. said:

FUCK OFF BERITISH CUNTS

USA NUMBER ONE

PRINCESS WILLIAM LICKED THE AL FAYED COCQUE

USA WILL KICK YOURE ASS

\

AustralianCarFancier said:

Why did you go to war?

To "free" Poland.

Was Poland free after the war?

. said:

Nice carrier and all, shame that it didnt stop you from getting your arses kicked out of Vietnam. Some brown people with turbans in Afghanistan are also kicking your arses hard. Meanwhile britain with that little tugboat won its last war - the Falklands.

Britain is getting its ass kicked in the East London Borough of Afghanistan

. said:

Britain is getting its ass kicked in the East London Borough of Afghanistan

AustralianCarFancier said:

AustralianCarFancier said:

You lost world war two.

Why did you go to war?

To "free" Poland.

Was Poland free after the war?

Moniker said:

didn't the brits hand over Manchester to the islamist without firing a shot?

You voted one into the white house.

. said:

That's my cousin Reggie the footballer. Go Reggie!
\

BIPFT said:

Still bad. You don't know what you're doing. Go home.

How about the fact that GBR has nuked any purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter and has decided to let the Harrier continue to limp along.

Brilliant!
\

. said:

Not like you ockers can talk, all you were good for was dying on a bunch of beaches.

Hmmmm not so much in that war

Shiny New Kid said:

Read around a bit. Britain went to war in pursuance of its foreign policy goals in exactly the same way and for the same reasons it had over the previous 400 years. To maintain a balance of power on continental Europe to prevent a challenge to its overseas possessions.

Germany had been the biggest problem the British faced since Napoleonic France, but the solution followed was the same as always. Bring in other allies in a war to bring down the rising power to preserve British supremacy.

Even if the war had followed the same pattern as WW1 with the Germans getting bogged down in France, British foreign policy objectives would have been achieved as the fighting would be on foreign soil, would engage and weaken its actual and potential rivals in overseas territories and would prevent interference by competitors in British interests.

What wasn't foreseen was that France would fall so fast and inflict so little damage on the German military in the process. France was agreed to have the most powerful army in the world in 1939 and was not expected to fall in the way it did.

Beginning a war on continental Europe looked like traditional British foreign policy. Poland was as much a reason for the British going to war in 1939 as Serbian independence was in 1914

So why didnt they declare war a month before they marched into Poland if it didnt matter?

And also, it was Belgian independence that Britain entered the war in 1914 over.

Seriously, dont make such a disrespectful remark as "Read around a bit" when you are so ignorant about everything except Thai child prostitution.

AustralianCarFancier said:

Shiny New Kid said:

Read around a bit. Britain went to war in pursuance of its foreign policy goals in exactly the same way and for the same reasons it had over the previous 400 years. To maintain a balance of power on continental Europe to prevent a challenge to its overseas possessions.

Germany had been the biggest problem the British faced since Napoleonic France, but the solution followed was the same as always. Bring in other allies in a war to bring down the rising power to preserve British supremacy.

Even if the war had followed the same pattern as WW1 with the Germans getting bogged down in France, British foreign policy objectives would have been achieved as the fighting would be on foreign soil, would engage and weaken its actual and potential rivals in overseas territories and would prevent interference by competitors in British interests.

What wasn't foreseen was that France would fall so fast and inflict so little damage on the German military in the process. France was agreed to have the most powerful army in the world in 1939 and was not expected to fall in the way it did.

Beginning a war on continental Europe looked like traditional British foreign policy. Poland was as much a reason for the British going to war in 1939 as Serbian independence was in 1914

So why didnt they declare war a month before they marched into Poland if it didnt matter?

And also, it was Belgian independence that Britain entered the war in 1914 over.

Seriously, dont make such a disrespectful remark as "Read around a bit" when you are so ignorant about everything except Thai child prostitution.

. said:

Was Germany free after the war?

AustralianCarFancier said:

So why didnt they declare war a month before they marched into Poland if it didnt matter?

And also, it was Belgian independence that Britain entered the war in 1914 over.

Seriously, dont make such a disrespectful remark as "Read around a bit" when you are so ignorant about everything except Thai child prostitution.

AustralianCarFancier said:

. said:

Was Germany free after the war?

you trying to make any point there?

. said:

AustralianCarFancier said:

So why didnt they declare war a month before they marched into Poland if it didnt matter?

And also, it was Belgian independence that Britain entered the war in 1914 over.

Seriously, dont make such a disrespectful remark as "Read around a bit" when you are so ignorant about everything except Thai child prostitution.

I heard some on here calling you a pedo too.

Shiny New Kid said:

You seem to have a reading comprehension failure. The fat clogging the arteries to your brain?
\

Shiny New Kid said:

That would explain why he responds with that attack all the time.

AustralianCarFancier said:

Shiny New Kid said:

That would explain why he responds with that attack all the time.

All the time? I have said it twice, and heard you deny it zero times.

. said:

I heard some on here calling you a pedo too.

AustralianCarFancier said:

. said:

I heard some on here calling you a pedo too.

are there any photos posted of me surrounded y third world children?