Could you possibly be a bigger suck up/name dropping dweeb - US? In your land of make believe you've convinced yourself everyone's backing your play? Mentioning other posters and lumping them together with yourself just smacks of desperation. Who - clearly and obviously neither quoted your posts, hit the likes button or even followed up with an atta boy. So you are clearly and obviously full of shit. Now you may get back to your regularly scheduled hiney smooching
This is NOT an argument between
@MrNubbz and
@medinabuckeye1 , it is an argument between
@MrNubbz and reality with
@SFBadger96 ,
@847badgerfan ,
@Cincydawg , and
@medinabuckeye1 pointing out reality to refute Nubbz lunatic rantings.
Since our village idiot seems to have immediately forgotten that one of his many false statements was called out by multiple posters, a little review is in order:
In response to a post by
@Cincydawg about the British Empire,
@MrNubbz said:
It was also a stack of cards, Unlike a Republic that turned to free enterprise and manufactured their goods the British mostly invaded others and took their shyt.Their fauntleroys officers mostly because they had some sort of connections to aristocrats got their Tommies filleted in 2 WWs
I took this drivel down point by point, pointing out that, contra "stack of cards":
Britain's empire referred to above as a "stack of cards" was the greatest the world has ever seen and stood more-or-less intact for centuries.
@MrNubbz continuing failure to even so much as reply to the fact that the Empire he referred to as a "stack of cards" lasted more or less intact for centuries gives away that he knows he was wrong there, he just isn't man enough to admit it.
Then I pointed out that contra "invaded others and took their shyt(sic):
Contra "invading others and taking things" every former British possession is VASTLY better off than they would be had they never been colonized or had they been colonized by another power. The British lost their empire not because someone took it but because they couldn't afford to maintain it. Ie, it was absolutely NOT a profitable theft operation as you suggest. Instead the British spent a lot of money improving the areas they controlled and eventually simply couldn't afford such spending.
Once again,
@MrNubbz continuing failure to even so much as address these points gives away the fact that he knows he was wrong here as well and, once again, isn't man enough to admit it.
Then I pointed out that contra the implication that the British Army was incompetent in both World Wars in
@MrNubbz statement that "their fauntleroys officers mostly because they had some sort of connections to aristocrats got their Tommies filleted in 2 WW's":
I have no doubt that the British Army had some incompetent officers who got their positions based upon who they knew rather than what they knew and their ability to command in combat but that is hardly a uniquely British phenomenon, it happens in EVERY army. The British Army acquitted itself quite well in both WWI and WWII. They were clearly and obviously superior man-for-man to the every army involved in WWI with the exception of the Germans and in WWII while they ultimately couldn't match the volume of both men and material that the US and the USSR supplied they stood alone against the Germans for nearly a year from the fall of France until Barbarossa, beat the Germans in the skies over their island, and as late as 81 years ago tomorrow the British took three of the five beaches in Normandy. American forces took two. If their army had been as bad as you think it was, D-Day would not have gone well considering that they handled the lions share of it.
They also kicked Rommell's ass in North Africa and although we Americans eventually showed up and helped finish that off the British Army was so vastly superior to the American Army early in the campaign that the British internally referred to the Americans as "our Italians" referencing the VAST difference in fighting quality between the Germans and their Italian allies. Unlike the Italians, the Americans eventually overcame their early-war deficiencies but that does not negate the fact that in 1942 a British army unit regardless of size (squad, company, division, whatever) was VASTLY superior to a comparably sized American army unit.
That was quickly supported by
@847badgerfan :
One of my best friends is a Brit "Brummy" (his wife's word - she's Welsh) from the wrong side of the track in Birmingham. His father served in WWII and that is a tremendous source of pride for him.
The stories are telling. Those Brits were a fierce lot and a major force to be reckoned with. They don't quit. And yes, we were their "Italians" for the first couple of years.
Then it was supported by
@SFBadger96 :
There is no legitimate argument: the U.S. Army was underequipped, undertrained, and undersized at the beginning of WWII. It addressed all of those things relatively quickly, but per the comment above about the 106th Division in Belgium, the U.S. did not perform very well in Africa when it first arrived. It learned, adapted, and became a more effective fighting force. Experience is a great teacher.
@MrNubbz pathetic attempt at a reply was to point out British withdrawals and failures in 1940, 1941, and 1942. Note that he has ALREADY been told in no uncertain terms by his betters
@847badgerfan ,
@SFBadger96 , and I that the US Army of 1942 was not yet the equal of the British Army and yet he somehow thinks that British failures in that timeframe somehow prove something, I guess? LoL.
What is hilarious is that
@MrNubbz doesn't even realize that he should be embarrassed. It is pathetic but hilarious.
I've realized that
@MrNubbz is unreachable so the purpose of this post isn't to attempt to convince our village idiot it is simply as a waring to the posters who don't know history. Just know that
@MrNubbz posts involving Britain in general and Churchill specifically are almost always wrong. When his factual misstatements are pointed out, unfortunately he isn't man enough to admit to his mistakes so he just goes off on unrelated tangents ranting like a lunatic.
