The James McClean Sponsored Poppy Thread

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Not entirely clear what your point is here tbh so I could be totally misreading this; but if you're claiming that the Warsaw Pact was a threat to the British state though then you're wrong. Historians acknowledge that even Stalin remained generally conservative in his foreign policy after the war and his successors were both more sane and were firmly committed to the 1945 status quo. The Soviets' most extreme claims at the end of WWII were made against parts of Libya and the Dardanelles Straits, which were rebuffed: other than lip service being paid to an inevitable clash between global capitalism and communism, Soviet state interests were dominant and so didn't conflict with British statehood at all. Indeed the Percentages Agreement struck during the war ensured that the Soviets provided no support at all to a communist uprising in Greece, because it fell within Britain's sphere of influence. To think that they'd have plunged at north-western Europe on a whim then is nonsense.

The Warsaw Pact for all its faults was factually a reaction to the creation of NATO, and had the same principle of forming a defensive bloc. Much like the Berlin Wall itself, its purpose wasn't to extend Soviet or world communist power to the UK but to consolidate both in eastern Europe.

A good post although describing NATO as a defensive alliance while suggesting that there wasn't a threat to defend against seems questionable.

Do they not also serve who only stand and wait? We could indulge in idle sophistry which would inevitably result in us both considering ourselves correct by whichever definitions we chose. If you want to do that then let me know and I'll do what I can but I can't promise a great deal of enthusiasm.

The point I was driving at was more to do with the way discussion of the British Army since WWII has centred almost exclusively on Belfast as opposed to the Rhine where more troops were deployed for longer.

[vikingTON]

No credible historian understands the policy of the Soviet Union and its client stares as aiming a thrust across Germany, to the Rhine and beyond though. There was doubtless such hysteria claimed at the time, but we now know that the Red Army was not as large as Western intelligence sources claimed and it in fact quickly disbanded after 1945 - as it had to do after all, given that the Soviet Union lost around 20 million people during the war. The Soviet Union suffered a post-war famine due to the sheer lack of manpower.

And NATO was indeed a defensive alliance formed without a credible threat. Again, look at the entirely benevolent fate of Austria, given that the Soviets accepted as a neutral state, despite having occupied the most important parts of the state. The major power most concerned about a threat on the European mainland was in fact the Soviet Union, in the form of a reunited Germany.

There was absolutely no credible threat to the British state in any of the above issues. As a war occupant it easily secured its defensive position in Germany, until the Franco-German European project removed that concern from the table. It only briefly emerged again with the actual fall of the Berlin Wall and German reunification, but no sane observer now views the European system as a threat to Britain.

[Venti]

I'd just surrender by this point 8Mile.

I'll wear a Poopy for you.

God rest his bigoted soul.

[vikingTON]

All I see here tbh is your blatant failure to define what is.

What what is, you utter cretin?

[vikingTON]

FTFY...

Listen, you've been called out on here several times before by various folk for your obsession with trying to befriend VT and gain his affections. Your contributions to this thread amount to no more than another of these tragic bids to be noticed by your hero. So therefore, sorry, but I won't be taking any "advice" from you. F**k off and don't respond to me again you absolute weirdo.

*sucks air sharply through teeth*

This has turned into an absolute disaster for you champ. It's probably best for you to let informed adults continue the thread, while you slink off pretending that your multi-page fail never happened at all tbh.

[RedRob72]

Stop trying 8mile, you aren't going to win or convince an argument with the Ubers on here pal. Most will accept what you meant with regards to the 'threat to the State' quarrel, but there's always a small core on here that will ensure that you are always pissing into the wind! I'd just leave em to it!

[vikingTON]

If by "small core" you mean "everyone who isn't a raging, 'back oor forces', Sevconian bigot with no grasp of how international relations works", sure.

Unlucky then.

[RedRob72]

If by "small core" you mean "everyone who isn't a raging, 'back oor forces', Sevconian bigot with no grasp of how international relations works", sure.

Unlucky then.

Honestly think you try your best to compete with Creamy Cheese and Pepino on here mate ( maybe even try to ingratiate yourself with them) but sadly you're no match! Get yourself to bed and see if you can find that crusty old sock again? Best wishes Rab.

[The_Kincardine]

12 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

If by "small core" you mean "everyone who isn't a raging, 'back oor forces', Sevconian bigot with no grasp of how international relations works", sure.
 

Oh dear.  You were doing so well for a bit there but there's just not a statement you won't sweep.

Edited November 6, 2016 by The_Kincardine

[welshbairn]

Just like to say that I hope the British military cooperate with our European and global allies in a diplomatic but firm way to disincentivise Russia from expanding on its recent adventures. After land grabbing in Georgia and the Ukraine and bragging big style global reach in Syria,  I think that we should seriously start worrying about ethnic Russian protests kicking off in Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia/Moldova and forcing a Russian humanitarian intervention, bit like Prague and Budapest in the olden days but with snipers and agent provocateurs instead of tanks, at least in the early stages, like they did in Crimea. The recent movement of nuclear capable missiles into Kaliningrad was probably just more RT style propaganda, but as a proud European I would hope we would make clear that if they move on Estonia they move on us all. Not me, I'll be watching the telly or hiding behind the sofa, but our brave soldiers. 

[mjw]

Stop trying 8mile, you aren't going to win or convince an argument with the Ubers on here pal. Most will accept what you meant with regards to the 'threat to the State' quarrel, but there's always a small core on here that will ensure that you are always pissing into the wind! I'd just leave em to it!

What is it you are defending here Rob?
Is it the argument or the poster making it?

[invergowrie arab]

9 hours ago, 8MileBU said:

 

All I see here tbh is your blatant failure to define what is.

 

Well, the first part of the definition merely defines the current territorial extent of the UK.

The second part, as mentioned before, is completely historically and legally inaccurate. However, what it does give us a window into is the variable nature of the territorial extents of the British State. The integrity of that territory is what you seem to be basing the existence of the British state on, despite by your own definition the British State having ceased to exist in 1922.

The British State does indeed have territorial extents but is perfectly capable of existing with variations on that.

Most people who don't rely on freedictionary.com for their "textbook definitions" would look to include institutions such as the monarchy, parliament, the devolved administration's, constitutional precedent and statute, judiciary, the civil service, established religious organizations, the military and even quangos and parish councils in their definitions of the British State.

[invergowrie arab]

5 minutes ago, 8MileBU said:

 

Look mate, this all very informative, good information but on the whole, irrelevant to the original argument. The original argument was based on VT's claim that there has been no threat to the British State since WW2, which I disagree with. So anything prior to WW2 is irrelevant to what I was getting at.

Most of this just seems like another case of me having something to say and an opinion on something (right or wrong!), but folk just desperate to jump on it, take small snippets of what I've said and try derail the thread in a bid to petty-point score and play the smart-ass.

My issue with all this (for various beliefs and personal reasons) is the cretinous, gutter remarks from VT in respect of the army, even though he's clearly trolling. If they are his true beliefs, then he's much thicker than I thought.
I'm under no disillusion that the army are no angels but I'm also under no disillusion that we'd be in a far worse place without them.




 

 

Posting during Remembrance Sunday silence.

Reported.

[Jacksgranda]

2 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Posting during Remembrance Sunday silence.

Reported.

Is it not next week?

[invergowrie arab]

Sorry I thought it was every Sunday in remembrance month.

[WILLIEA]

3 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

Is it not next week?

It is. I was a wee bit confused because there was a minutes silence at the football yesterday.

Then I remembered there are no league games next week

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Is it not next week?

It is

I don't know how he failed to remember

Maybe there should be some kind of campaign to remind people. It would need a strong colourful logo though, any ideas?

[Jacksgranda]

27 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Sorry I thought it was every Sunday in remembrance month.

Really?

[Jacksgranda]

27 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Sorry I thought it was every Sunday in remembrance month.

When did this happen?

 

24 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

It is

I don't know how he failed to remember

Maybe there should be some kind of campaign to remind people. It would need a strong colourful logo though, any ideas?

 

I sometimes get a bit confused about when Remembrance Sunday is myself, but I didn't think it was today, as this is our Communion Sunday, (or one of them obviously), and there was no mention last week of remembrance. It would be a bit difficult to have communion and remembrance in the same service, imho.

[invergowrie arab]

22 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

Really?

No not really.

I'm making light of the fact this time of year seems to now be poppy watch starting with TV presenters getting their poppy on at the end of September, various events and the whole "debate" carrying for that time.