Remembrance Sunday: Tributes To The Fallen

Nov 11, 2012 Full story: Tay FM 398

We will keep you up to date with our latest competitions, promotions, offers and more, via our exclusive VIP newsletter.

Full Story
rio

UK

#128 Nov 13, 2012
supersonic boom wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course the Soviets were innocent and wouldn't think of shooting down an Avro Lincoln or a Swedish Dakota etc would they.
I've just finished reading 'Tirpitz' and the Soviets were paranoid with the western allies even when we were sending them aid with the arctic convoys. Winston Churchill had to virtually jump through hoops to get British aircraft based in Soviet territory to defend the convoys from air and sea attack.
The Soviet leadership had good reasons to be suspicious about the allies. After all, Western powers had shown hostility to the Soviet from the outset of the Russian revolution, by supporting tsarist troops, sending armies, even bombing Russia by air.
Later, the West supported the counter-revolution during the civil war, up to 1923. The West backed Poland in the war against the USSR, etc...
The Soviet Union was diplomatically alienated, not recognised at the League of nations.
When the NAZI threat came about, France and Britain refused Stalin's offer of an alliance against Germany.
So, it's no surprise that, when the tables turned, the Soviet weren't so keen on their Western allies. Most of their officers, commissars and members of the Politburo had faced Western hostility for 20 years!

“Fly low, fly fast.”

Since: Apr 07

East Midlands, UK

#129 Nov 13, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
If you know about history, and the aftermath of WWII, you would accept that Stalin wasn't the only reason for the Cold War.
Maybe you could examine the attitude of our US allies regarding the partition of Germany, Berlin, etc... and how they ignored all the undertakings made to the Soviets up to 1945.
Go on, educate me.
rio

UK

#130 Nov 13, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
you know that?
then why did you state that the US used the threat of the Soviets to get a foothold in Europe?
why not grow a pair Rio and admit you are ant-USA instead of beating around the bush.
be honest for once,at least i dont try to hide the fact i am ANTI-ISLAM.
OK sunshine?
I cannot see why saying that US military presence in Europe is not needed any more can be interpreted as being anti-American.

Some of their politicians say so, and even some of their military, FFS! Are they anti-American too? Not only it cost them $ billions they can ill-afford now, but there is no justification for it.

Europe is at peace, and each country can contribute to its own defense, even in an international defense pact. That's what some US military expertys advocate, in case you don't know: Europe stepping up to the plate and taking charge of its own defense.
seth

United States

#131 Nov 13, 2012
All the european nations governments have to do is ask us to leave. Why hasnt that happen? Could it be they enjoy the luxury of security net? Naw, that wouldnt be it, surely.
rio

UK

#132 Nov 13, 2012
supersonic boom wrote:
<quoted text>
Mildenhall, Lakenheath, Fairford and a smattering of small sites are all that is left of the USAF in the UK now.
Within the last 30 years you couldn't drive through parts of Suffolk and Norfolk without running across a yank airfield.
Of course, now US bases have moved to East Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, etc... There are talks of opening some in Ukraine and Georgia in future...
Gilbert Ratchet

London, UK

#133 Nov 13, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, now US bases have moved to East Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, etc... There are talks of opening some in Ukraine and Georgia in future...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly confident East Germany doesn't exist anymore.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#134 Nov 13, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot see why saying that US military presence in Europe is not needed any more can be interpreted as being anti-American.
Some of their politicians say so, and even some of their military, FFS! Are they anti-American too? Not only it cost them $ billions they can ill-afford now, but there is no justification for it.
Europe is at peace, and each country can contribute to its own defense, even in an international defense pact. That's what some US military expertys advocate, in case you don't know: Europe stepping up to the plate and taking charge of its own defense.
you are correct when you say:
"I cannot see why saying that US military presence in Europe is not needed any more can be interpreted as being anti-American."that is not anti-USA

what is anti-USA is the use of a bare faced lie to explain how the USA ended up with troops on mainland Europe in the first place.

ah ah ah "Europe stepping up to the plate and taking charge of its own defense". even you can not take that seriously,do you read a newspaper watch T.V ? were do you think Europe will get the money to "step up to the plate?
rio

UK

#135 Nov 13, 2012
supersonic boom wrote:
<quoted text>
Go on, educate me.
The agreement reached among the allies before the end of the war was that Germany and Austria were to be desarmed, deNazified, each country keep unified and demilitarised, with both sides (East and West) withdrawing from their territories.
The two countries would not have been dismantled, but allowed to have their own civilian government.
A multi-party commission was to monitor this agreement.It went well in Austria, which Soviet troops left in 1946, British and US troops later. Austria elected its own government and was on the way to recovery.
In Germany, the Western allies insisted in administrating some of the Soviet sector (Berlin), and when it came to implement the withdrawal of troops (several Soviet regiments had left East Germany), the allies dragged their feet. In 1946, unilaterally, they joined their sectors and declared the German Federal Republic without consultation with the Soviets, creating the partition of the country.
The inter-allied commission was disbanded and in 1948, the Western allies created NATO. That same year, the Soviet Union proclaimed the German Democratic Republic in its sector.

So, the Soviet presence was in retaliation to the refusal by the Western allies to honour the agreement they had signed, and the "Soviet threat" was for decades exploited for propaganda purpose to justify the US presence in Europe.

“RayHole is a liar!”

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#136 Nov 13, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not denying there were skirmishes, but calling that a threat of invasion is going a bit far. For example, you don't invade a country with just one batallion!
There were also instances of hostilities against the USSR by allied forces at time. Remember Gary Powell maybe? The U2 CIA-led spy planes? Also frequent US Navy submarine' incursions in Soviet waters in the Pacific, the Baltic or the Pacific. Some sabotages conducted inside the USSR were alleged to have been conducted by US special forces. The list is endless.
"Alleged" is the key word.
Your other key word was "threat". An incursion by russian troups is a threat to peace. That is what Joseph Stalin called is when 40 Chionese troups crossed the russian border in 1952.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#137 Nov 13, 2012
i am not sure but wasn't Ronan anti-USA and pro Soviet? as well as being pro Islam?
anyone?
rio

UK

#138 Nov 13, 2012
Gilbert Ratchet wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly confident East Germany doesn't exist anymore.
East Germany has ceased to exist as a country, but the region that formed the DDR is still called East Germany by many.
seth

United States

#139 Nov 13, 2012
I wish the us would leave Europe, let them defend themselves and pay for all that defence. Jusst think at how much money that would save the us taxpayers. Money that could be used at home to build better highways, hydro electric dams, research for new medicines. Hell, let them defend themselves. Just dont run to their rescue if needed, after all, its what they want.
Gilbert Ratchet

London, UK

#140 Nov 13, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
East Germany has ceased to exist as a country, but the region that formed the DDR is still called East Germany by many.
Amongst you and your Commie friends perhaps.
rio

UK

#141 Nov 13, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
what is anti-USA is the use of a bare faced lie to explain how the USA ended up with troops on mainland Europe in the first place.
There is no bare-face lie in explaining how the US came to stay in Europe; it's well documented.

When he learnt that Hitler foolishly had declared war on the USA, President Roosevelt is reported to have say: "Like in the last war, the US are dragged in another European conflict they have done their best to avoid. But this time, it will be different: we are going to Europe to stay!"
He was echoing the frustration of many Americans who deplored that for their involvment in WWI in Europe, the USA had gained no strategic advantage.
So, the intention to get a foothold in Europe and influence the policies of client countries was already decided in 1941.
rio

UK

#142 Nov 13, 2012
seth wrote:
I wish the us would leave Europe, let them defend themselves and pay for all that defence. Jusst think at how much money that would save the us taxpayers. Money that could be used at home to build better highways, hydro electric dams, research for new medicines. Hell, let them defend themselves. Just dont run to their rescue if needed, after all, its what they want.
Well, that's exactly what some of your politicians, economists and strategists are saying, isn't it?
I didn't make it up; it makes headlines in US newspapers from time to time.
The truth is that the US are getting deeper and deeper in debts with a spiralling defense budget, most of it spent in Europe where it isn't justified.

“RayHole is a liar!”

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#143 Nov 13, 2012
seth wrote:
I wish the us would leave Europe, let them defend themselves and pay for all that defence. Jusst think at how much money that would save the us taxpayers. Money that could be used at home to build better highways, hydro electric dams, research for new medicines. Hell, let them defend themselves. Just dont run to their rescue if needed, after all, its what they want.
That's a bit short sighted isn't it? After all US trade has allways been best with those countries with which it has military ties.
Just look at Russia, the only countries that trade with them in the middle east now are those that buy Russian arms. or allow Russian naval ships in their ports.
rio

UK

#144 Nov 13, 2012
Gilbert Ratchet wrote:
<quoted text>
Amongst you and your Commie friends perhaps.
Commie friends! WTF

Go to the former West Germany and see how they call the inhabitants of the former DDR: East Germans.
Fred

Amsterdam, Netherlands

#145 Nov 13, 2012
I wonder how many of those fallen would have fought if they had been shown a crystal ball of what these parasites in suits have done to this country?
seth

United States

#146 Nov 13, 2012
ShoeProtestor wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a bit short sighted isn't it? After all US trade has allways been best with those countries with which it has military ties.
Just look at Russia, the only countries that trade with them in the middle east now are those that buy Russian arms. or allow Russian naval ships in their ports.
I never said stop being allies or stop trade. I pretty sure that Europe is capable of defending itself,after all, its what they want, and it would help us also. We are a great nation, but come on man, we cant keep policeing the world.
If our interest or security is truely threatened then we need to do whatever needs to be done to protect ourselves and our way of life. I also think that Europe should be forwarned, that if they are attacked then it their responsibility to protect themselves.

Since: Jul 12

Blackburn, UK

#147 Nov 14, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
dishonest about what?
an extremist? how do you work that one out?
Your posts are deliberately provocative, but to give you some credit, you are not stupid, so I don't need to explain that to you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Waltham Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Courthouse Records Jan 23 healh 1
Tony Nominee Anika Larsen Releases Sing You to ... Jan 17 stevenmiles 1
Protesters prepare - week of resistance' Jan 17 reality is a crutch 1
exterior painting (Jul '13) Jan 15 Dick Grayson 2
Embrace the Quickie: The Sex Secret to a Long a... Jan 10 prince rajput 1
Judge Peter Digangi named " A**-hole of the mon... (Sep '11) Jan 8 scotty 108
Review: Atlantic Clinical Trials LLC Jan 8 a ripped victim 1

Waltham News Video

Waltham Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Waltham People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:49 am PST

Yahoo! Sports11:49AM
League conducts nearly 40 interviews into 'deflate-gate'
NFL11:52 AM
Gronkowski, Darrelle Revis won't take Seahawks' bait
Bleacher Report12:39 PM
NFL, Pats Issue Statements on Deflategate
NBC Sports12:41 PM
Vince Wilfork: Marshawn Lynch "hands down" the best running back in football
NBC Sports12:54 PM
Grigson goes silent on NFL investigation into Patriots