Is it true that Britain actually used flame throwers to resist invasion attempt during last war?
817715
many things that took place in WWII are still guarded as secrets
268333
Apparently yes. Over the past 300 years, there have been more than 200 reports of persons burning to a crisp for no apparent reason. See link for details and examples.
670765
Absolutely. The US was able to apply resources that the British and the Russians struggled to supply. The Russians fought an incredibly bitter war and in many cases the Nazis were known to prefer fighting against the US and the UK than the Russians. However, it was the sheer scale of the entrance of the US to WW2 that put Hitler firmly on the backfoot. To sum up - The British won the war because they stood fast against a superior army, the Russians won the war through sheer sacrifice of numbers and grim determination, and the US won the war because although they were more interested in sorting out the Japanese (Pearl Harbour), they pumped billions of dollars worth of aircraft, man power and ammunition into the effort.
496246
A little history lesson. Just prior to the start of WWII\na prime minister of Britain named Neville Chamberlain went\nto Germany to discuss friendship and peace with Hitler.\nHitler sucked him in and they all signed peace papers.\nChamberlain came back all smiles, waving his paper and\nexclaiming , "Peace in our time". Less than a year later\nHitler invaded Poland commencing WWII, making a fool of Chamberlain who resigned as prime minister shortly after.\n  The act of backing off from a threatening tyrant,\nthinking that he will be satisfied and stop his agressive\nmoves has come to be known as "appeasement" in international\npolitics. The world learned the hard way that appeasement\nonly encourages the appetite of the agressor. That the\nthreat of counter force is the only thing that will stop\nhim.  The US used the threat of counter force successfully\nagainst the belligerence of the Soviet Union during the\nBerlin Crisis, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Middle East\nCrisis. We also used it against Saddam the first time\nand probably stopped him from taking Saudi Arabia. \n  What Iran is playing now is called brinkmanship. You\ngo to the brink of war in a game of chicken, hoping the\nother side backs down. If they do, you win without\nfiring a shot. \n  Friendship with a Radical Fundamentalist Muslim\ngovernment is impossible. That isn't just name calling.\nThat's what they are self defined as. Their international\nvalues and needs are contrary to ours. Their enemies are\nour friends(i.e., Israel) and their friends are our\nenemies(i.e., Al Qaeda).
554444
The people of Britain were staggered when America refused to help. Even more so because the Americans were seen to be siding with the pretty sordid dictatorship of General Galtieri. America sent the message loud and clear - stuff you Britain, we prefer the dictators on our doorstep. \n\nBritain went to the Falklands not just to defend its territory, but to defend its citizens there, who were now the prisoners of the Argentine forces. This was an honourable cause. \n\nThe Brits proved themselves still capable of amazing military logistics in delivering its Forces so fast and so massively into the South Atlantic way beyond the normal operating range of British air and sea power. That they did this without the help of their fairweather 'friends' the Americans, made the feat still more extraordinary. They even turned the ocean liners Canberra and QEII into fighting ships in a matter of days! They got short range Vulcan bombers (veterans of the 1950's) out of mothballs, patched them up and somehow got them in the air all the way, to accurately obliterate the runway in Port Stanley, denying the Argentine Air Force a landing strip and seriously compromising its capability - vital because the AAF was the only really effective element of the Argentine Armed Forces. \n\nAll this was done while the Americans sidled up to the despotic General and the French sold the Argentines the Exocet missiles that did such deadly damage to the Royal Navy.\n\nThis war is remembered with pride in the UK. The British Armed Forces proved once again they're the best. They proved it in the fighting and they proved it in the way they overcame the sheer enormity of the task of delivering a huge military force across the largest expanse of open sea without any friendly harbour or airport along the way - thanks to the Yanks.\n\nThe answer to your question is Yes - the Americans did abandon their greatest ally at a time when Britain truly needed them. Worse, they abandoned the Brits in favour of a a pretty gruesome Dictatorship .... and the British people, who are strong on loyalty and friendship, have harbourred the grievance ever since. America should bear that in mind.
572152
This is what I was told. It dates back to the first world war in the trenches. On lighting a cigarette a german sniper would see the flame, second light he would take aim and the third person would get shot. This then became a superstition among british troops and carried on after the war. Hence the third light from a match is considered unlucky.
560329
True. Or look at Kosovo. Serbia fought to defend what was always part of its territory and Clinton bombed the cr#p out of the Yugoslavs. He funded and assisted the KLA- the Kosovo Liberation Army- which just so happens to be listed as a terrorist organization. Whereas America has a right to defend its territorial integrity (see US Civil War), Serbia does not. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. True, Kuwait had declared its independence, but historically Kuwait was always part of Iraq. If Florida had broken away from the US and America would "invade" Florida, no one would say anything. But if Saddam tries to recapture a former province, there's Hell to pay.\n\nWe helped the IRA and even had their leaders come to the White House. But the PLO is blacklisted as a terrorist organization (even though it used some of the same violent means the IRA does). I guess that when you're Irish the rules are slightly "bent" in your favor. But the Palestinians are all terrorists. (Don't worry about the fact that "Palestine" was actually inhabited by Palestinians way before Israel became a sovereign state, or the fact that Britain arbitrarily created its territorial borders without ever consulting with Palestinians- who had settled there for hundreds of years.)\n\nAll history is revisionist, folks.\n\nI am totally against violent means of any kind to achieve "freedom", but let's stop claiming Anglos are all freedom loving democrats (see British colonization of Africa: millions dead). This is exactly why the world laughs at the US every time we claim we want to spread democracy: we have ZERO legitimacy given our hypocritical past (see war with Mexico, Spanish-American war, displacement of native Americans, illegal CIA operations in Latin America, Asia, Viet Nam War). The people of the world aren't all ignorant. (Note: If you are reading this and you are from Texas, just keep waving the flag and don't mind the "big" words).
235559
For all those who still stand by the WMD claim of justification for going to war, it's finally been shown that the decision to go to war was made irrespective of the existence or nonexistence of WMD in Iraq.  This story about Bush and Blair agreeing to go to war regardless of intelligence or UN approval broke in the mainstream U.S. media yesterday.  It broke in Europe much earlier (as most news that looks bad for the U.S. government does).  I suppose it could be denied no longer.\n\nhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin\n\nKey quote from the article:\n"The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein."\n\nHere's an interview with the British international law professor who originally broke the story (Philippe Sands).\nhttp://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/07/1442243\n\nAlso notable, that question by Helen Thomas was her first for the President in three years---and not for wont of trying.  It was the first time he had called on her in all that time.
685233
depends.  An AK would do some damage to the enemy, but if you could light the entire town on fire, there's more leathal potential there.  But I don't think flamethrowers were used so much as weopons against people as ways to destroy the enemies supplies.  And last I heard, they gave up on those because of the potential for the guys using the flame throwers catching on fire.  Not the kind of lethal they were going for, I suppose.
921484
the british wanted nothing to do with the zionist movement, and if you haven't noticed, europe was decidedly more hostile to the Jews far before the Arab world decided to start blowing them up. remember the holocaust? you should also remember that the british fought against the zionist movement that became the state of Israel, but simply didn't have the political will to defeat it. another thing that you should think about: if you were the Jews, and had been mass murdered in one continent, none of the other continents let you take refuge there either, and had a historical homeland close-by, wouldn't you flee there too?
591694
Let's get something straight danmoorex.England or the UK never threatened anyone. But understand this the UK has been threatened many times. By the likes of bigger bullies than the cowardly rabble that attempt to threaten the British way of life now.The Brits are a hardy lot. Mess with them at your peril.Organised German,French,Spanish armies tried to master them. All failed. So don't get the idea that the Brits will allow anyone to threaten them and get away with it.\nAs for Jesus Christ, if he existed at all He was probably English.
1100074
For every genuine picture or blog coming out of Iraq, there are a hundred either mocked up or used out of context.\n\nUnless you saw it with your own eyes its best not to jump to conclusions as modern photgraphic techniques can make anything beliveable.\n\nAbout two years ago a mainstream British newspaper carried a front page set of photgraphs of British Soldiers abusing Iraqis in the back of a truck.\n\nThere was uproar worldwide and people were killed in the reprisal riots.\n\nWhat many of us, who actually know what they are looking at, noticed however were some minor discrepancies in the equipment the "soldiers" were carrying. For instance the SA80 rifles the guys were holding were not the current issue model, and neither did they have the correct serial numbers. To the untrained eye an SA80 mk1 looks like an SA80 mk2, but there are subtle differences.\n\nAnyhow, after people got killed as a result of the article, and relations between the Brits and the locals in Basra took a downturn, a group of idiots in the UK were caught, arrested and then admitted to faking the photgraphs in a warehouse in England in order to both sell them for money and to protest the war. Even the lorry in question was traced and had never been outside the UK. None of the people in the photos were soldiers, or Iraqis and all of the gear had been sourced from surplus shops and the rifles were de-activated junk from gulf war one.\n\nThe newspaper editor was forced to resign, but his actions in publishing the photos as genuine had cost lives. People had died as a result.    \n\nAlso to back up previous comments, there are no incendiary weapons which burn the body yet leave the clothes, also napalm and white phos are two different things.
1120347
We have had them for a long time. Other than Japan we have never used them. If we are threatened & believe someone will use their bombs, we will use them but so far we have been willing to lose thousands of troops when we a  bomb would have fixed the problem. What more proof do they need. Is Iraq still there, only because this Soldiers Mom does not have control of the button.
861226
The british army are working to rebuild the infra structure however it is a long project e mail me seperatlely and i will give you a site as there appears to be some people on here who dont apprechiate that uk forces are working to rebuild a country free from an evil dictatior and give the civillians a normal life
139378
They are regaining some of their influence and power - take the firemen’s strike as an example. But they will never be allowed to have as much influence and control as they did back in the day. No government/public would ever let the UK be held to ransom in such a fashion again.
802721
i think most of the cowardly things have been said like self harm to avoid combat and running away. In the British Army the Royal Artillery are still reminded of thier cowardly act in the second world war, when they ran away from their guns 20km from the front line and left medics to fire the guns for them, by a yellow band on their regiments stable belt and it will always stay there for future militants to know the results of cowardness
36328
Feel free to come and try and invade. We will be waiting for you. In the imortal words of Dads Army.. "who do you think you're kidding..."\nLOL\nSuggest you do some research on:\nhttp://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/home