Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on March 20, 2006, 11:20:57 AM
-
In view of the title, please forgive me if this post turns into a wall of text, as there is considerable ground to cover.
Without wishing to hijack some of the other threads in progress on this board, I can’t help noticing the glaring naivety about my homeland being exhibited in various threads, often by people who have never even been here. This naivety seems to go hand in hand with the groundswell of belief in certain quarters that if a false statement is repeated often enough, and loudly enough, it will somehow eventually become true.
Here are some of my favourites, none of which is any more true today than when it was first stated on this board, despite the number of times it has been repeated.
England is an island.
False. England adjoins Wales and Scotland and is therefore not an island. The UK is a tiny little island.
Incorrect. The mainland may be considered small in the context of a comparison with other land masses around the world, but size is relative. Besides, the UK is composed of many (ie. hundreds) of islands, and not just one single island. In addition to the mainland, there is the Isle of Wight (now a separate English county), the inner Hebrides, outer Hebrides, Orkneys and Shetlands – and this is not an exhaustive list. Individual members of the British population are “subjects”.
False. The definition of a subject given by my Oxford paperback English Dictionary is “a member of a state ruled by a king or queen”. England is not ruled by a king or queen, and hasn’t been for hundreds of years. In centuries gone by, English monarchs did have much more power than they do today. Even as recently as 1535, Henry VIII was able to bring about the execution of Sir Thomas More for his refusal to grant Henry a divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. But as long ago as 1215 in the reign of King John, the signing of Magna Carta initiated the transfer of power from Monarch to parliament. The last monarch who attempted to rule like a king was Charles I in the 1640s. His actions brought about the English civil war, which culminated in the execution of Charles in 1649 and suspension of the monarchy itself. When eventually the monarchy was restored in 1660, parliament was firmly established. England’s homicide rate is rising steadily.
Dubious. The number of homicides may indeed be rising, but so is the size of the population. Thus, the homicide rate is remaining fairly static, as my chart shows. The spike in 2002 was caused by the closure of a number of homicide cases against the serial killer, Dr. Harold Shipman, who killed hundreds of people.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/vc02.jpg)
England gave up its gun rights
False. England never had any gun rights. There was a time, before guns were invented, that no firearms legislation was needed, just as there was no need for a 30mph speed limit in my town, 100 years ago. But Britain has no constitution – thank Cod – and thus no constitutional right to possess guns was ever surrendered.
And thus we now move on to a few other myths, often stated with England in mind. An armed society is a polite society
It is perhaps true that SOME armed societies are more polite than SOME unarmed societies, but the reverse is also true. Some of the most polite societies that spring to mind are Japan, Singapore and Qatar, none of which is armed. An armed society is a freer society
Again, some armed societies may enjoy more freedom than some unarmed societies, but the presence or absence of arms has bugger all to do with it. Despite the fact that they can legally own guns in their home country, thousands of South Africans have poured into Britain in the past 10 years or more. Given the choice of being armed in South Africa or unarmed in Britain, they have chosen the latter. An armed society is a better society
Subjective, but I would disagree – as would our esteemed senior moderator who said recently “England is not better than Texas. Texas is not better than England. By the very essence of the two places, they are mutually exclusive, as they are so very different from each other. It would be ignorant to accept one is better than the other.”
Enough to be going on with. And now, I am going to have a cup of tea while I attempt the Telegraph crossword.
T-P
-
In regards to the size thing. heeeheee.
Why can't I stop picturing you saying the same thing about Beetle Jr. to some or one of your female freinds.:lol
"Its not the smallest in the world... I've seen hundreds more that are smaller darlin." :rofl
lol
bye
-
I like donuts.
Tumor
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The fish are well fed, and are not biting today. :D
Toodle Pip! :p
In!
-
oh go hit a woman or something instead of bothering us with the nonsence.
-
Nah, I've seen Shawn of the Dead. It's obvious that England is woefully unprepared for a zombie invasion.
-
Twas a right proper post till you started prating on about guns.
-
Who cares........the Nordschliefe opened this weekend.
-
See Rule #4
-
But Britain has no constitution – thank Cod – and thus no constitutional right to possess guns was ever surrendered.
Had a big breakfast, but I'll nibble a bit here...
Constitutionally protected rights for citizens are a bad thing?
Or is it bad because America's constitution just happens to have a provision for armed citizens?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
False. England never had any gun rights. There was a time, before guns were invented, that no firearms legislation was needed, just as there was no need for a 30mph speed limit in my town, 100 years ago. But Britain has no constitution – thank Cod – and thus no constitutional right to possess guns was ever surrendered.
And thus we now move on to a few other myths, often stated with England in mind. It is perhaps true that SOME armed societies are more polite than SOME unarmed societies, but the reverse is also true. Some of the most polite societies that spring to mind are Japan, Singapore and Qatar, none of which is armed.
You do know WHY they are unarmed right? You are manic depressive at best.
Karaya
-
Can you explain Mash? I don't know why. I do know Japan has had a few suicide groups in the past few months, but that's about it.
EDIT: OOH OOH WERE THEY BRITISH COLONIES!?
-
Thought all you English chaps were polite - even when it came to swearing.
(I know Hammy can be rude sometimes -jk) :)
-
Beetle why do you worry so much about the US having guns? Even if what you say holds some water, which it absolutely doesnt. You cant compare apples to oranges... you still need not worry about other people in other countries having guns. My 50 cal wont reach your house from the east coast of the US.
-
Wow you could knock me over with a feather, yet another US anti-gun thread by beet1e. And so cleverly disguised as a thread about myths about England.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
And thus we now move on to a few other myths, often stated with England in mind.
You hijacked your own thread?
-
Beet1e, is this a myth?
I remember watching old film from WW2 as Britain was preparing to defeat a German invasion everyone was sure would come. The black and white film was of old men marching down the streets of London armed with broomsticks and garden tools.
The germans would have walked all over the civilian population had it not been for the bravery and heroism of the RAF. Never have so many owed so much to so few.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You do know WHY they are unarmed right? You are manic depressive at best.
Karaya
The Japanese population has been unarmed since the fall of the Samurai, but they still have an army, navy and airforce.
I'm left wondering what your point is.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The black and white film was of old men marching down the streets of London armed with broomsticks and garden tools.
The germans would have walked all over the civilian population had it not been for the bravery and heroism of the RAF. Never have so many owed so much to so few.
You think an armed population would be able to stop an invading army?
You think those old men marching down the streets of London would be a match for the Whermacht if they had guns?
-
Originally posted by Schwein
The Japanese population has been unarmed since the fall of the Samurai
we all know that. Tom Cruise helped kill them all.
-
You think those old men marching down the streets of London would be a match for the Whermacht if they had guns?
====
Yes, I think ten thousand English civilians armed with rifles and shotguns would actually have had an reasonable impact in the defense of London and the surrounding country had it actually come to that.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Beet1e, is this a myth?
I remember watching old film from WW2 as Britain was preparing to defeat a German invasion everyone was sure would come. The black and white film was of old men marching down the streets of London armed with broomsticks and garden tools.
The germans would have walked all over the civilian population had it not been for the bravery and heroism of the RAF. Never have so many owed so much to so few.
ahh Churchill quotes. I like 'em too:
"we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"
-
Originally posted by Yeager
You think those old men marching down the streets of London would be a match for the Whermacht if they had guns?
====
Yes, I think ten thousand English civilians armed with rifles and shotguns would actually have had an reasonable impact in the defense of London and the surrounding country had it actually come to that.
Then sir, you should take a look at what the Germans did to any town or city that didn't surrender. Civilians with rifles vs. Stukas, He-111's and field artillery.
You should also look at what the Russian army did to Grozny (capital of Chechnya). They leveled it with artillery.
Arming civilians to defend against an organized army only sets them up to be slaughtered.
-
On a related note..Texas is NOT the USA. Its part of it.
-
Arming civilians to defend against an organized army only sets them up to be slaughtered.
I'd rather be slaughtered with a gun in my hands then marched off without a fight to a gas chamber.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I'd rather be slaughtered with a gun in my hands then marched off without a fight to a gas chamber.
A valiant stand, but uttery pointless. If I were jewish and somehow unfit to serve in the armed forces I'd rather flee from the UK than sit and wait to be killed. Rifle in hand or not.
Edit: Also it would be selfish of you to provoke the Germans to level London and kill thousands of civilians just to alow you your death of choice.
-
beet... I am sure that I am not the only one to notice that..... if you don't split hairs..... every single myth about england is indeed....
true.
You are a tiny little island.. your crime and homicide rate is rising... you are subjects and you gave up your gun rights.... for no reason.
shwein.... you are not paying attention.... the japs decided that invading the west coast of America would be too costly because of armed citizens... every country including germany decided that the Swiss would be to difficult to invade because of the armed population and...
please do not use japan as an example of anything... they are ants compared to countries with real individuals... they maybe are a lot like england has become tho... no use for either.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Schwein
A valiant stand, but uttery pointless. If I were jewish and somehow unfit to serve in the armed forces I'd rather flee from the UK than sit and wait to be killed. Rifle in hand or not.
Edit: Also it would be selfish of you to provoke the Germans to level London and kill thousands of civilians just to alow you your death of choice.
wow someone is yellow
-
lol lazs, you're getting old and grumpy.
-
never heard of you.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
wow someone is yellow
Yes indeed. If I had to die I'd march to the showers with my head held high, rather than taking many other innocent civilians with me in some hopeless "last stand". When you know you can't surrender it doesn't take courage to fight to the death, but it does take courage to give up your live to save others.
People who fight and die for nothing aren’t heroes. They’re idiots.
-
A valiant stand, but uttery pointless. If I were jewish and somehow unfit to serve in the armed forces I'd rather flee from the UK than sit and wait to be killed. Rifle in hand or not.
Edit: Also it would be selfish of you to provoke the Germans to level London and kill thousands of civilians just to alow you your death of choice.
Just like you, nothing is keeping the rest of the cowards from fleeing in terror from things they shouldn't be afraid of.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
never heard of you.
lazs
No why should you have?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
every country including germany decided that the Swiss would be to difficult to invade because of the armed population and...
it was certainly not this simple !
Hitler about the swiss and their country
"the most despicable and wretched people, mortal enemies of the new Germany"
"the rubbish of small nations"
"I'll be the Butcher of the Swiss."
-
Originally posted by Schwein
You think an armed population would be able to stop an invading army?
You think those old men marching down the streets of London would be a match for the Whermacht if they had guns?
Yes & yes. History repeats itself.
-
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green
And was the holy lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen
And did the countenance divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills
And was Jerusalem builded there
Among those dark Satanic mills
Bring me my bow (my bow) of burning gold
Bring me my arrows of desire
Bring me my spears o'clouds unfold
Bring me my chariot of fire
I will not cease from mental fight
Nor shall my (my) sword sleep in hand
'Til we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land
'Til we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land (http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/sounds/jerusalem.ra)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Just like you, nothing is keeping the rest of the cowards from fleeing in terror from things they shouldn't be afraid of.
Like I said: People who fight and die for nothing are idiots.
How many Poles, Czechoslovakians, French, Danes, Norwegians, Belgians, Dutch etc. fled to Britain from a hopless fight in their homelands? Those men, especially the Poles and Czech helped save Britain and went on to help defeat Germany and free their own countries.
Your romantic last stand is as idiotic as it is pointless.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Yes & yes. History repeats itself.
History is all good and well, but in modern warfare rifles no longer win wars, and certainly not in the hands of untrained and unorganized civilians.
History does indeed repeat itself, just look at the siege of Warsaw.
-
Hitler did not invade the Swiss... nor did anyone else. No one has invaded the U.S.
swein... you would go to your execution proudly instead of some last stand? Maybe if that is the kind of country you live in then you are probly right.... may as well just roll over.
Myself.... I am counting on my countrymen to resist... no matter the cost. Let em kill 10 for 1.... let em kill 100 for 1... won't work on me. Not my problem... my problem would be how to kill even more of them while they waste their time killing civilians.
lazs
-
swein.... you look at warsaw... there were very few guns in warsaw against huge odds and they did pretty well.
rifles do indeed win wars at local levels all the time even today... most of the fighting in any little brushfire war in the middle east or africa or any of a number of places is fought with rifles.
lazs
-
Like I said: People who fight and die for nothing are idiots.
How many Poles, Czechoslovakians, French, Danes, Norwegians, Belgians, Dutch etc. fled to Britain from a hopless fight in their homelands? Those men, especially the Poles and Czech helped save Britain and went on to help defeat Germany and free their own countries.
Your romantic last stand is as idiotic as it is pointless.
If you believe that I would be fighting or dieing for nothing, then you truly are the idiot. And you are not salvageable.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
swein.... you look at warsaw... there were very few guns in warsaw against huge odds and they did pretty well.
rifles do indeed win wars at local levels all the time even today... most of the fighting in any little brushfire war in the middle east or africa or any of a number of places is fought with rifles.
lazs
I don't think you will find many historians who will agree that the defense of Warsaw was in any way a success. Much of the city was destroyed and the German casualties were negligible.
A "little brushfire war in the middle east or africa or any of a number of places" are not examples of modern warfare.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you believe that I would be fighting or dieing for nothing, then you truly are the idiot. And you are not salvageable.
So you'd rather die now than live to fight another day?
-
Originally posted by Schwein
Your romantic last stand is as idiotic as it is pointless.
I know of 300 Spartan soldiers at Thermopylae who would disagree with that.
-
would modern warfare be in say iraq?
as for warsaw.... you would rather march in single file to the ovens rather than fight?
I hope to gawd I never feel as you do.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Schwein
Yes indeed. If I had to die I'd march to the showers with my head held high, rather than taking many other innocent civilians with me in some hopeless "last stand". When you know you can't surrender it doesn't take courage to fight to the death, but it does take courage to give up your live to save others.
People who fight and die for nothing aren’t heroes. They’re idiots.
That's quite the paradox Schwein. If you're headed to the gas chambers, you're either Jewish.. put there because you're Jewish.. or a political dissident. Lets assume for the moment you are Jewish. You're sparing the lives of civilians by nobly marching to a death in the gas chambers.
Exactly what civilians are you sparing? Not Jewish civilians. They're already on the train headed to put together more V-2s and meet death in slave labor factories, and those that are not, are collected in ghettos and shipped out for your noble death at a later date. So, obviously, you're not protecting the Jewish civillians at all.
That leaves German civillians to protect. Okay, fair enough, many, many were good people with nothing to do with the regime... but why do they deserve to be protected by your heroic march into the shower, and not the people being shipped to camps daily?
Pacifist? Good, whirrled peas for everybody. Hate guns? Fair enough, not everybody has to enjoy weapons. Deplore violence? GOOD! So do I! (expecting Boxing). Claiming that marching into the gas chamber and being executed is better than fighting to free your people, because civillians might get hurt... that's either very confused, or downright dishonest. Those people you refuse to fight and protect would already be getting gassed right alongside you.
Lastly, the entire concept of the "last stand" is actually a phenomenon of warfare since Napoleon & the total war concept. Early examples exist, but were extremely rare. Even since the 19th century it's very, very rare in practice. This glorious last stand you keep saying is stupid, really & truly is, stupid from a tactical standpoint. What you've totally ignored however is the insurgent activities of the French, Polish, and every other country with a resistance movement that did not stand and fight to the death. Instead, they took their rifles, and waged guerilla war, without ever leaving their home countries.
-
Trolls, abuse, and pointless banter designed to incite. This thread has it all. It should be held on display as how not to have a civil conversation about anything.