USS Winston Churchill....

[Handy-Andy]

And Bob (carn't spell his last name ) and Spit the Dog

 

[OUTSIDER]

saw Sally James on the TV the other day and I got a hard on so big I nearly lost an eye

 

[Problem Child]

Quick!

Slam the damn door and lock it!

We've finally got all the Limey's on one thread!

 

[Jake2001]

Sorry mate...

Slam the damn door and lock it!

We've finally got all the Limey's on one thread!

Not so fast. You haven't ditched the Texan yet.

With straight forward, objective and informative posts like Alexander's above and emails like Outsider's, you won't find me easy to get rid of. Thanks

 

[Charly]

Re: Re: Comic books when you shoulda read history

[Edited by Charly on 03-11-2001 at 08:02 PM]

Firstly, I am not a man. Secondly, I am not American. Thirdly, I regret starting anything about politics. Anyway, here goes.

Britain did have one or two allies - the Aussies for one. I guess Australians see foreign war leaders differently because we tended to be dragged into poorly planned battles which generally resulted in heavy losses for our men. Most of those battles had British commanders.

All leaders of Empires need to have an enemy, real or imagined. Hitler was certainly a real threat, but it is doubtful whether Churchill or any British politician knew how MUCH of a threat. Documents certainly seem to show that bad mouthing Hitler was more a matter of political expediency up until 1938/39 in order to secure nationalistic fervour rather than a real fear. I acknowledge that official documents, however, can never hope to assess the true psyche of a man. Perhaps Churchill did truly foresee the Hitler threat.

Madame Pandora - I usually grovel at your feet in acquiesence with the views you express. However, I find it extraordinary and unforgiveable that you are about to send all your young men to almost certain deaths, yet you cannot say the words yourself. It is cowardice and weakness IMVHO. My mother is Irish. Like the Aussie soldiers, Irish usually got a raw deal in the battle stakes. My mother eventually immigrated to Australia in order to find a husband. Most of the young men of marriageable age in her country were dead. You have to recognise the enormity of the number of deaths in order to appreciate why the speech, the words, everything should have been genuine.

Americans fought alongside Aussies in WW2 and their incredible sacrifices are not to be underestimated. However, America did not lose a generation of young men. Everyone still had electricity. There was no rationing (couldn't find any record of it in New York Times archives -please correct if wrong).

Winston Churchill was indeed a charismatic, intelligent and witty leader. So was Hitler. The two men both wrote books about their leadership and personal philosophies. My point is - charisma, intellect and wit do not necessarily make someone a good leader. I never intended to insinuate, nor do I now, that Churchill was a particularly bad person. I just think he has been over-rated. He was the first Western leader to actively cultivate his own myth in modern times. There is no particular sin in that.

I have a personal theory that truly great men and women do not seek politics as a profession anyway. Politics requires ego and those who work for Amnesty International, Docteurs Sans Borders, Red Cross etc. cannot afford to have one. Perhaps Churchill really was the best person interested in the job at the time. Certainly, he had the will of the nation and the parliament. People believed in him and I guess it's the faith you generate not the truth of the matter that gets results in the end.

Finally - what have I done for mankind? I do volunteer work for Amnesty International and I give money to a crisis charity for women in Afghanistan. Not very bloody much really. Oh, and I teach kids not to believe everything they read.



[/B]

Great, I appreciate your volunteer work and especially your teaching children not to believe everything they read. Sincere thanks.

A couple of points about your comments and then I'll go back to mindless humour.

I really do know exactly what you mean about the Australians taking some very bad leadership bashes. So did the Canadians. Some very strange stories there, though, even we Americans had some bad things happen as a result of American leadership mistakes and other issues, so it may or may not be because of "absentee landlordism" on the part of the home island Brits. The whole British Empire responded wonderfully against what I believe was true evil. They collectively saved our bacon, so to speak.

However, it is true that the U.S. wasn't invaded, perhaps didn't lose the entire generation, but quite a few chaps didn't make it. I stand in utter awe of all those people who so bravely and unselfishly offered it up for all the rest of us. They were a wonderful and admirable generation. We did have rationing in the U.S. though, I'm surprised you were unable to find it in the Times. Actually, nearly everything was rationed, gasoline, meat, sugar, clothing ( I believe) and we sent a hell of a lot of material of all kinds all round the world. Candy, cigarettes and whiskey were rationed and of course we got all the press because the G.I.'s passed those things out freely wherever they went, giving the impression that we had no shortages of any kind, but still being pretty compassionate on their own. But on the home front rationing was a way of life.

Now about politicians. I hate them because of what they become. But they cannot get anything done (and I don't want them to do much) if they don't get elected. That leads them into lies and such and it is awful to watch. We are to the point of not believing anything they say at all - a tradgedy.

However, you have to judge them on balance for how much they do that you think is admirable against the bad things, I guess. Some pretty good people in that bag over the years, Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington in my country, all had an impact in advancing the cause of mankind. And some of it we needed doing and had to be organised to get it done.

Going back further, when at the dawn of mankind's existence, Og must have said to Mug that one of us needs to stay up and make sure the fire stays lighted now that lightning started it for us. So Og was the first politician.

Eve, if you are inclined to biblical examples may have been the first one, really, when she said to Adam. "I know it seems like a silly thing to do, but just put it in a little way. I have a feeling it could be a good thing." And the rest is history.

(in fact, I think I'll start a new string with that hypothesis. Maybe I can get an argument?)

All the best,

 

[mig]

I have a fond memory of the war.I was around 4 years old,the streets where I lived were full of army trucks waiting for the invasion.Lots of big men thrilling us kids with the way they talked.My first taste of candy and gum.I'm sure my liking of Americans must stem from then.Buy me a candy-bar and I'm yours forever.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Being Navy as well as American all at the same time, I would say that it would be a pleasure to serve on a USS Churchill. There is nothing wrong with naming a vessel after foreign people. The problems come up when you name them after people who are traditionally our enemies. The USS Benedict Arnold wouldn't go ever very well.

Churchill was a great man as well as a great ally. The fact that he wasn't an American great man doesn't mean diddly in the long run. Frankly, the contributions that man made to the world are rather astounding. It should be considered a privilege to name a ship after him, not the other way around.

However, I don't think a USS Mother Theresa or a USS Ghandi would be appropriate considering what they stood for.

 

[mig]

I don't know too much about the War of Independence.I understand that Benedict Arnold defected,so to speak,but didn't he do some good stuff before.Anyway,why did he.

 

[Weird Harold]

However, I don't think a USS Mother Theresa or a USS Ghandi would be appropriate considering what they stood for.

The hospital ship USS Mother Theresa sounds like a good name to me. I'm not sure about a hospital ship named after Ghandi though.

 

[Flagg]

Alexander, I think your post made a lot of sense and I don't think I'm really in a position to better it as far as Scotland is concerned. I will say however, and you may well be surprised by this, that I personally voted against Scottish devolution. I'm actually officialy registered as a Glaswegian and therefore I got the vote. I did feel a pang of guilt though as really the vote was for Scottish people for Scotland. But anyway...

Margaret Thatcher gets quite a lot of credit from Americans and I think the simple reason for that is that she, in-part successfully, brought Britain onto the same ideological level as the US. As a lot of americans feel that their system of life is far superiour to any other this action can only be commended.

However, the truth of the story is that a US Style conservatism simply could not and will not work in a country like Britain. A country with such deep historical, social, industrial and working class routes cannot be flung into the world of corporate yuppism without a large degree of social injustice occuring. The examples, everyone knows, but a few instances are the destruction of the mining industry and therefore a large number of coalfield communities, (some of which are still considered the poorest areas in Europe by the EU Objective 1 Regeneration Fund) the general demise of the manufacturing industry, the emergence of "selfishness", (which I believe BrainyBeauty was talking about in another thread) a class divide leaving the minority richer and the majority poorer, a highly xenophobic generation of people that fear and mistrust anything foreign, (a couple of my compatriots have proved this point for me already in this thread with their highly inane comments equating the expansion of European integration with "being part of Germany". I wonder what papers they read) and a ridiculous war over an island consisting of 3 shepherds and 57 sheep which resulted in the death and maiming of thousands of Argentinian and British soldiers alike.

A good way of looking at the political and social climate of an administration is to examine the culture. The "Eighties" - need I say more. Quite possibly the most awful decade in the history of man - with many a dodgy haircut and depressing album to prove it. Either Thatcher's government was pumping bizarre drugs that enhance lack of taste into the national water supplies or the political system that she instigated was literally killing the souls of British people. I feel the latter may be more of a truth.

 

[CRaZy]

I used to be a card carrying Communist. I am no Maggie Thatcher fan. I would like to point out however, that the mining and manufacturing industries had been heavily subsidised in GB prior to Maggie's iron rule. The demise of these industries was part of a world wide economic trend (cheaper offshore labour, nuclear power etc.) which affected the entire Western world, including Australia. There has been another downturn in the coal mining and steel industries here recently with thousands losing their jobs. It is lack of world demand rather than government bloodymindedness which has caused this. That said, Maggie lacked compassion and foresight when handling the entire situation. Only slightly better than working class herself, she should have known better. The "All power..." thing? Or, perhaps people with too much ego and too little real understanding of the world are drawn to politics in the first place. That's my theory.

 

[mig]

Flagg tell me what's wrong with wanting this country to retain it's independence from European influence and institutions.My mistrust for Europe extends much farther back than MT.I'm happy to speak with,trade with,and otherwise deal with Europe,but integrate,not until the sun rises in the west.

 

[Ally C]

Margaret Thatcher gets quite a lot of credit from Americans and I think the simple reason for that is that she, in-part successfully, brought Britain onto the same ideological level as the US. As a lot of americans feel that their system of life is far superiour to any other this action can only be commended.

-- I think this view is synonymous with what MP was saying.

-----------------------
As for what the ship is called, well a warship by any other name ... [etc]. Ultimately, if this vessel is ever used 'in anger', I don't suppose it will matter much what its name is. As for how we read history (as touched on already), well 'history' tends to be written by the victors anyway, and is usually biased. Having said that, it's a paradox which is open to interpretation; cut through the bullshit and you still can't be sure how much is facts, stick to what you consider to be facts and you'll inevitably be the target of other warships who's crews have read entirely different books from the ones you did [or the same books 'differently'].


I hear that there is going to be a U.S.S. "Boris Yeltsin". Apparently it's a ship in a bottle ...

 

[alexander tzara]

Flagg - I'm not really into complete devolution either. I've only voted for the SNP once, a long time ago. But I'm glad we have our own parliament now. The Welsh have their own parliament too. But I think that de-centralization should go even further. I think the North of England should have its own parliament distinct from Westminster. From what I can gather, the greatest concentration of industry is in the North of England - therefore generating a lot of revenue for the country - but many areas in the north are some of the poorest in the country. I could be wrong but I get the impression the north is starving itself to feed the South.

Crazy - that's a valid point about the miners. Coal mining was a dying industry but in a situation where thousands of people are going to lose their jobs, for whatever reasons, an attitude of compassion and caring from the leader (even if it is a pose) is going to be better received than Thatcher's cold, "Fuck-you, you're only Welsh!" attitude. You made that point yourself but I just wanted to highlight it.

 

[Ally C]

But I think that de-centralization should go even further. I think the North of England should have its own parliament distinct from Westminster. From what I can gather, the greatest concentration of industry is in the North of England - therefore generating a lot of revenue for the country - but many areas in the north are some of the poorest in the country. I could be wrong but I get the impression the north is starving itself to feed the South.

What industry? The mining is gone, the heavy industries are more or less gone, and what remains of them employ a relatively small number of people. Amid the dereliction we have the various [local] government appeals for European funding to improve the region, the advent of the 'call centre' economy, the occasional cultural concessions to such areas [usually in the shape of a new football stadium - if you'll excuse the irony], etc.

I don't want to see a North of England parliament. Yes 'the South' has always been the financial and political capital feeding of [that other] 'capital' created by others. Another government would be an expensive luxury which I can live without. I don't starve myself to feed any one as far as I am aware. It's too easy to say that the North is financially or politically 'anoerexic', is 'starving' itself. The fact of the matter is that the transition from 'old' industry and economy to 'new' will always favour some while discriminating against others. Personally, I think the whole country is on its knees. Some are in prayer, but most seem to be in supplication for whatever scraps they can get off capitalism's dining table. It has nothing to do with the geography of a very small peninsula (or island, depending on your politics!). If you think it has you're probably a civil servant making too much money to be really interested anyway.

 

[Flagg]

CraZy and Ally C - You are both making a similar point which is that manufacturing and industry in general was in decline anyway and that the demise of these industries was inevitable due to global economic trends.

To a large extent this is true. in fact some would say that Governments have absolutely no control over the national economy let alone the global one.

The point here though is the sheer arrogance and inhumane tactics deployed by the Iron Lady herself.

The global trend may well have been moving things in that direction but the final kick in the teeth was by Thatcher herself who accelerated the process through privatisation.

 

[Flagg]

But I'm glad we have our own parliament now. The Welsh have their own parliament too. But I think that de-centralization should go even further. I think the North of England should have its own parliament distinct from Westminster.

Sorry to be annoyingly pedantic but the Welsh have an Assembly not a Parliament.

Roger, I'm not sure if I agree with you there. Wouldn't regional Assemblies and Parliaments lead to an increase in bureaucracy? Also, it has to be said that local government is famously ineffecient - do we really want to give them more powers?

 

[Ally C]

CraZy and Ally C - You are both making a similar point which is that manufacturing and industry in general was in decline anyway and that the demise of these industries was inevitable due to global economic trends.

The point here though is the sheer arrogance and inhumane tactics deployed by the Iron Lady herself.

Yes Flagg, I guess we are. This often happens - people talking about the same thing for different reasons and going off at tangents from time to time. I was never a Thatcher fan, but it says a helluva lot for [British] politics that she stayed in power for as long as she did. "There is no such thing as society ..." as I think she once said. How true; she made sure of that.

 

[alexander tzara]

Fair enough, Ally. It probably would be an unneccessary waste of money and resources that could be spent in better ways. To be honest, I was just repeating what my brother told me and hoping it made me sound like I knew something about politics (which I don't really). I do think though that, as far as political and personal attitudes, there's a bigger divide between the North of the UK (which I'd class as the midlands up) and the South, than there is between Scotland and England. (Ignoring, of course, the historical and cultural differences.) I also think that much government policy is still geared towards the south, where I think most of the voters are congregated, than the north. Obviously I don't know the reality of living in the north of England.

 

[Ally C]

To be honest, I was just repeating what my brother told me and hoping it made me sound like I knew something about politics (which I don't really).

I do think though that, as far as political and personal attitudes, there's a bigger divide between the North of the UK (which I'd class as the midlands up) and the South, than there is between Scotland and England. (Ignoring, of course, the historical and cultural differences.) I also think that much government policy is still geared towards the south, where I think most of the voters are congregated, than the north.

We all rely on things we hear, see and read to give sense to our understanding of the world. I don't understand politics either, but I appreciate the value of contributions to the debate.
---
Like I said before, the geography of the island / peninsula is purely arbitrary (whoa - easy on the paradox!), so we are essentially in agreement there. But I believe that "political and personal attitudes" are informed by "historical and cultural differences", so I think the point you make about "ignoring" the latter is a bit mis-guided, although I can see what you mean [!]. Most of the dividing lines are cultural constructs anyway. And seeing as it's a democracy we live in, your final point about the majority in the South being favoured by government policy makes perfect sense.

Then again, I hate when it becomes a numbers game ...

 

[Problem Child]

This is so cool...

What an interesting reminder of how many Brits we have here. My natural American arrogance makes me tend to think of everybody here as American, unless they bring up their location for some reason or another.

It's fascinating to see a political thread involving Blair vs. Thatcher rather than Bush or Reagan vs. Clinton.

Just my two cents...I think that the reason Thatcher was so well-loved by Americans was that she was almost a mirror of Reagan. For better or worse, people really thought of the U.S. and Britain as a team, much the same way as during the war. I think the feeling still exists that we are allied in almost every sense regarding international affairs, but during Reagan-Thatcher it was a very palpable; almost an us-against-the-world mentality. And of course there was always the big bad soviet bear looming, which I think naturally brought us closer together.

Now lots of folks are going to post after this (or maybe not) blasting the politics of Thatcher and Reagan. Go ahead, that's not what this post is about.

I'm glad you Brits are here. Your congregation raises the IQ of this place.

 

[mig]

I too have long thought of an American/British team,hell we've done OK so far.What scares me somewhat is how long can it continue, with current ideas of European armies and political integration.Without wanting to be specific I once fought against what I thought was oppression and found the result to be "no change".So here's to teamwork.

 

[Ally C]

What scares me somewhat is how long can it continue, with current ideas of European armies and political integration.

Let's all sing "We are the World"! Unification can't be that bad can it? What do you think, all those from the U.S.A.?
One step at a time ...

 

[Madame Pandora]

Let's all sing "We are the World"! Unification can't be that bad can it?

If you start singing "We Are The World" I will personally start another war.

MP

 

[KillerMuffin]

Personally, from the little computer in the middle of the US with my lack of corporeal understanding of all the ramifications of the EU, it scares me. I don't like it. I'm watching a centralized European government began to slowly legislate for it's member nations. I'm watching a standard currency, issued by Germany from what I understand, starting to replace the native currencies of it's member nations.

No country is perfect and unification of the world under one rule isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the question will always be, who is in charge?

NAFTA was a kneejerk reaction to the EU thing by the Clinton administration. They ramrodded it through congress and we are only beginning to feel it's affects. Of course, we don't really feel it much at all.

Whenever there is a collusion between powerful nations, the rest of the world takes note with trepidation and fear.