Winston Churchill

[BuyOurEverything]

Churchill has been credited with saving western society from facism and the Nazi regime. However, he was a staunch imperialist. He wanted to invade Russia after WWI and the Bolsheveik revolution. He put down a general miner's strike because he was afraid of the 'communists.' He hated and refused to talk to Gandhi because he thought an "inferior Indian" had no right talking to the British and he supported the occupation of India. The list goes on but the fact is that he opposed Nazism not because it was a threat to liberty or freedom or anything but because it was a threat to the British Empire. My question is, was Churchill neccessary and was he justified because he inspired the British and defeated the Nazis?

And is there any way I could turn this into a poll?

[Invader Zim]

He was a drunken idiot, who slaughtered thousands in Golipoli...

Thats all there is to say...

He was a tosser.

[Scottish_Militant]

Posted this before somewhere

Churchill was a fascist who, given the chance, would have fought alongside Hitler and the Nazi's against the USSR

From Ted Grants "the menace of fascism" (http://www.tedgrant.org/works/4/8/fascism.html) pamphlet

When Mussolini was subjecting the Italian working class to his castor oil "treatments" and other bestial tortures, Churchill became deeply impressed with his "gentle and simple bearing". Speaking in Rome on 20 January, 1927, Churchill found only praise for the fascists:

"I could not help being charmed, like so many other people have been, by Signor Mussolini's gentle and simple bearing and by his calm, detached poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers. Secondly, anyone could see that he thought of nothing but the lasting good, as he understood it, of the Italian people, and that no lesser interest was of the slightest consequence to him. If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. I will, however, say a word on an international aspect of fascism. Externally, your movement has rendered service to the whole world. The great fear which has always beset every democratic leader or a working class leader has been that of being undermined by someone more extreme than he. Italy has shown that there is a way of fighting the subversive forces which can rally the masses of the people, properly led, to value and wish to defend the honour and stability of civilised society. She has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism."

Here the outspoken mouthpiece of British capitalism clearly indicates that in the last resort, faced with the revolutionary working class, the "nation" (the capitalists) will not be "unprovided"; it will always be able to imitate Mussolini and adopt the fascist method of rule over the workers.

And

Churchill looked upon the nazis with unbounded approval. In the 1939 edition of Great Contemporaries, Winston Churchill wrote about Hitler's rise to power:

"The Story of that Struggle cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate, or overcome, all authorities or resistance which barred his path…I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war, I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations."

(The same book by Churchill contains a venomous attack on Trotsky, who earns his bitter hatred as builder of the Red Army and one of the leaders of the October revolution - TG)

Churchill also once claimed that gassing people was a good way to discipline the 'savages' in Africa.

Very nice man he was :rolleyes:

[YKTMX]

He also built the first "concentration camps" during the Boer War.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.

Churchill said that in defense of the British military's use of poison gas against Kurds in Iraq. That's right - he was doing it when Saddam was barely born or a was a little kid. Inspiration? ;)

--- G.

[El Commandante]

Churchill was a drunkard, a racist and also a sexist who in present day society would be ridiculed and reviled. But because of his involvement in WWII he had become a favourite figure but he is the man who led thousands of Anzacs to an unnecessary death in the campaign against Turkey in WWI, published racist literature during the Boer War, argued heavily for the maintenance of the Empire and was also anti-semetic. He also applauded Hitler at the early part of his regime for this ability to turn around the conditions in Germany ... all in all a thoroughly revolting man.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

The guy was a wanker.

All us Britons think he was a legend. He recently won the award for the Greatest Briton ever ahead of great men like Sir Issac Newton and Shakespeare. Fact was he was a war-mongering, imparialistic, capitalist fat cat who should never have been voted in in the first place.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Eh, I thought he came in second behind Sir Isaac?

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

BBC World poll top five
1. Sir Isaac Newton
2. Sir Winston Churchill
3. Diana, Princess of Wales
4. William Shakespeare
5. Charles Darwin


It still fucking sucks - can't believe Churchull and Diana both got into the top 3!!

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools...ent/3151333.stm (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3151333.stm)

--- G.

[Indysocialist]

Let's not forget his readyness his desire to drop anthrax on Germany during the war.

[El Commandante]

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 21 2003, 04:39 PM

BBC World poll top five
1. Sir Isaac Newton
2. Sir Winston Churchill
3. Diana, Princess of Wales
4. William Shakespeare
5. Charles Darwin




I seem to remember that Enoch Powell the right wing racist Conservative Member of Parliament did rather well in this poll ... he was the MP that proposed the immediate deportation of all immigrants. The whole poll was a load of utter rubbish as it was based on opinion rather than hard fact.

And currently it is being proved that Diana was a paranoid crack pot ...

[Dhul Fiqar]

Can it really be called paranoia if you predict your death exactly as it takes place? I am no fan of the fanfare surrounding Diana - but it seems more than a little suspicious that she suspected not onyl to be killed but in that exact same way - and that was just a few months earlier...

--- G.

[Hawker]

Churchill was a facist.He was always to vain,that was his greatest weakness.His imperialistic motto and determination to control the working class was the most disgusting part of him.I'm have absolutly no doubt about it that if Britian hadn't gone to war with the Facists,Britian would have turned into a facist country under his rule.He was probably the greatest mistake a mother could ever make,bringing into the world a sadistic imperialistic bastard such as Churchill.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Well, except Churchill was voted in after the war started - so one can question whether any sane person would have voted for him if it wasn't for the way Chamberlaine lost half the British military assets in the first year of the war - remember that when Churchill was elected the Allies had not won a single battle and all looked lost - he got into power as the man to change that seemingly inevitable horror...

--- G.

p.s. he wasn't actually elected by the people btw - the Tories rebelled against Chamberlaine after a particularly disastrous wipe out of their fleet off the coast of Norway - and in reality most probably disliked him because of the security guarantee he gave to Poland (forcing Britain into war).

[Danton]

How clever of you "enlightened" individuals to pick (like vultures) over the bones of a great leader of men and liberator of Europe...

Get it into context... Only a generation ago some of Churchill's more risque comments would have been a the norm, talk of savages and the like... Your all so bloody PC you can only focus on the negatives...It took a man like Churchill with all his little pecadillo's to defeat the Nazi hordes.... Whatever his motives and personal opinions, he was not rascist - he was ignorant, like 99% of the population at that time...

Maybe you should stop knocking dead men with pointless trivial "facts" garnered from who knows where and get a life...

[Dhul Fiqar]

So he was just a product of his times because everyone was like that? Couldn't you say much the same about Hitler? It's not like his views were unpopular in Europe at the time... - and he IS dead. Let's not dishonor Adolf's memory ;)

--- G.

[Danton]

Oh come on, your telling me genocide was a popular activity in Europe in Hitlers time?

Wheeling out Adolf as a comparison is odious, I can't defend Churchill's comments because they are not relative to these times, What's certain is that he reinvigorated the allies and was a major component in the effort to halt the hun... So shall we rememer him for that or for his (in hindesight) political indescretions?.

[Dhul Fiqar]

You are telling me using poison gas against innocent villagers was a common past time in England at the time of Churchill? Same shit - different asshole.

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Oh, and go tell Hawarameen his ancestors and some of their children choked to death on poison fumes but it was just "a political indiscretion".

--- G.

[Bodyguard]

Winston Churchill was indeed a man of his times. He was an unashamed Imperialist and Capitalist. He was also a man of great strength, physical courage and vision. The posts in this forum show either a lack of knowledge of history or its deliberate distortion.


so one can question whether any sane person would have voted for him if it wasn't for the way Chamberlaine lost half the British military assets in the first year of the war

Chamberlain did not lose half of Britians assets.....he was sacked after the Germans defeated the Allied forces at Sedan in May 1940. Chamberlain was seen as the one who lead Briton unprepared miltarily into war. The Great Depression and Pacifisim contributed to the reduction of Britons military strength untill it was realized this was suicidal in the face of German re-amament. Chamberlain had increased the military budget starting in the mid 1930's....


I'm have absolutly no doubt about it that if Britian hadn't gone to war with the Facists,Britian would have turned into a facist country under his rule.

Can you give any evidence of such a statement? Or is this just a forum for spewing hatred and name calling? Both Facism and Communism were a threat to the Western democracys and Churchill was one of the few in the '20s and '30s to realize it and speak up about it. For doing so he was called the same type of names many of you on here call him. He was disgusted by his alliance with the Soviets but being the ultimate pragmatist he was, he wanted an alliance with them because he realized that the Nazis were the greater threat at the time. Stalin instead made an alliance with Hitler and stabbed the West and Poland in the back in 1939. When Briton stood alone in the fall of 1940, the Soviets stood by and watched as Hitler tried his best to destroy Briton. When the Nazis invaded the USSR, Churchill immdiately offered help and alliance....despite how shabbily Briton was treated.

A man should be judged by the sum of his life....he was indeed a man of his times.....he believed many things that we do not believe today. But some of what he believed still holds true. That freedom is better than tyranny weather from the Left or the Right.......It is immoral to not to defend oneself when threatened.......and that having a clear vision of right and wrong is not an "un-educated" position to have. His leadership literally made it possible for a nation to survive two of the greatist threats to free people everywhere......Nazism and Soviet Communism.


I assume this thread was started as a serious discussion of the man, not a name calling contest.....but if I am wrong then please tell me.

[Bodyguard]

Churchill's role in WW1 seems to be as distorted on here as his WW2 record. Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty in 1914 and 15. It was indeed his idea to invade Turkey at Gallipoli and hopefully knock Turkey out of the war. Being a man of his times and being surrounded by men who belived that the Battleship and the Royal Navy was invinceable they concieved a plan that counted on quick victory based on wrong assumtions. Like many plans in WW1, when things started to go wrong instead of pulling back and trying something different, commanders ordered forces on the spot to keep going in the face of huge resitance. After the failure of the campaign, he stood up and blamed no one but himeself and resigned. He then volunteered and was given a front line command on the Western Front. Call him what you will but the man was no coward and not afraid to take the results of his decisions.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 09:23 AM
Chamberlain did not lose half of Britians assets.....he was sacked after the Germans defeated the Allied forces at Sedan in May 1940.


--- G.
Of course I don't mean as in "he lost exactly 50% of the following..." - but the start to the war was a disaster. How else would people be able to assert that he lead Britain unprepared into war - if he was not losing every single battle?

And you might also want to note that I specifically referred to the incident at Sedan that cost him his job in the end - so in fact you have added to my original point - Churchill got into office because Chamerlaine was widely seen as a fuckup.

As for being "a man of his times" - notice how that excuse only seems to work for certain people from that time. Would you say the same about Hitler? Goebbels? Any one of the Nazis? How about Stalin? How about Mussolini? How about any of the countless evil shits that were around during the same period?

If we are supposed to just accept evils as being "products of their time" without any criticism - we surely shouldn't talk shit about Nazis or Fascists in the past either...

[Bodyguard]

Originally posted by Dhul Fiqar+Oct 23 2003, 03:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dhul Fiqar @ Oct 23 2003, 03:43 PM)
[email protected] 23 2003, 09:23 AM
Chamberlain did not lose half of Britians assets.....he was sacked after the Germans defeated the Allied forces at Sedan in May 1940.


--- G.
Of course I don&#39;t mean as in "he lost exactly 50% of the following..." - but the start to the war was a disaster. How else would people be able to assert that he lead Britain unprepared into war - if he was not losing every single battle?

And you might also want to note that I specifically referred to the incident at Sedan that cost him his job in the end - so in fact you have added to my original point - Churchill got into office because Chamerlaine was widely seen as a fuckup.

As for being "a man of his times" - notice how that excuse only seems to work for certain people from that time. Would you say the same about Hitler? Goebbels? Any one of the Nazis? How about Stalin? How about Mussolini? How about any of the countless evil shits that were around during the same period?

If we are supposed to just accept evils as being "products of their time" without any criticism - we surely shouldn&#39;t talk shit about Nazis or Fascists in the past either... [/b]
To fully understand the man, one must put him in the context of his times. Many of the posts on this thread show no understanding of history and of the events Churchill was confronted with. When one understands the man or event then one can certainly offer criticizims of the subject. I understand what Hitler and Stalin were....I know WHY they did what they did, just as I understand Churchill. Was one of Churchills motives the presrvation of the British Empire? Yes&#33; Was his goal to exterminate jews and rule the European continent? No&#33; Was his goal to occupy most of Poland and the Baltic states? No&#33; Know your enemy and know yourself (The Art of War).........it still holds true. You do need to check your history....there was no "particularly disastrous wipe out of their fleet off the coast of Norway" The successfull German invasion of Norway was in spite of a BRITISH navel victory&#33; Most of the German navel units involved were either sunk or heavily damaged in the operation. But better German tactics ( battlefield air superiority) and leadership won out over Allied units and Norway fell......and yes that was another nail in Chamberlains coffin.

[Danton]

You can&#39;t equate him to those people, yes the gassing of Kurds is undoubtabley evil, it is worth saying that in his eyes he was protecting the Empire against violent uprisings and that the gas was only intended to injure and not to kill... This in no way excuses it in our eyes but puts it into perspective when your equating his war crimes to Hitlers and Stalins atrocities..

He was very far from perfect, tell me of a political figure (of any persuasion) who was, but in the balance of things we mus&#39;nt forget his extraordinary efforts in galvanizing the allies and ultimatley quelling the fascist advance..

[Bodyguard]

Danton, I was in no way equating Churchill to Hitler and Stalin. I was saying you must understand people and their times before one criticizes them. I am a great admirer of WS....the good he did far outweighed the bad IMO. Unlike Hitler and Stalin.

[Danton]

Danton, I was in no way equating Churchill to Hitler and Stalin

I know, my post was in answer to Dhul&#39;s... apologies for any confusion..

[Bodyguard]

Okey dokey&#33; :)

[BuyOurEverything]

To fully understand the man, one must put him in the context of his times. Many of the posts on this thread show no understanding of history and of the events Churchill was confronted with. When one understands the man or event then one can certainly offer criticizims of the subject. I understand what Hitler and Stalin were....I know WHY they did what they did, just as I understand Churchill.


Every man is responsible to himself and his moral code. No exceptions.

Hmm...

[Bodyguard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 09:43 PM

To fully understand the man, one must put him in the context of his times. Many of the posts on this thread show no understanding of history and of the events Churchill was confronted with. When one understands the man or event then one can certainly offer criticizims of the subject. I understand what Hitler and Stalin were....I know WHY they did what they did, just as I understand Churchill.


Every man is responsible to himself and his moral code. No exceptions.

Hmm...
hmmmmmmmmmm is that the best you can do?

[Invader Zim]

People who say he supported Nazism are fundermentaly incorrect. In 1933 he was one of the first politicians to openly speak up against Hitler, all while Chamberlain was brown nosing like an idiot.

But he&#39;s still a twat even if he hated Nazism.

[Scottish_Militant]

I think the quotes I have given let Churchill speak for himself on the matter

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 04:22 PM
I think the quotes I have given let Churchill speak for himself on the matter
Really; then please account for quotes such as this: -


"We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. You ask, what is our policy? I will say: it is to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime.
"

Winston Churchill

"This is a war of the unknown warriors; but let all strive without failing in faith or in duty, and the dark curse of Hitler will be lifted from our age."

Winston Churchill

"You see these dictators up on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. They&#39;re afraid of words and thought. ... They make frantic efforts to bar our thoughts and words. ... A state of society where men may not speak their mind -- where children denounce their parents to the police -- where a businessman or small shopkeeper ruins his competitor by telling tales about his private opinion. Such a state of society cannot long endure if it is continually in contact with the healthy outside world". - Winston Churchill, explaining why Nazism is the enemy of Democracy in a BBC radio address - 10/16/1938


Quotes from Historians: -

"There were certainly some who feared the worst. Sir Robert Vansittart, the leading civil servant at the foreign office, warned ministers from the start about the threat of Nazism. So too did Winston Churchill."

Alan Farmer

Need i go on?

[Scottish_Militant]

No. They do not denounce the fact that he was a nazi lover, they just go to show what a complete tosser, liar, and oppurtunist he was.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 06:11 PM
No. They do not denounce the fact that he was a nazi lover, they just go to show what a complete tosser, liar, and oppurtunist he was.
No... I think you will find that they do denounce Nazism, quite obviously.

It is a well know fact among all even semi-competant historians that Churchill despised Nazism and warned against it sinse 1933. Just because you can find one quote doent mean shit, I can find 100 in about 2 mins looking on a search engine, before I even need to resort to my Notes.

[Scottish_Militant]

He only told everyone he despised fascism when he had too&#33; He was a pig headed liar, why should anyone beleive his &#39;anti-nazi&#39; stance when he blatantly praised filth like Mussolini and Hitler&#33;?

[Pete]

Winston Churchill: Intelligent Bastard.


I could do better, but both sides of him have already been shown here.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 07:24 PM
He only told everyone he despised fascism when he had too&#33; He was a pig headed liar, why should anyone beleive his &#39;anti-nazi&#39; stance when he blatantly praised filth like Mussolini and Hitler&#33;?
When he had too...???

Right, then how do you explain why he was speaking out against Hitler in 1933, when large numbers of very influential figures such as Baldwin were praising Hitler? Why were they praising Hitler? Because in Mein Kampf he spoke of Britain as an Ally, he also spoke of achieving "Lebensraum" in the east, and the USSR seamed a to be his biggest enemy. The general opinion was that at the worst was that Germany would be a bulwark against soviet expansion. The majority feared Hitler, but nearly all the leading figures in the mid 30&#39;s still spoke highly of Hitler because they did not believe him to be a direct threat, rather an ally against the Soviets.

The majority of British leading public figures did not publicly denounce Hitler until "Kristallnacht" in 1938 forced them to, Where as Churchill was denouncing Hitler and Nazism since 1933. If Churchill loved Hitler so much why attack Hitler when he didn’t have to? Why condemn Germanys re-arming in 1934, when the government policy was appeasement?

"We are it is admitted, the fifth air power only - if that... Our nearest neighbour Germany is arming fast and no one is going to stop her. That seams quite clear. No one proposes a preventive war to stop Germany breaking the treaty of Versailles. She is going to arm; she is doing it; she has been doing it. I have no knowledge of the details, but it is well known that those very gifted people with their science and their factories - with what they call their "air sport" - are capable of developing with great rapidity the most powerful Air force for all purposes offensive and defensive, within a very short period of time. I dread the day when the means of threatening the heart of the British Empire should pass into the hands of the present rulers [The nazis] of Germany."

Winston Churchill On the German Re-armament.

This was in a speech to the House of Commons in March 1934, would a politician in favour of the Nazis believe that Germany was a threat at this time? Of course not, Churchill’s dislike and mistrust of Nazism is highly documented from pre-war days when Germany was an Ally and in the League of Nations and it was not in Churchill’s political interests to attack German leaders, yet he still did. Which I am afraid categorically proves that your arguments are incorrect.

[BuyOurEverything]

hmmmmmmmmmm is that the best you can do?

I was pointing out that you&#39;re two opinions contradicted each other. You say that the Nazis were completely responsable for what they did but and the argument that they were just "products of their environment" is no exuse but then you say that it wasn&#39;t Churchill&#39;s fault that he was a racist, imperialist, right wing bastard because that&#39;s what society was like back then.

[Bodyguard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 10:45 PM

hmmmmmmmmmm is that the best you can do?

I was pointing out that you&#39;re two opinions contradicted each other. You say that the Nazis were completely responsable for what they did but and the argument that they were just "products of their environment" is no exuse but then you say that it wasn&#39;t Churchill&#39;s fault that he was a racist, imperialist, right wing bastard because that&#39;s what society was like back then.
I said that the individual Nazi was responsible to follow the rules of war. Shooting civilians and prisoners is a good example of war crimes. I have no sypmpathy for those who said "I was just following orders". Get it? Churchill was indeed a product of his upbringing as was Hitler......The rich Anlgo-Saxon who tried to keep the world free from murderers like the poor Austrian corporal. I will take the Imperialist any day thank you.

[Scottish_Militant]

I think you&#39;ll find that false Enigma, look here (http://www.historicalfacts.net/66/churchill)

[Pete]

I said that the individual Nazi was responsible to follow the rules of war. Shooting civilians and prisoners is a good example of war crimes. I have no sypmpathy for those who said "I was just following orders". Get it? Churchill was indeed a product of his upbringing as was Hitler......The rich Anlgo-Saxon who tried to keep the world free from murderers like the poor Austrian corporal. I will take the Imperialist any day thank you.




Makes me think of a powerful empire of today....

[Bodyguard]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 04:09 PM

I said that the individual Nazi was responsible to follow the rules of war. Shooting civilians and prisoners is a good example of war crimes. I have no sypmpathy for those who said "I was just following orders". Get it? Churchill was indeed a product of his upbringing as was Hitler......The rich Anlgo-Saxon who tried to keep the world free from murderers like the poor Austrian corporal. I will take the Imperialist any day thank you.




Makes me think of a powerful empire of today....
A powerful empire like no other in history. One that after winning wars, leave the counquered country better than it was...

[Dhul Fiqar]

Yeah, the Iraqi people didn&#39;t even have anything to heat their houses before the war - now their entire country is on fire&#33;&#33; Lots of warmth for everyone - no one has to go cold&#33;&#33;

And when it starts to go out - guess what? MORE BOMBS&#33;&#33;&#33; =D

Ah, yes, how sweet it is to be bombed and occupied by America :)

--- G.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 12:22 PM
I think you&#39;ll find that false Enigma, look here (http://www.historicalfacts.net/66/churchill)
Ohh yes what an informative page: -

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

Click the Refresh button, or try again later.

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.

To check your connection settings, click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options. On the Connections tab, click Settings. The settings should match those provided by your local area network (LAN) administrator or Internet service provider (ISP).
If your Network Administrator has enabled it, Microsoft Windows can examine your network and automatically discover network connection settings.
If you would like Windows to try and discover them,
click Detect Network Settings
Some sites require 128-bit connection security. Click the Help menu and then click About Internet Explorer to determine what strength security you have installed.
If you are trying to reach a secure site, make sure your Security settings can support it. Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Security section and check settings for SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, PCT 1.0.
Click the Back button to try another link.


Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer


Try again... Just in case it was just an error with that individual page, I went to google and entered "www.historicalfacts.net" into the engine, and I didnt get a single hit... I think your site is a false one.

[Bodyguard]

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 28 2003, 11:11 AM
Yeah, the Iraqi people didn&#39;t even have anything to heat their houses before the war - now their entire country is on fire&#33;&#33; Lots of warmth for everyone - no one has to go cold&#33;&#33;

And when it starts to go out - guess what? MORE BOMBS&#33;&#33;&#33; =D

Ah, yes, how sweet it is to be bombed and occupied by America :)

--- G.
Ok I admit that was funny&#33; :D