Reply With Quoteim not sure it would be positive. I think it will be for Italy but the EU uses countries like Italy to keep the Euro artificially weak which benefits its major players like germany.Originally Posted by Threedee
fully immersed in faith..
its the EU's own fault.......they should never have allowed a country to join until it had forsworn communism......
Senior Member
im not sure it would be positive. I think it will be for Italy but the EU uses countries like Italy to keep the Euro artificially weak which benefits its major players like germany.
Canceled
Churchill wanted to use chemical weapons against the Bolsheviks, think how much different the world would have been if he succeeded.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/sh...emical-weaponsA staggering 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial attacks using them began on 27 August 1919, targeting the village of Emtsa, 120 miles south of Archangel. Bolshevik soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood, then collapsed unconscious.
The attacks continued throughout September on many Bolshevik-held villages: Chunova, Vikhtova, Pocha, Chorga, Tavoigor and Zapolki. But the weapons proved less effective than Churchill had hoped, partly because of the damp autumn weather. By September, the attacks were halted then stopped. Two weeks later the remaining weapons were dumped in the White Sea. They remain on the seabed to this day in 40 fathoms of water.
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 05-22-2018 at 06:43 AM.
FUCK THE POLICE (05-24-2018)
Verified User
Italy backslides on most deals. They would prefer to not actually pay all their bills unless they feel like it. Very Trump like in that.
FUCK THE POLICE (05-24-2018), kudzu (05-24-2018)
Senior Member
Italy's biggest problem is it's stifling bureaucracy. EU or not they're fucked because of it.
Lived there for a yr. and hated it.
FUCK THE POLICE (05-24-2018)
cancel2 2022 (05-25-2018)
Canceled
Will you stop with this presentism crap, the past has to judged with the social and political mores of the times. To do otherwise is to be demonstrate an extraordinarily shallow, false and profoundly ignorant view of history.
FUCK THE POLICE (05-24-2018)
Sirthinksalot (05-26-2018)
Verified User
Read what Churchill said about gassing wogs......
911 EVERY DAY
Could you gas Tom first? Thanks.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34
Minister of Truth (05-24-2018)
Canceled
Wogs, haven't heard that in a long long while. He wasn't too fond of Krauts either and he saved our bacon!! How do you imagine D-Day could have happened without the 'unsinkable aircraft carrier'?
Canceled
Hitler had special ovens reserved for ginger wogs!
Canceled
He also gassed Bolsheviks, how do you imagine the history of the world would have changed if that succeeded? Maybe you should take your own advice and read what he actually said!
https://winstonchurchill.org/publica...of-lethal-gas/
Canceled
Yeah tear gas, you dozy bint!
Verified User
Comment: Gas, chemicals, bombs: Britain has used them all ...
www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts
Harris did not use gas himself - though the RAF had employed mustard gas against Bolshevik troops in 1919, while the army had gassed Iraqi rebels in 1920 "with excellent moral effect". Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable".
Churchill, the Kurds and poison gas
www.rudaw.net/english/opinion/02112014
Churchill, the Kurds and poison gas By Raed ... The Kurds then used this slaughter of the Assyrians to assert their dominance over the land here in Iraqi Kurdistan.
BRITISH USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN IRAQ, KILLING KURDS IN THE ...
www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm
British Use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq . ... Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably ... gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral ...
Canceled
So you post some links to biased websites that confirm your own prejudice, big deal.
Canceled
The Germans and French used the full panoply of chemical weapons in WW1, but you only single out Churchill because he used tear gas!! So if the RAF had used bombs on recalcitrant Iraqis you'd have no objection or is it only the Brits you have a problem with?
It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.2
Ten days later, Churchill addressed the India Office’s reluctance to use tear gas against rebel tribesmen on the Northwest Frontier:
Gas is a more merciful weapon than high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war. The moral effect is also very great. There can be no conceivable reason why it should not be resorted to. We have definitely taken the position of maintaining gas as a weapon in future warfare, and it is only ignorance on the part of the Indian military authorities which interposes any obstacle.3
Churchill went on to cite what he saw as a greater good, which in his view made the use of “lachrymatory gas” acceptable: the welfare of soldiers. In all the accounts of his supposed enthusiasm for gas warfare, I have never seen this key minute cited in full:
Having regard to the fact that [the India Office] are retaining all our men, even those who are most entitled to demobilisation, we cannot in any circumstances acquiesce in the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier. If it is fair war for an Afghan to shoot down a British soldier behind a rock and cut him in pieces as he lies wounded on the ground, why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze? It is really too silly.4
Almost always absent from quotations alleging Churchill’s penchant for the use of gas is the above paragraph, and certainly the first part of it. It testifies that Churchill was thinking more broadly, and more humanely, than most: He was thinking of sparing serving soldiers, most of them not volunteers, from ugly deaths by the most grisly and barbarous methods.
The issue of gas came up again after Britain had occupied Mesopotamia, part of the old Ottoman Empire, and was trying to restore order and establish a state, later Iraq— “nation building,” we would call it today. Britain was not securing her oil supply, which had already been achieved elsewhere. Churchill actually considered “Messpot,” as he called it, a huge waste of money. (See David Freeman, “Churchill and the Making of Iraq,” FH 132.)
https://winstonchurchill.org/publica...of-lethal-gas/
Posting Rules
Bookmarks