Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 12, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 33

Northern Ireland youth and the Union Flag

:iconunclegargy:
UncleGargy Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
What a load of prats! The council that is. It was all going so well and the council decided to only fly the flag for a few days a year. They must have known that the bored unemployed youths would use this as an excuse to go on the rampage.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconrobstrand:
RobStrand Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
What is this another riot brewing in Ireland? As soon as one stops another one starts.

Did your taps run dry again?
Reply
:iconmacker33:
macker33 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Give it a few weeks and it'll be all forgotten about.
Just wait until they decide to start flying the tricolour.
Reply
:iconunclegargy:
UncleGargy Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Just sad that some people use it as an excuse to attack others. They've tried to petrol bomb residential houses and hijack buses :-(
Reply
:iconmacker33:
macker33 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
They were burning residential homes in 1969 as well.

The last thing the north needs right now is people poking each other with sticks, It'll blow over.
Reply
:iconunclegargy:
UncleGargy Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I hope you're right.
Reply
:iconcouchycreature:
CouchyCreature Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Shouldn't this topic be in the politics forum? Or is there some philosophical or religious question tucked away in here that I have missed?
Reply
:iconunclegargy:
UncleGargy Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
It's religious politics.
Reply
:iconder-freishutz:
der-freishutz Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
northern ireland should get their shit together and make ireland independant so all those folk songs you wrote in the 70's actually mean something.
Reply
:iconunclegargy:
UncleGargy Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
They will always find someone to fight with...
Reply
:iconorangekrissy:
OrangeKrissy Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013
Let's see, how many British died so that they could fly their flag over the US? And if you remember, you got your butts handed to you on a platter. So before you go off on the Irish for anything, just look in your own back yard. At least our rulers don't marry gold diggers like Katey or Diana, God rest her soul.
Reply
:iconunclegargy:
UncleGargy Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Well in a few years this is the way the USA will be thought of with all its illegal wars in the middle East. Mud sticks!
Reply
:iconorangekrissy:
OrangeKrissy Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013
I'm not talking the USA, I'm talking Ireland. It's not perfect, but it's home.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013
Someone needs to learn their history. For example, are you aware that Britain actually won more battles than they lost in the war or that technically the war of independence was a stalemate? (you couldn't kick us out of the North East). How about you needed the FRENCH and Spanish to help you or that you almost lost it on 2 or 3 occassions or... I think you get the idea.

Also this is IRISH fighting other IRISH and it IS in our back yard so yeh, we are looking there.

You do win 1st prize pillock of the day though so enjoy :)
Reply
:iconorangekrissy:
OrangeKrissy Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
Admittedly, I'm not up that much on USA history 101. But just remember, you lost there and then they came back and saved Britain's ass during WWII. Funny how former enemies can now be allies. Since when did England care about Ireland?
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
No the USA never saved our arse during WW2. We won the battle of Britain without the USA and Hitler was beaten by the USSR, not the USA. All the USA mdid was speed up the inevitable. You are right, you are not much on oyur history.

England has cared about Ireland for quite a while. Ireland is our neighbour and the events going on there are therefore important.
Reply
:iconvictorianexcentric:
VictorianExcentric Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
The USSR would have lost against the Nazi's without the support of the US. I am somewhat sympathetic to your overal theme, but we have to acknowledge that:

1. Speaking of history. Given the USSR precipitated the start of WWII, by agreeing with Hitler to split Poland according to the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, I would state that the USSR didn't win WWII, they caused it as an unduly agressive and dishonest nation.
2. Without the continued economic and later military support of the USA, Europe would have fallen to Nazism. And Russia would have lost. The US invested massively into supporting "Uncle Joe". Stalin was dependant on the US
3. The treatment European countries received after being liberated by the USA is orders of magnitude better than the treatment European countries received after being "liberated" by the USSR.

All in all, we should grant the US a pivotal role in WWII, as well as recognize that they treated us (I am from Europe originally) rather well in the aftermath. Now that doesn't mean we "owe" them, no more than they thought they owed the French for the US independance war. And the yanks can be annoying in their boasting which often make it sound that they won WWII single handedly, which is where I am slightly sympathetic to your argument, but I feel you are erring a little too far to the other extreme.

VE
Reply
:iconvictorianexcentric:
VictorianExcentric Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
1. I just think saying the USSR defeated Germany is an oversimplification whose goal can be miscontrued to diminish the key role the USA had (after all, you did write this, Hitler was beaten by the USSR, not the USA , which I think in light of the north african campaign, the italy invasion and D-day has to be stated as being somewhat erroneous).

At the end of the day, the only "truth" is that the allies defeated the axis. The allies doesn't refer to any specific nation, but indeed to the coalition of nations. So if we want to argue over who won wwii, it is exactly these people, [link] . And every other argument beyond this, by yanks or brits alike, reeks of ill-placed nationalism.

2. Europe was falling to Nazism, but Portugal, Switzerland, part of France (albeit under Vichy) alongside Britain were not under nazi control yet when the US joined the war. As a sidenote, I always found the Brit as severely lacking in thankfulness for the sacrifices the French army did to allow them to retreat across the channel during the battle of Dunkirk. A reminder that we all have blindspots when it comes to acknowledging other's role in saving our ass. As for this, I don't believe the Germans would have been able to bring about the total defeat of the USSR. Factory production had already been shifted East by the time the Germans reached Stalingrad. Couple that with the Russian winter and poor German supplies and you have a situation where Germany advancing even further East would have actually weakened them even more. They would have ground to a halt either way. , by the time you refer here, the Russians were functionning on ammo, supplies, food that were provided to them by the US. Without these supplies, Russia would not have succeeded in maintaining its war effort. Again, don't overstate the case, and don't underestimate how much the help from the US actually allowed countries to maintain the war effort.

3. Good thing to. And cause for us to have some thankfulness, even if that is irrelevant to modern politics.

I have never taken anything away from the US contribution, I just don't see the need to blow it out of proportion, especially to the extent of expecting anyone from Europe to be eternally grateful to them for saving Europe as if they were the only ones involved.

As I said, I understand that, and to a good degree, I agree. As I said, the Yanks, as the Brits, tend to have a very personally heroic view of wwii.

And of course, nobody expect eternal gratitude. The classical exemple is how the Americans refused to help the French when their nation was under attack from revulsive foreigners intent on installing a tyrant at its head, and that irrespective of the help it had received during its revolutionary war. So, that is pretty universal, countries don't have friends, they have interest.

But my criticism of your argumentation is simply aimed at pointing out that while making a reasonable point, you may have overstated your case a little. By doing so, in a way, you weaken your argument by giving room for someone to pick at it,especially if claiming Hitler was beaten by the USSR, not the USA (which I consider to be factually incorrect).

As for arguments between Brits and Irish, you are on your own. I am gonna stay out of that pitbull fight, you never know when they are gonna turn on you.

VE.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
1. "Winning" simply meaning bringing about the destruction of the Axis powers. I don't think the USSR was any better than Nazi Germany and it would have been good if both had ceased to exist at the end of WW2.

2. Europe had already fallen to Nazism, the question was whether Britain would have and I say it wouldn't. We had beaten the Germans prior to the lend-lease programme. Infact without us surviving by ourselves there would have been no western front and all of Europe would have ended up controlled by the Nazis or the USSR. Stalin certainly received a lot of help from the USA in material aid but this ignores the massive manufacturing power of the USSR. I don't believe the Germans would have been able to bring about the total defeat of the USSR. Factory production had already been shifted East by the time the Germans reached Stalingrad. Couple that with the Russian winter and poor German supplies and you have a situation where Germany advancing even further East would have actually weakened them even more. They would have ground to a halt either way.

3. Never disputed that. The Americans were certainly the driving force of the post WW2 reconstruction but that wasn't the topic in question.

I have never taken anything away from the US contribution, I just don't see the need to blow it out of proportion, especially to the extent of expecting anyone from Europe to be eternally grateful to them for saving Europe as if they were the only ones involved. You say I am erring to the other extreme but if you look through my posts can you actually point out anything I've said that was factually incorrect? I'm merely correcting this Irish woman's anti-British prejudice and atrocious knowledge of history.
Reply
:iconvictorianexcentric:
VictorianExcentric Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
--oops, posted the first reply at the wrong spot, here is a redo.

1. I just think saying the USSR defeated Germany is an oversimplification whose goal can be miscontrued to diminish the key role the USA had (after all, you did write this, Hitler was beaten by the USSR, not the USA , which I think in light of the north african campaign, the italy invasion and D-day has to be stated as being somewhat erroneous). At the end of the day, the only "truth" is that the allies defeated the axis. The allies doesn't refer to any specific nation, but indeed to the coalition of nations. So if we want to argue over who won wwii, it is exactly these people, [link] . And most other argument beyond this, smells of ill-placed nationalism (it does mean it always is, but one should carefully evaluate such statement in view of their cultural biases).

2. Europe was falling to Nazism, but Portugal, Switzerland, part of France (albeit under Vichy) alongside Britain were not under full nazi control yet when the US joined the war. As a sidenote, I always found the Brit as severely lacking in thankfulness for the sacrifices the French army did to allow them to retreat across the channel during the battle of Dunkirk. A reminder that we all have blindspots when it comes to acknowledging other's role in saving our ass. As for this, I don't believe the Germans would have been able to bring about the total defeat of the USSR. Factory production had already been shifted East by the time the Germans reached Stalingrad. Couple that with the Russian winter and poor German supplies and you have a situation where Germany advancing even further East would have actually weakened them even more. They would have ground to a halt either way. by the date in wwii you refer here, the Russians were functioning on ammo, supplies, food that were provided to them by the US. Without these supplies, Russia would not have succeeded in maintaining its war effort. Again, don't overstate the case, and don't underestimate how much the help from the US actually allowed countries to maintain the war effort.

3. Good thing to. And cause for us to have some thankfulness, even if that is irrelevant to modern politics.

I have never taken anything away from the US contribution, I just don't see the need to blow it out of proportion, especially to the extent of expecting anyone from Europe to be eternally grateful to them for saving Europe as if they were the only ones involved.

As I said, I understand that, and to a good degree, I agree. As I said, the Yanks, as the Brits, tend to have a very personally heroic view of wwii. And of course, nobody expect eternal gratitude. The classical exemple is how the Americans refused to help the French when their nation was under attack from revulsive foreigners intent on installing a tyrant at its head, and that irrespective of the help it had received during its revolutionary war. So, that is pretty universal, countries don't have friends, they have interest.

But my criticism of your argumentation is simply aimed at pointing out that while making a reasonable point, you may have overstated your case a little. By doing so, in a way, you weaken your argument by giving room for someone to pick at it, especially if claiming Hitler was beaten by the USSR, not the USA (which I consider to be factually incorrect).

As for arguments between Brits and Irish, you are on your own. I am gonna stay out of that dogfight.

VE.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
As for the Brits and Irish thing, yeh it's probably for the best you stay out of that one. Makes a change though, I've encountered some Americans (not on here) who seem to think they are Irish. I swear practically every other American seems to think they are descended from some great Irish lineage. I've never understood that.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
1. Well the fact is that the USSR bore the vast majority of the brunt of the Nazi war machine and was also responsible for the most damage to the Germany army both in material terms and manpower. I know the USA helped the USSR but as I've said, Russian manufacturing was as high as ever as it had been relocated East and in order to get to it, the Germans would have had to stretch their already overstretched supply lines. Their poor supply was their main weakness at Stalingrad and it would have been made even move obvious if they ploughed even further East. To that extent I feel I am correct. You don't say someone supplying trucks won the war, you say the people who did the fighting won it. The US helped the USSR but it was the USSR that broke the German army.

2. Those places you mentioned were saved from Nazism because the Nazis had no reason to invade them. Portugal was surrounded by Spain and General Franco was a "friend" of Germany but technically neutral. Going through Spain to get to the Portugese who didn't pose any threat or benefit would have been a waste of time. Switzerland has terrible terrain to fight in and also was neutral. Again there was little to gain and much to lose. As for Russia being unable to sustain the war effort, I don't think it is as inevitable as you make out. The vast majority of US support for the USSR was logistics (trucks and trains). These are helpful certainly but they don't win wars. It was primarily Russian equipment that was used to fight the Germans and it was American equipment that was used to assist the logistics.

3. I may have overstated my case a little but primarily this is due to the "USA saved your arses" mentality I got from this girl. Just pointing out we saved our own arses as did the Russians. The USA provided help but it was most useful for when we had turned the way the war was going and begun attacking.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconorangekrissy:
OrangeKrissy Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
Are you fucking kidding me? Without all the lend lease stuff the US sent you and the war supplies and convoys you would have been beaten solid. To deny that you must be some proud bastard who thinks England is invincible. What an idiot. The USSR didn't come in til the end and only because Hitler had to spread himself over too many fronts.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
Again I must educate you in history. The Battle of Britain finished before the end of 1940. Lend-lease started in 1941 AFTER we had already given Hitler his first defeat. I suggest you get rid of your anti-British chip on your shoulder and pay attention to the facts. Had Britain lost the battle of Britain then the entire campaign on the western front would have been impossible and Europe would have been dominated by the Nazis or USSR. It's because we survived by ourselves that D-Day was even possible.

I guess you also didn't realise that the offer to unify Ireland in exchange for you joining the war against the Nazis was refused.

The USSR didn't come in at the end, they had the longest period of sustained fighting of any of the allies and also bore the brunt of the German army (something like 70%+ of all German forces). By the time of D-Day the USSR had already stopped the German advance at Stalingrad and were charging back across Europe. The USA were the last nation to see fighting in Europe and they didn't even form the majority of the fighting forces until quite some time after D-Day (British and Commonwealth forces were the majority).

If you are going to try to argue then actually learn what you are talking about. Your anti-British rhetoric will not pass for "evidence" here.
Reply
:iconcruorvylkas:
cruorvylkas Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
Um, Rager is right. The US was a very, very, VERY late comer to the war and by then the tide was turning, albeit slowly. The US made no difference overmuch in Europe; Hitler's own ego and the Underground and mainly the Russian's duping the German's helped more than the US did.

All the US did was take care of Japan; had Japan not attacked the US, they still would'a sat back, thumbs up their butts, watching everything go to shit. Wouldn't surprise me if they had plans to make their own moves to pick up the pieces and have bits of Europe "owe" them for the help...

Actually, lookie there, it happened anyway inasmuch as the US likes to think it was them that turned the tide of the war and that Europe and the other Allies should "Thank" them for it.
Reply
:iconvictorianexcentric:
VictorianExcentric Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Actually, it is quite inaccurate. The US military and economic help support the USSR. Without that help, they would have fallen quickly to the Russians. That slowed Nazi Germany's progres to a crawl, but at best created a stalemate.

It is the opening of a western front, combined with the loss of the important resources of North Africa are the pivotal point where Germany started losing.

I think it is also important that the Russians started WWII in full agreement and cooperation with Germany. I consider them as much part of the cause/offenders of WWII as the axis, see [link] and [link] .

VE.
Reply
:iconorangekrissy:
OrangeKrissy Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
Are you kidding? Do you know how much in supplies the US shipped to England? How many of it's ships were torpedoed with supplies meant for England's war effort and some even sunk within miles of the US shoreline? The US sent planes when the Spitfires were few, tanks, trucks, jeeps, ammunition and guns. I know the English like to think they handled it on their own but let's face it, the UK does not have a lot of natural resources and depends in imports. Without the hedp of the US England would eventually fold.
Reply
:iconcruorvylkas:
cruorvylkas Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013
Not saying the US didn't help, but it is NOT thanks to the US that the war was won. Sorry, read your history... no, check that, read some actual unbiased history.

Other countries were in the war long, LONG before the US and had been slugging it out since the start. The US joined in '41 only AFTER the attack on PH. Had PH NOT been attacked, the US would have kept out of the fight much longer.

Helping out does NOT mean "it's cause of us you won!". BTW, the US has a great habit of doing that - helping out - but not always with the right side; in WW2, , it was forced to pick the right side.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconpakaku:
Pakaku Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013
angst, much?
Reply
:iconpakaku:
Pakaku Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013
It's just a flag, who gives a shit
Reply
:iconunclegargy:
UncleGargy Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
That's the thing! Just a flag. They are getting thousands of pounds of damage, 29 officers hurt all for a flag! If people end up dying over this the council should be sued!
Reply
Add a Comment: