• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Successful Actress Meghan Markle to Wed Former Soldier!

Waddy said:
He also thought up the Gallipoli campaign. And he thought Italy was the "soft underbelly" of Europe. Monte Cassino and Anzio were the result. Churchill was a bulldog but hardly a great thinker.
Click to expand...

He also was the first big proponent of tanks...and the first to conceptualize tank landing ships as far back as 1917...and his ideas were used in the design of our LSTs in WWII.

What's more, Gallipoli was not conducted in accordance to his plans - Churchill wanted the ships (almost all of which were relatively older capital ships) to run through the minefields in order to achieve surprise and take the Dardanelles - instead, the admirals and captains refused to risk their ships, and waited for two months for minesweepers to arrive...by which time the Turks were able to fortify the heights above the landing zones. But even though it was the Navy brass who had refused to follow his orders, he still received the blame.

When it came to Monte Cassino and Anzio, those were NOT Churchill's choices - he had wanted to attack through Greece and the Balkan states in order to keep the Soviets from taking them. He lobbied hard for attacking through Greece (and it was Greece and the Balkans that he referred to as the "soft underbelly of Europe", btw) It was us - the Americans - who made the decision to attack through Italy.

Don't get me wrong - Churchill was as human as anyone else - he made his mistakes, too (for instance, he is blamed for an essentially man-made famine in India)...but it would be difficult to find any world leader during the 20th Century who was as influential (in a good way) as Churchill was.
 
Sweden said:
Do your own research. Or not. The choice is yours.
Click to expand...

Wrong! YOU made the claim, and I'm calling you on it - YOU have to prove your claim. You cannot make a claim and then expect your opponent to prove it for you - that's a logical fallacy.

Or is it that you thought up something that you wanted to believe...but now you can't find anything to back up what you wanted to believe, and so you tried to trick me into doing YOUR work for you? It's on YOU, guy - not me. Back up your claim...or simply accept that you were flat wrong.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Wrong! YOU made the claim, and I'm calling you on it - YOU have to prove your claim. You cannot make a claim and then expect your opponent to prove it for you - that's a logical fallacy.

Or is it that you thought up something that you wanted to believe...but now you can't find anything to back up what you wanted to believe, and so you tried to trick me into doing YOUR work for you? It's on YOU, guy - not me. Back up your claim...or simply accept that you were flat wrong.
Click to expand...

Its like this; it is a matter of indifference to me what what you choose to believe. You are not 'my opponent'; this is not a contest.
 
Sweden said:
Its like this; it is a matter of indifference to me what what you choose to believe. You are not 'my opponent'; this is not a contest.
Click to expand...

You made the claim...but you're not being man enough to back it up with proof.

That's the difference between you and me - when I make a claim, I can back it up with good references...and if I can't, I'm man enough to apologize, even if the one I apologize to is someone I don't like.

Be man enough to back up your claim...or be courageous enough to admit that you can't back it up.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
He also was the first big proponent of tanks...and the first to conceptualize tank landing ships as far back as 1917...and his ideas were used in the design of our LSTs in WWII.

What's more, Gallipoli was not conducted in accordance to his plans - Churchill wanted the ships (almost all of which were relatively older capital ships) to run through the minefields in order to achieve surprise and take the Dardanelles - instead, the admirals and captains refused to risk their ships, and waited for two months for minesweepers to arrive...by which time the Turks were able to fortify the heights above the landing zones. But even though it was the Navy brass who had refused to follow his orders, he still received the blame.

When it came to Monte Cassino and Anzio, those were NOT Churchill's choices - he had wanted to attack through Greece and the Balkan states in order to keep the Soviets from taking them. He lobbied hard for attacking through Greece (and it was Greece and the Balkans that he referred to as the "soft underbelly of Europe", btw) It was us - the Americans - who made the decision to attack through Italy.

Don't get me wrong - Churchill was as human as anyone else - he made his mistakes, too (for instance, he is blamed for an essentially man-made famine in India)...but it would be difficult to find any world leader during the 20th Century who was as influential (in a good way) as Churchill was.
Click to expand...

Yes, Churchill was an early proponent of tanks, but favored the British and French practice of placing them on a long defensive line in support of infantry. It took the Germans, under people like Manstein and Guderian, to use tanks effectively by deploying mass columns of tanks attacking weak spots along the line. That is why the Germans won the battle of France against superior numbers of Allied armor. After Gallopoli disaster, with the snail's pace movement of men and supplies being carried by hand onto shore, many people realized the need for specialized landing craft.

And it wasn't that his plans weren't followed to the letter in either Galloppoli in WWl or Italy in WWll; regardless of the "plan", Churchill consistently underestimated terrain and enemy capability. The British did try to run the straits in WWl with disastrous results, underestimated the Turks, and didn't appreciate how difficult the terrain. Both the Balkans and Greece have terrain similar to Italy, so a comparison of Churchill's idea of a "soft underbelly" is appropriate. During WWll in Italy, with one mountain range after another, was hardly a "soft underbelly", but ideal for defense against the army capabilities of that time period. Fighting in the Balkans would have been no different.

Attacking the strait;

"The attack, planned throughout the winter of 1915, opened on March 18, 1915, when six English and four French battleships headed toward the strait.

The Turks were aware that an Allied naval attack on the strait was a strong possibility, and with German help, had greatly improved their defenses in the region. Though the Allies had bombarded and destroyed the Turkish forts near the entrance to the Dardanelles in the days leading up to the attack, the water was heavily mined, forcing the Allied navy to sweep the area before its fleet could set forth. However, the minesweepers did not manage to clear the area completely: Three of the 10 Allied battleships (Britain’s Irresistible and Ocean, and France’s Bouvet) were sunk, and two more were badly damaged.

With half the fleet out of commission, the remaining ships were pulled back. Though Churchill argued for the attack to be renewed the next day, claiming, erroneously as it turned out, that the Turks were running low on munitions, the Allied war command opted to delay the naval attack at the Dardanelles and combine it with a ground invasion of the Gallipoli Peninsula, which bordered the northern side of the strait."

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/dardanelles-campaign

As you can see, the Turks fortified the region before the British ever attacked, with German assistance.

Churchill doubled down even when he was wrong. That's the bulldog in him.

For the sake of limiting thread drift, if this discussion were to continue it probably needs it's own thread.
 
worksforpigs said:
No the fiancee is the culmination of those issues. That's what I'm referring to. His choice.
Click to expand...

That's the point. His choice - not yours or mine. At one step removed it is up to the Brit public to decide whether or not they will like MM - not you, so but outwards (if I've got that Amicanism right).
 
Sweden said:
That's the point. His choice - not yours or mine. At one step removed it is up to the Brit public to decide whether or not they will like MM - not you, so but outwards (if I've got that Amicanism right).
Click to expand...

I'm talking about HIS poor choices, not someone else's opinion of them.

His choice is a disaster but the Royal Family is probably too PC to admit it in public.
 
worksforpigs said:
I'm talking about HIS poor choices, not someone else's opinion of them.

His choice is a disaster but the Royal Family is probably too PC to admit it in public.
Click to expand...

But that IS someone else's opinion - to be precise yours. Which is, I am afraid, totally irrelevant. I think the public - that's the British public - will love Markle. A sort of intelligent sane Diana substitute.
 
worksforpigs said:
I'm talking about HIS poor choices, not someone else's opinion of them.

His choice is a disaster but the Royal Family is probably too PC to admit it in public.
Click to expand...

Why is his choice a disaster? Specifics please.
 
Sweden said:
What has the to do with the very bright Ms Markle? Why should we be horrified? Answer in your own words. You may write on both sides of the paper. You have 48 hours starting NOW.
Click to expand...

It's obvious what the poster is suggesting.

Meghan is of African-American and white heritage, so is set to become the first mixed-race member of the British Royal Family, with her and Prince Harry the first interracial royal couple. White supremacists could not possibly accept that a senior royal can love, and marry, someone whose ethnic heritage is different to his own. Their heads will be exploding.
 
Serenity said:
It's obvious what the poster is suggesting.

Meghan is of African-American and white heritage, so is set to become the first mixed-race member of the British Royal Family, with her and Prince Harry the first interracial royal couple. White supremacists could not possibly accept that a senior royal can love, and marry, someone whose ethnic heritage is different to his own. Their heads will be exploding.
Click to expand...


As the Queen was instrumental in throwing out South Africa from the Commonwealth, and is an on the record anti racist I am sure HM approves of her grandsons fiancé. And yes, you have that poster pegged correctly, his intent is obvious, and his ignorance of the British Royal Family is glaring. It will be a smaller affair at Windsor Chapel as I expected. Diana would be proud of her sons, her and Charles have brought up fine young men.
 
Serenity said:
It's obvious what the poster is suggesting.

Meghan is of African-American and white heritage, so is set to become the first mixed-race member of the British Royal Family, with her and Prince Harry the first interracial royal couple. White supremacists could not possibly accept that a senior royal can love, and marry, someone whose ethnic heritage is different to his own. Their heads will be exploding.
Click to expand...

I think there are few 'white supremacists' in the UK. They will be massively out numbered by those who think that it is a positive advantage to have an 'ethnic' addition to the royal family.

There is a 'race' problem in the UK. In particular there is concern that the African communities do better, socially and educationally, than those from the Caribbean, too many o whom under-achieve.

But as seen this last week by the famous Trump re-tweets of Britain First video clips the far more serious issue is nothing to do with 'race' but is a result of the failure of very large numbers of Muslims to integrate and the criminalisation of those who draw attention to it.

I do not believe 'races' actually exist; but incompatible cultures certainly do, and intolerant absolutist Islam is one of them. So I am perfectly happy that Harry is to marry a 'woman of colour' (I think that is the current PC approved term) but would not be if he married a rosy-cheeked pure white Muslim.
 
Sweden said:
I think there are few 'white supremacists' in the UK. They will be massively out numbered by those who think that it is a positive advantage to have an 'ethnic' addition to the royal family.

There is a 'race' problem in the UK. In particular there is concern that the African communities do better, socially and educationally, than those from the Caribbean, too many o whom under-achieve.

But as seen this last week by the famous Trump re-tweets of Britain First video clips the far more serious issue is nothing to do with 'race' but is a result of the failure of very large numbers of Muslims to integrate and the criminalisation of those who draw attention to it.

I do not believe 'races' actually exist; but incompatible cultures certainly do, and intolerant absolutist Islam is one of them. So I am perfectly happy that Harry is to marry a 'woman of colour' (I think that is the current PC approved term) but would not be if he married a rosy-cheeked pure white Muslim.
Click to expand...

I have seen a few of her inspirational stories that she told. She's extremely intelligent and highly articulate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom