Allied powers to win the war. But the Soviet Union did by far the most.

Ah ... the voice of reason!:-6

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:48 am

Bruv;1378619 wrote: No doubt JJ is verbally more adept than me and more widely read and better educatedI think you've got this backwards.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:50 am

Firstly I must apologise for wrongly declaring Jj to be a ladeee, must ask why the focus on the ladeee aspect of my post and ignore the actual point made in it ?

Secondly your logic, and evasive answers to the replies to your post resemble the sort of responses my wife might make during a discussion, perhaps that is why I confused your gender. (Sorry Ladies.......I am not sexist really)

Thirdly, you are a far better fairy tale writer than debater.

Post by **jones jones** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:08 am

Ahso!;1378702 wrote: I think you've got this backwards.

Jeeze .... not you again!!! Don't you wanna go start a thread of your own? Preferably on another planet!!!:yh_rotfl