Questions for our British friends

[seany65]

Originally Posted by countjimmoriarty

Scotchland? Contigents?

Sorry countjimmoriarty, that's just part of my nickname for scotland, the full name being "Chilly wet scotchland".

I was referring to the civil wars that most people think of as "The English Civil wars". The trouble actually started in chilly wet scotchland because some people weren't too happy with some thing or other but others were happy with it and so an argument started and then this turned into a fight and before you know it all parts of the British isles were involved somehow. With english, irish, scots and welsh soldiers on both sides fighting. Mostly fighting in England, but scotland also saw battles.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by palo5

I understand the narrative, but we thought US should never have interfered in SE Asia, and history proves us right. Every time you interfere anywhere, followed by the silly Engländers in some cases, it's a disaster for everyone except your weapons industry

We thought you and perhaps the English, who we were always suspicious of, were "good guys" in WWII. But after killing Hitler, you two wanted another enemy and chose us

What was that for, and why did the English follow you?

As a patriotic U.S. citizen, I thoroughly doubted the wisdom of inserting ourselves into a civil war in Asia. (The conventional wisdom being that the U.S. should never enter a land war in Asia.) Particularly, it was unwise to intervene in a centuries old conflict that had been interrupted by an 800 year guerrilla war to expel the Chinese, and similar intransigence in the face of French and Japanese occupation. (My teen-aged brain reasoned, "These guys will be willing to keep fighting and dying a lot longer than we will.") 60,000+ dead Americans and 2-3 million dead Vietnamese later, I thought we had learned our lesson.

Less than a decade after the United States exited Vietnam with its dignity in tatters, the Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan AKA "the graveyard of empires." Perhaps, the authorities reasoned that a long contiguous border would allow a modern industrial nation to easily overpower a Third World nation. One more name was added to the list of empires come to grief in that god forsaken dust and rock pile inhabited by blood thirsty tribal peoples who only seem to agree that killing each other must cease when there are foreigners to kill instead.

It is to be hoped that our nations are lead by wise and intelligent men capable of absorbing the lessons taught by miscalculations of other leaders. Sadly, I helplessly watched our troops inserted wholly without reason into the 1300 year old Muslim Shiite vs Sunni sectarian conflict shortly after we had commenced upon our own invasion of the above mentioned "graveyard of empires." So, our wise leaders have succeeded in destabilizing the entire Middle East and created a training ground for an entire generation of homicidal fanatics to rain death and destruction on innocent people all over the planet.

I am not receiving much assurance from our recently elected Commander in Chief that he has plans to extricate us from past failed policies. I live in a twelve story building. On most days, I do not trust myself to go to the workout and laundry facilities on the roof.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

Russia hasn't been near ISIS,They're just killing Syrians,Civilians along with the rebels just to keep Their puppet Assad in power.

How would you know? Your fake-news like CNN & BBC don't tell you what's happening. All you're told is drivel, and the worst thing is, you believe it

[Mal Hombre]

You believe Your drivei and I'll believe Mine.

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by palo5

How would you know? Your fake-news like CNN & BBC don't tell you what's happening. All you're told is drivel, and the worst thing is, you believe it

We do get "Russia Today" here. So yes, on balance I do believe the BBC

[rupertramjet]

Originally Posted by palo5

How would you know? Your fake-news like CNN & BBC don't tell you what's happening. All you're told is drivel, and the worst thing is, you believe it

Here we go again!!!!! We know a song about that don't we children?

[palo5]

Originally Posted by bloke57

We do get "Russia Today" here. So yes, on balance I do believe the BBC

I believe them now and then. But often they fake it. Yesterday I saw a BBC report that said "we're the only agency reporting from Mosul", when I'd just switched from a different channel reporting from the same place, and the reports were completely different. The crap they reported about Aleppo & Ukraine was worse. The BBC is an establishment mouthpiece, and always has been

The BBC only had a good name when it was competing with Goebbels. That's the source of the BBC's reputation. Wow!! BBC better than Goebbels -- must have thrilled everyone. But it didn't say the truth or what it knew even then, and that's a fact

On a lighter side, BBC makes good entertainment shows. I don't trash them completely. It's just world news where they're so appalling, like CNN-level

[ultimatewarlord]

Originally Posted by rupertramjet

Here we go again!!!!! We know a song about that don't we children?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25hlLJ8V4LI

[rotobott]

If only we could reach the lowly heights of Russian democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch

Maybe one day

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by palo5

The BBC is an establishment mouthpiece, and always has been

The BBC only had a good name when it was competing with Goebbels. That's the source of the BBC's reputation. But it didn't say what it knew even then, and that's a fact

That's why I do make a point of tuning in to RT sometimes - to get an alternative perspective. I do realise that any organisation, however well intentioned, can have its outlook skewed by history, interests, government pressure etc.

I have learned a thing or two from RT for which I am genuinely grateful - but I am fairly sure that on a worldwide, 24/7 scale the BBC has earned a better reputation than most. Would you at least concede that much?