You know WWII Is Forgotten When

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: danlongman

When is the UK going to apologise for the submarines they sell?

warspite1

No problem.

I would like to sincerely and earnestly apologise for selling our crappy subs to the Canadians. Oh and our crappy aircraft carrier that was deemed not fit for purpose. Boy you really would have thought you would have learned by now.

There. Does that work for you?

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

The thread started about the japanese selling Subs to OZ.

But the US and many other countries have been allowed to sell weapons to Japan for 60 years.[8|][8|][8|][8|][8|]

True . But due to Japan's constitution, they haven't been allowed to.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: danlongman

When is the UK going to apologise for the submarines they sell?

warspite1

No problem.

I would like to sincerely and earnestly apologise for selling our crappy subs to the Canadians. Oh and our crappy aircraft carrier that was deemed not fit for purpose. Boy you really would have thought you would have learned by now.

There. Does that work for you?

Nations were lining up for those boats. There was even a BIG lobby in the USN to buy one as a practice target boat (instead we leased a Swedish one for a year). But of course Canada is "family" so they got 1st dibs. As is fair.

[pontiouspilot]

Thank you Warspite....now could you speak to Cameron about a refund...then we might be able to afford a clapped out carrier. By the wat, the refund won't work unless you can come and get them since I don't think we can take them to play!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: danlongman

When is the UK going to apologise for the submarines they sell?

warspite1

No problem.

I would like to sincerely and earnestly apologise for selling our crappy subs to the Canadians. Oh and our crappy aircraft carrier that was deemed not fit for purpose. Boy you really would have thought you would have learned by now.

There. Does that work for you?

Nations were lining up for those boats. There was even a BIG lobby in the USN to buy one as a practice target boat (instead we leased a Swedish one for a year). But of course Canada is "family" so they got 1st dibs. As is fair.

warspite1

Sadly you can choose your friends but not your family.....





[;)][:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Thank you Warspite....now could you speak to Cameron about a refund...then we might be able to afford a clapped out carrier. By the wat, the refund won't work unless you can come and get them since I don't think we can take them to play!

warspite1

Sure I'll mention it to him next time I'm visiting No.10. Do you want me to mention it to Lizzie too?

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
By the way, your "cited link" makes no sense. Did you just pull a random thread and pretend that linking it here was the same as cited articles on Wikipedia? Because it's not. Citations on Wikipedia get verified.

I cited an example of why wiki is totally unreliable and is considered a joke when pointed to as a source for anything.

That may have been the case ten years ago, it's no longer the case now. I've pointed that out to you. If you don't want to acknowledge that fact, then go ahead and do so.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Thank you Warspite....now could you speak to Cameron about a refund...then we might be able to afford a clapped out carrier. By the wat, the refund won't work unless you can come and get them since I don't think we can take them to play!

warspite1

To be fair, you got your own back - you gave us Greg Rusedski [:(]

Can we have Eugenie Bouchard instead please?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
By the way, your "cited link" makes no sense. Did you just pull a random thread and pretend that linking it here was the same as cited articles on Wikipedia? Because it's not. Citations on Wikipedia get verified.

I cited an example of why wiki is totally unreliable and is considered a joke when pointed to as a source for anything. Link the dam source not wiki if you want people to take you seriously, it isn’t the reader’s job to verify your opinions it is your own. I think you’ll find most people will begin to discount your opinions in scholarly debates if you continually link wiki and try and tout it as a reliable source.

It was relevant because I cited an example that happened here in our own little WitP community and not on some other forum covering a totally different topic. The fact is this stuff happens all the time all over the web. It’s an off-shoot of sock puppetry (people reviewing their own work or hiring people to do it) and is becoming more and more common. In fact I saw a television commercial just the other day for a new online company that was selling their services to “create good content” for their clients. So expect to see more and more of this behavior.

Any open source site like wiki will be inundated with this fraud if these up and coming business ventures find it profitable to sell their false good reviews services to companies that have online identities.

Jim

Wiki is not unreliable. I do agree that you shouldn't cite Wiki itself when you're making an argument, and should check out the source used on Wiki instead. That's common sense.

As for the fake Yelp review and whatnot making its way to Wiki - nope. Wiki's got pretty robust techniques for detecting and removing false information. Every change is logged and reviewed. It might take a couple of days, but errors and false information gets taken care of.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Re the others for which there weren't apologies - I will not rise to that. Remember glass houses and all that...

You asked for a source and I just posted one. As I tried to explain above, my view, impression, call it what you will, has been built up over many years - rightly or wrongly. Maybe the Japanese are getting a bad press... or maybe not. I don't know for certain, but I have a view which I was expressing.

I sincerely hope that your view is correct and Japan are finally behaving correctly and with contrition...

This is an example of reporting bias. You don't see articles about apologies being made because nobody wants to read something that isn't sensational. You do see articles about some bumbling government official with a deranged version of history in his head making stupid claims or some dumb offhand remark. Call it the Outrage Effect. Saying something outrageous causes outrage and gets circulated. Saying something that everyone expects you to say doesn't make any waves.

Saying that Japan should be going around the world, hats in hand, forever more simply because they did bad things 70 years ago is absurd. Obviously, appropriate behavior is expected and that includes expressing (ideally sincere) remorse for doing bad things, but expecting that of them while not expecting that of every country in the history of the world is hypocrisy. Every country has done awful things to other people.

warspite1

But I never said that [&:] The point is, they have said sorry, as the article you yourself supported, confirmed. So far so good. BUT equally that article confirms that there has been plenty of senior politicians and senior military personnel (not just some bumbling civil servant types) who have then watered down - or destroyed - the effects of that apology. If an apology is made and meant and kept to, then:

a) there is no need for repeated apologies for ever more, and
b) there is no room for anyone to attack Japan for not having said sorry - unless, as has been remarked earlier, its all just politics and trouble stirring.

You did say that when you said they needed to continue acting with contrition. Do you know what contrition means?

All you and all these articles ever say is "many politicians and senior personnel" without naming any names. Give specific examples. Saying "plenty of other people said they actually weren't sorry" is anecdotal bullcrap. Then, once specific examples have been given, they can be dissected piece by pathetic piece as to why what that person says doesn't really matter (usually, it's that they're bigoted or insane or otherwise about to be discredited).

[Zorch]

Look here folks - I was making a (very small) joke when I started this thread. You all have strayed into nasty mud slinging, name calling politics...wouldn't surprise me if the moderator locked this thread.

Warspite, sorry but we Yanks have first dibs on Eugenie (being closer and all that).

[geofflambert]

I remember the time I took some Brits and it wasn't even funny. One of them said to me, "I'll give you one magic bean if you give me one acre worth of corn." So I said "I'll give you five acres worth of corn if you give me two magic beans." The other Brit said "My fellow bidder is taking you for an idiot. I'll not disrespect you and will give you one magic bean for six acres worth of corn." I took that deal and made monkeys of those guys. I sure know how to negotiate.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I remember the time I took some Brits and it wasn't even funny. One of them said to me, "I'll give you one magic bean if you give me one acre worth of corn." So I said "I'll give you five acres worth of corn if you give me two magic beans." The other Brit said "My fellow bidder is taking you for an idiot. I'll not disrespect you and will give you one magic bean for six acres worth of corn." I took that deal and made monkeys of those guys. I sure know how to negotiate.

So what's the going rate in magic beans for a British monkey? I presume they still talk with that proper accent of theirs? Or ears of corn? I...wait..uh...huh?

[geofflambert]

Chickenboy, you are certainly one of the greatest dicks of all time, but it wasn't necessary for you to rub it in here. It matters not because all the dirt coming off the laundry kisses the washboard once, and only once, on the way down the drain. Chickenboy has already held his nose shut once and bobbed into oblivion, yet returned. Will he now give us instructions on how to do the same?

[geofflambert]

I realize that was really demented, and don't require the poultry abuser to respond in kind. Happy Independance Day, Canada.

[geofflambert]

OK, just how demented? Lets have a contest, one to ten. Rate post #53. 0 means I'm perfectly reasonable and sane. 10 means I'm a box of "Froot Loops". References to Cap'n Crunch and Lucky Charms will be discarded.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




This is an example of reporting bias. You don't see articles about apologies being made because nobody wants to read something that isn't sensational. You do see articles about some bumbling government official with a deranged version of history in his head making stupid claims or some dumb offhand remark. Call it the Outrage Effect. Saying something outrageous causes outrage and gets circulated. Saying something that everyone expects you to say doesn't make any waves.

Saying that Japan should be going around the world, hats in hand, forever more simply because they did bad things 70 years ago is absurd. Obviously, appropriate behavior is expected and that includes expressing (ideally sincere) remorse for doing bad things, but expecting that of them while not expecting that of every country in the history of the world is hypocrisy. Every country has done awful things to other people.

warspite1

But I never said that [&:] The point is, they have said sorry, as the article you yourself supported, confirmed. So far so good. BUT equally that article confirms that there has been plenty of senior politicians and senior military personnel (not just some bumbling civil servant types) who have then watered down - or destroyed - the effects of that apology. If an apology is made and meant and kept to, then:

a) there is no need for repeated apologies for ever more, and
b) there is no room for anyone to attack Japan for not having said sorry - unless, as has been remarked earlier, its all just politics and trouble stirring.

You did say that when you said they needed to continue acting with contrition. Do you know what contrition means?

All you and all these articles ever say is "many politicians and senior personnel" without naming any names. Give specific examples. Saying "plenty of other people said they actually weren't sorry" is anecdotal bullcrap. Then, once specific examples have been given, they can be dissected piece by pathetic piece as to why what that person says doesn't really matter (usually, it's that they're bigoted or insane or otherwise about to be discredited).

warspite1

Oh good grief here we go [8|]

Do you know what contrition means?
Bullcrap
Piece by pathetic piece.....

Having a sensible grown up debate with you is clearly impossible. I have made quite clear that my opening remark may be incorrect - indeed I hope for the sake of peace in the region that it is. I have made an initial statement based on what I knew at the time. I have not adopted some "line in the sand" position and am quite happy to discuss this to increase my understanding.

Some people in Asia clearly feel that the Japanese have not properly apologised - that is because they either have good reason or because they are trouble-making for political reasons or because they are being fed false information and are under the wrong impression.

May be its one of the above, may be, and more likely, its elements of all three. As I said I have an opinion formed, not through extensive reading of the situation, but through reading of the odd article, news program, tv documentaries down the years. The fact that I - and millions of others in east and west - have that opinion means something has got lost in the translation; the message, for whatever reason, isn't getting out there.

One thing is certain, the Japanese actions in WWII need no further explanation on this forum. Sometimes in life when you have done wrong, you need to go the extra mile to put things right. So yes, if an apology is made and then "someone" says something to reduce the effects or deny that apology, then that does damage. As has been stated previously, it's the latter that gets the airtime (and is picked up by the casual observer e.g. me), it's the latter that gets seized upon by those with a political agenda (e.g. seemingly China). It must be annoying to the Japanese to feel the need to keep apologising, but Japan's crimes were great, and so she needs to ensure the world - and her fellow Asians in particular - understand her position. The Germans do not feel the need to keep apologising - but then her position is crystal clear.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Look here folks - I was making a (very small) joke when I started this thread. You all have strayed into nasty mud slinging, name calling politics...wouldn't surprise me if the moderator locked this thread.

Warspite, sorry but we Yanks have first dibs on Eugenie (being closer and all that).

warspite1

Some of us were trying to have an interesting debate.....

Re the more important issue of Eugenie, oh no you don't. You lot came over here in 1942 stealing all our women, you're not doing that again. Besides, we need a decent female tennis player in this country. Eugenie even has a royal name, she's definitely British deep down [;)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I remember the time I took some Brits and it wasn't even funny. One of them said to me, "I'll give you one magic bean if you give me one acre worth of corn." So I said "I'll give you five acres worth of corn if you give me two magic beans." The other Brit said "My fellow bidder is taking you for an idiot. I'll not disrespect you and will give you one magic bean for six acres worth of corn." I took that deal and made monkeys of those guys. I sure know how to negotiate.

warspite1

Did you handle the London Bridge transaction too per chance?

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: danlongman

I remember a story somebody told me a long time ago, long before the novel "The Mouse That Roared".
It seems a man was visiting another town an he pulled into a gas station and asked the cashier "What are the folks like around here?"
The cashier replied "What are they like at home?"
The visitor said, "Well they are a bunch of shifty, no good, lazy, lying bums."
The cashier said, "Yup. I think you will find folks around here are like that too."
Later on another visitor came in. "What are the folks like around here?," he asked.
Once again the cashier responded "What are they like at home?"
The visitor said "They are real friendly, industrious and honest folks."
The cashier said "Yup. I think you will find folks around here are like that too."
My experiences in Europe and North America have been a lot like that.
The Brits sell crappy submarines.

Maybe you are correct , I wouldn't know , as I've never bought one. But if you are talking about hunting them , then I spent most of my life hunting them. And I can say with NO equivocation , that the most difficult to find submarines were always British. Maybe that's the crew, but they were very quiet. Quiet is not something you find in a junker submarine usually. So maybe your right , and they sell crappy submarines. Then that must make them the absolute best sub drivers that I've ever encountered. Some how that doesn't feel right. They are among the best , but not necessarily head and shoulders above the best. Except for the Unseen class , I've never heard of anyone complaining about their boats. Not South Africans, Chileans or Australians. Only the Canadians seem to have a problem. And they didn't have a problem with the Oberons. I know , as I've talked to crews from each of the afore mentioned subs. And when I hunted "Unseen" boats (still under the British flag) they didn't seem to have any problems. They were VERY quiet , and frankly drove us nuts.


So I guess your right, the Brits build crappy boats, eh? [:D]

[:D]