Do you ever change your opinion?

[LadyOnArooftop]

In a windswept caravan in Perth, my Easter break 'companion' and I, were discussing the conflict in Ukraine (we know how to enjoy ourselves ) I put forward the argument that if the West hadn't been supplying Ukraine with weapons, this conflict would have been over in days, instead it's going to drag on and on... The riposte comeback was... When Britain stood alone at the start of WW2, America sent us ships, weapons and all kinds of supplies, what if they had taken the same stance I was arguing for, where would we be now? I had no answer to that, so I'm coming round to thinking maybe I was wrong, and that we should give them all the weapons they want...
Anything you've changed your mind about? Feel free to share...

 

[Moriarty]

Lady, the two situations are very different.

America sold us weapons, traded our overseas ports for ships (which were out of date ships barely capable of convoy escort duty) and made demands on our government and navy to assist in the Pacific.
We didnt actually clear our debt to the USA for war materials until 2006 with our last payment of £42 million and change.
Our original debt to the USA was $4.3 billion, we paid back almost twice that.

Originally American support for the UK in World War 2 was based on trade agreements which were long standing.
When we actually declared war on Germany, America stayed nuetral, they continued to supply both sides of the conflict.

Canada helped out the UK with convoy escort duties in the western pacific, the USA only protected convoys out to international waters until after 1941 and Pearl Harbour when America officially joined the war.
Although it was Hilter who declared war on America, not the other way round.

(Silly note, thats how Tango was created, Germany could no longer get the ingredients for the Coca Cola factories in Germany, so they used what they could get and created Tango instead)

The UK has tri-lateral treaties with Poland and Ukraine on military co-operation, not defence, but they are intentionally vague and spurious.

They are vague because we know full well that the UK and the EU cannot actually defeat Russia without the threat of nuclear or Biochemical weapons being used.

Ukraine is being supplied weapons and materials for war free of charge, which is how they get round the international laws of supplying weapons to a war zone.

They are not selling them.

It's a loophole in the law which allows the USA, UK and the EU to equip Ukraine and thereby force Russia to expend more money in it's invasion.

I would argue however, that simply by supplying a country weapons free of charge to help defeat another country, that puts us in a state of war.
Materials, whether Missiles, aircraft, or people are the resposibility of the supplying state if they are used because they were not purchased which allows international law to judge it legal or not.

In essence, that means we are at war with Russia by proxy and by choice.

So although America supplied us war materials, we paid for them.
That was the reason Hitler eventually declared war on the USA.
Because the USA was selling materials to the UK.

In Ukraine we are prolonging a war because we are giving Ukraine the tools to fight.
If we sold them the munitions we would be in breach of international law.

Selling to and giving to are very different things under law.

 

[hell2bwith76]

Lady, the two situations are very different.

America sold us weapons, traded our overseas ports for ships (which were out of date ships barely capable of convoy escort duty) and made demands on our government and navy to assist in the Pacific.
We didnt actually clear our debt to the USA for war materials until 2006 with our last payment of £42 million and change.
Our original debt to the USA was $4.3 billion, we paid back almost twice that.

Originally American support for the UK in World War 2 was based on trade agreements which were long standing.
When we actually declared war on Germany, America stayed nuetral, they continued to supply both sides of the conflict.

Canada helped out the UK with convoy escort duties in the western pacific, the USA only protected convoys out to international waters until after 1941 and Pearl Harbour when America officially joined the war.
Although it was Hilter who declared war on America, not the other way round.

(Silly note, thats how Tango was created, Germany could no longer get the ingredients for the Coca Cola factories in Germany, so they used what they could get and created Tango instead)

The UK has tri-lateral treaties with Poland and Ukraine on military co-operation, not defence, but they are intentionally vague and spurious.

They are vague because we know full well that the UK and the EU cannot actually defeat Russia without the threat of nuclear or Biochemical weapons being used.

Ukraine is being supplied weapons and materials for war free of charge, which is how they get round the international laws of supplying weapons to a war zone.

They are not selling them.

It's a loophole in the law which allows the USA, UK and the EU to equip Ukraine and thereby force Russia to expend more money in it's invasion.

I would argue however, that simply by supplying a country weapons free of charge to help defeat another country, that puts us in a state of war.
Materials, whether Missiles, aircraft, or people are the resposibility of the supplying state if they are used because they were not purchased which allows international law to judge it legal or not.

In essence, that means we are at war with Russia by proxy and by choice.

So although America supplied us war materials, we paid for them.
That was the reason Hitler eventually declared war on the USA.
Because the USA was selling materials to the UK.

In Ukraine we are prolonging a war because we are giving Ukraine the tools to fight.
If we sold them the munitions we would be in breach of international law.

Selling to and giving to are very different things under law.

I wish you would tell Boris about this !

 

[LadyOnArooftop]

@Moriarty I know a little about a lot, so can easily be found out when scrutinised. But I do thank you for taking the time to explain things better for me. You are clearly very knowledgeable on WW2. And as you mentioned convoys, i was wondering if you'd ever heard of 'Operation Pedestal'? I'm reminded of a book I read a while back. 'First Light' by Geoffrey Wellum. A chapter of it was about a convoy sent to relieve the island of Malta. This convoy was so important, the Germans and Italians threw everything they had at it. Most of the merchant ships were sunk and the navy lost a numbers ships that were there to protect the convoy, including one of the aircraft carriers. Another aircraft carrier was carrying 40 odd Spitfires, that were to be flown to Malta, once they were in range. To reduce the weight so they were able to take off from a carrier, all the guns from the planes were removed. From what I can remember all these plane arrived safely, were quickly refuelled and rearmed. Wellum led one of the squadrons. Worth a look if you've never come across it.

 

[LadyOnArooftop]

Rishi Sunak. I've watched with admiration his meteoric rise up the parliamentary ranks from nowhere to one of the top jobs in politics, all thanks to our leader Boris. When Rishi was asked about an ill-judged comment our leader Boris had made about Sir Keir, instead of showing some loyalty, he replied "Well I wouldn't have said it", a very perfidious remark. Hopefully the next Prime Minister will be anyone but Rishi, (or Jeremy Hunt, who is already slyly campaigning for the job.)

 

[hell2bwith76]

Rishi Sunak. I've watched with admiration his meteoric rise up the parliamentary ranks from nowhere to one of the top jobs in politics, all thanks to our leader Boris. When Rishi was asked about an ill-judged comment our leader Boris had made about Sir Keir, instead of showing some loyalty, he replied "Well I wouldn't have said it", a very perfidious remark. Hopefully the next Prime Minister will be anyone but Rishi, (or Jeremy Hunt, who is already slyly campaigning for the job.)

How long have you been following Rishi ? You are only 21 ,you should be out enjoying nightclubs etc .

 

[Saphire]

In answer to the OP...yes, I have changed my opinions on several topics when I have listened to a well thought out argument against my own beliefs.
I imagine most reasonable people are open-minded enough to know they are not always right.

 

[LadyOnArooftop]

It is important to have an open mind, amenable to other views. I suspect the majority are not like that. Just taking Labour... as an example. A staunch Labour supporter may come out with "I was born Labour, always voted Labour, always will"... Always? no matter what they may say or do... always? This is madness. Same could be said for dyed-in-the-wool Tories.

 

[hell2bwith76]

Most people in this country vote for who they think can offer them ,personally ,more ( money usually !).
I never have ,never will but in local Elections i vote for the player who i know has done the most for Local People in their Constiuncey.. It may not be the person who`s Party i would like to run the Nation.