About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

Kizzy · 04-01-2013, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omah

I think it's a mixture of both points of view plus other factors, including Thatcher using the conflict to popularise herself .....

She was a power mad witch, she sank the belgrano without so much as a thought. We all saw that flounder before taking 100's of innocent souls.
What makes anyone think she cared one iota for our soldiers, the public or the country for that matter?
She had on her side the spirit of the British, she used Murdocks rags to her advantage with bold headlines everyday in the media. Cameron could only dream of having that much social control.

thesheriff443 · 04-01-2013, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

How could Margaret Thatcher have done things any other way? She didn't sit in Number Ten and direct the fighting like a chess game, you know. It could easily have gone tits up...

livia said tit's

thesheriff443 · 04-01-2013, 04:37 PM

thatcher had more ball's than all the prime minister's only churchill was on her level,

Omah · 04-01-2013, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

How could Margaret Thatcher have done things any other way? She didn't sit in Number Ten and direct the fighting like a chess game, you know. It could easily have gone tits up...

Without the untried Harriers it would have done - nobody knew if they would survive the trip South let alone fly when they got there .....

Kizzy · 04-01-2013, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

thatcher had more ball's than all the prime minister's only churchill was on her level,

He was as mad as a box of frogs too...

Sticks · 04-01-2013, 05:19 PM

But thanks to him we are not having to speak in German

Kizzy · 04-01-2013, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticks

But thanks to him we are not having to speak in German

No we speak American...

Omah · 04-01-2013, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticks

But thanks to him we are not having to speak in German

Ich spreche fließend Deutsch .....

Nedusa · 05-01-2013, 10:46 AM

Interesting last few posts, so what I am thinking now is that the UK was going to be irrevocably changed regardless of the outcome of WW2. Either part of a German speaking greater European empire or in hock to the yanks for the next fifty years, told what to do and when to do it . Told who to fight against and who to support. Flooded with fast food and a fast food culture.

Hmmm.... Interesting choice !!!

05-01-2013, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticks

But thanks to him we are not having to speak in German

If you'd put any leader in place, we'd have won eventually. The speeches may not have been as inspiring, and it may have played out differently, but the minute Hitler turned on Russia, there was only ever going to be one outcome.

America and Russia were the keys to us winning that war, not Churchills speeches, and I mean that respectfully. He gets extra respect for being on the nose bag continually.

Omah · 05-01-2013, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

If you'd put any leader in place, we'd have won eventually.

Name one .....

Nedusa · 05-01-2013, 10:57 AM

I wonder what our economy (GDP) and our National Debt would be now if we had not won the war ?

05-01-2013, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omah

Name one .....

You really are bizarre. I give reasons to back up my point, and you want a specific name of someone who currently has no standing in history?

Churchill didn't fight the Germans on his own, and those young men in trenches were not fighting to stay alive because Churchill had said they would be fighting the enemy on the beaches.

If Hitler doesn't attack Russia, and America doesn't enter the war, we'd have been ****ed.

Churchill was the right figurehead at that time, but I don't accept he was largely responsible.

Omah · 05-01-2013, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

You really are bizarre. I give reasons to back up my point, and you want a specific name of someone who currently has no standing in history?

You made an unsubstantiated assertion ..... surely you can back it up with a suggestion from the existing political leaders of the time, apart from Neville Chamberlain, of course .....

05-01-2013, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omah

You made an unsubstantiated assertion ..... surely you can back it up with a suggestion from the existing political leaders of the time, apart from Neville Chamberlain, of course .....

The whole point here, is that no one knows. I gave my opinion, and I gave reasons for external factors that had more of an impact on the war than Churchill.

If you disagree with my hypothesis, then it's up to you to give reasons why you think I'm wrong. I already declared that the leader wasn't as important as is being made out, so offering another name misses my point entirely.

You have no desire to debate anything, and instead like to hide in the margins. Pasting **** from wiki, and having no real opinion of your own.

Omah · 05-01-2013, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

The whole point here, is that no one knows. I gave my opinion, and I gave reasons for external factors that had more of an impact on the war than Churchill.

If you disagree with my hypothesis, then it's up to you to give reasons why you think I'm wrong. I already declared that the leader wasn't as important as is being made out, so offering another name misses my point entirely.

You have no desire to debate anything, and instead like to hide in the margins. Pasting **** from wiki, and having no real opinion of your own.

IMO, your "opinions" appear to be based on a complete lack of knowledge of the events in question .....

05-01-2013, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omah

IMO, your "opinions" appear to be based on a complete lack of knowledge of the events in question .....

Try explaining in detail for once, rather than single line replies that don't mean anything.

If you think Churchill was the deciding factor, then say why you think that.

I'm asking for your opinion, and your opinion seems to solely be that I'm wrong.

It's the easiest thing in the world to say someone else is wrong. I want your own personal explanation as to why you think that.

I don't want another dismissive smilie. I want your views and opinions.

Omah · 05-01-2013, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

Try explaining in detail for once, rather than single line replies that don't mean anything.

If you think Churchill was the deciding factor, then say why you think that.

I'm asking for yo YOUR assertionur opinion, and your opinion seems to solely be that I'm wrong.

It's the easiest thing in the world to say someone else is wrong. I want your own personal explanation as to why you think that.

I don't want another dismissive smilie. I want your views and opinions.

I asked YOU for elaboration of YOUR assertion - I didn't say you were wrong .....

YOU'RE the one with the "opinion" (allegedly) .....

05-01-2013, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omah

I asked YOU for elaboration of YOUR assertion - I didn't say you were wrong .....

YOU'RE the one with the "opinion" (allegedly) .....

No you didn't. You asked me for a name after I posited that the name was unimportant in the first place.

I elaborated by giving the invasion of Russia, and the entrance of America into the war, as far more significant that Churchill as the PM.

There you go again, you're trying to hide in tiny details, and use smilies as your discussion tool.

You're not very good at this, are you? Debate is generally a 2-way street, and as yet, you've offered nothing to counter my opinions (that doesn't need to be quote-marked).

I'll make this clear, change Hitler and Churchill around. Churchill attacks Russia, and the US enter the war. The allies still win.

I can't have made my opinion any clearer, so either address it and explain why you disagree, or don't bother replying with smilies.

Omah · 05-01-2013, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

No you didn't. You asked me for a name after I posited that the name was unimportant in the first place.

I elaborated by giving the invasion of Russia, and the entrance of America into the war, as far more significant that Churchill as the PM.

There you go again, you're trying to hide in tiny details, and use smilies as your discussion tool.

You're not very good at this, are you? Debate is generally a 2-way street, and as yet, you've offered nothing to counter my opinions (that doesn't need to be quote-marked).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/student...g_skills.shtml

Quote:

So what is a debate?

A debate involves a discussion of the pros and cons of an issue. Debating successfully is all about using argument and persuasion to convince other people that your views are right.

Steps to debating perfection (ext)

Research: Research the subject, so that you have facts to back up your views. It helps to validate your answer so it becomes more than just your opinion.

In the heat of a debate it's easy to lose your cool

Don't get personal: In the heat of a debate it's easy to lose your cool and attack the other person for having a different opinion to you. But remember they're entitled to that opinion and just because they don't think the same as you it's not a bad thing.

Stay Focused: Stick to the subject being debated and don't stray into other areas. It sounds obvious but it's easy to do once you start debating.

I am now going to follow my own advice and stick to the subject being debated - Falklands row: Cameron vows to defend Islanders

05-01-2013, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omah

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/student...g_skills.shtml

I am now going to follow my own advice and stick to the subject being debated - Falklands row: Cameron vows to defend Islanders

You really are a tiresome bore, with a stunning lack of self awareness. Avoiding the issues over and over again, but pasting blocks of text. Don't confuse me calling out your bull****, as losing my cool.

I gave you one final chance to address my posts and you've swerved out of it in typical Omah-style.

Sticks · 05-01-2013, 12:09 PM

Youtube video

Marc · 05-01-2013, 12:12 PM

Can we stick to the topic in question please? the Falklands row.

Omah · 05-01-2013, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

You really are a tiresome bore, with a stunning lack of self awareness. Avoiding the issues over and over again, but pasting blocks of text. Don't confuse me calling out your bull****, as losing my cool.

I gave you one final chance to address my posts and you've swerved out of it in typical Omah-style.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc

Can we stick to the topic in question please? the Falklands row.

.

Omah · 05-01-2013, 12:28 PM

http://news.sky.com/story/1033203/ar...over-falklands

Quote:

A group of the islanders, called Falklands United, responded on Friday to a letter by Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner published in The Guardian and Independent in which she called for the UK to give up the Falklands.

They wrote: "Our home is a British Overseas Territory, not a colony as you seemingly wish to convince people.

"We have never been prouder of our association with the United Kingdom and our unique relationship.

"Any decision to change that would be OUR and not YOUR choice.

The Sun took out a full page advert in Argentina issuing a "hands off"

"In 1982 we didn't have a voice. In 2013 we do. We are OUR own people and we have a right to OUR own democracy and to where OUR sovereignty lies."

I won't argue with that .....

Site Navigation

About Us ThisisBigBrother.com