I thought he was funny. People complain that he wasn't insulting enough but given the range of people that were presenting he'd be a bit hard pressed to insult half of them cos they're the nice end of the hollywood spectrum - banderas, portman, etc. they're hardly flamboyant or selfish or anything. Got a few really good insults in, made a fool out of depp and depp loved it, got elton thank god, and a REALLY good insult about the lavishness of the affair during a recession which for me made this the best speech of all he's done; great statement from a man who has enough money to pay no attention to the hardships of a recession.

Just look at that miserable fat fucking flamboyant diva cunt elton john. Miserable twat, i felt my soul start to drain as soon as the camera centred on his jowly podgy churchill cheeks. He's like a fat, old, ugly, slightly camp dementor sucking up the joy everywhere he goes and depositing misery in its place. I've never seen an old man throw a temper tantrum like a 6 year old girl until him. Cos that's what he is. Old. And a D-list celebrity.

Sorry.

Yes, excellent stuff.

Robert T Frederick, the first CO of the Devil's Brigade, is my personal hero. Winston Churchill called him "the greatest fighting general of all time" and said "if we had had a dozen more like him we would have smashed Hitler in 1942". His biography, The Last Fighting General is definitely worth a read.

Also quite coincidentally, I found out New Year's Eve that the father of a family friend was in the Devil's Brigade. He hadn't told anyone until shortly before he died... They truly were amazing men.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
Complete coincidence, but I just watched "The Devil's Brigade" 3 nights ago. Really great vintage WWII movie, realistic or not.

If you haven't seen it yet I recommend checking it out at your local Bittorrent multiplex.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062886/

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
Interesting discussion from someone who knows what he's talking about.

I once got to hold one of the V-42 Fighting Knives issued to the 1st Special Service Force. Amazing being able to hold that kind of historical artifact.

Interestingly, some of the soldiers in the 1st SSF ground down the tips so they didn't get stuck in the ribs when they stabbed someone - the needle tip was making it difficult to kill someone and even more difficult to withdraw the knife.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yep, if you're looking for a four-legged sycophant who grovels at your every whim - a dog is the pet for you! >> ^Yogi:

>> ^dag:
This is why cats are awesome. The take absolutely no shit. You have to admit that they are a bit more noble than dogs - who while loyal, are the eternal sidekicks.

Churchill said one time that cats look down at their owners. Well guess what I feed you and you exist at my pleasure, that's why I'd want a dog something that acts like they're grateful rather than something that would eat me if I died in my home.

>> ^dag:

This is why cats are awesome. The take absolutely no shit. You have to admit that they are a bit more noble than dogs - who while loyal, are the eternal sidekicks.


Churchill said one time that cats look down at their owners. Well guess what I feed you and you exist at my pleasure, that's why I'd want a dog something that acts like they're grateful rather than something that would eat me if I died in my home.

>> ^NetRunner:
You're so Manichean about things. I'm with Churchill -- democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.
In any case, the platonic ideal of democracy is that all citizens get an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. What you're describing, by definition, isn't democracy. If people's choices are being usurped, or made meaningless, it's ceased to be democracy.
What we need is more democracy, not less.


Not so much "Manichean" as I am just reacting to the cards dealt me in this compulsory system. I haven't a choice to NOT being affected by human government outside of leaving the planet, so I have to actively play a role.

What it sounds like you want is more direct democracy. I shudder to think. I think we should've learned the lessons of majority rule when the US broke the treaties with the Native Americans. But I guess old tyranny dies hard.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
Which is why you support for Ron Paul for President!
>> ^blankfist:
Voting: the slave's suggestion box.
How deluded must you be to believe that punching a couple holes in a piece of paper once every two to four years has any significant effect or meaning in your life? He's right, as the politicians sell you that grand illusion of democratic choice you lose your real freedom to choose.


And...? Until we no longer have a system where the majority can vote my rights away I will continue to vote. Doesn't mean people who think it's a fundamentally good system aren't deluded.


You're so Manichean about things. I'm with Churchill -- democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.

In any case, the platonic ideal of democracy is that all citizens get an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. What you're describing, by definition, isn't democracy. If people's choices are being usurped, or made meaningless, it's ceased to be democracy.

What we need is more democracy, not less.

Winston Churchill: (1947 House of Commons)

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Hitler : Catholicism :: Ward Churchill : Cherokee Indians

>> ^imstellar28:

You would wish such a thing on someone? From what I can see, democracy doesn't have the best track record especially here in the US in the last few decades. Just what they need, a McDonald's at every corner and a Haliburton running the government.
How about a prosperous, fair, and just government and leave it at that? No need to impart (force) our flawed values on the rest of world; lest you forget it's the democratic US that is backing the very authoritarian dictator Egypt is revolting against...
Democracy is a plague, and this is one of it's many petulant symptoms. Mubarak is a puppet, installed and supported with the help of the US...learn it for yourself instead of parroting the blind patriotism of your beloved "democracy."
I bet it sounds noble of you to those who don't know better, though.
>> ^Ti_Moth:
Good luck people of Egypt I wish you a prosperous, secular, fair and democratic government. (You will need the luck).



Just because democracy in the U.S. is a two party farce doesn't mean the Egyptian people shouldn't strive to reach some democratic ideal.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Sir Winston Churchill

Congratulations! Your video, QI - Winston Churchill's Reaction To Homosexual Shenanigans, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 3 Badge!

Stiff something, that's for sure.

>> ^ponceleon:

Stiff upper lip chaps!

Your video, QI - Winston Churchill's Reaction To Homosexual Shenanigans, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 4 Badge!

>> ^Entropy001:
When in reality the Sherman tank was inferior to the German design.
Well, one could argue that it's more of a difference in the underlying philosophy than quality of engineering. German doctrin was based upon the use of what we now refer to as MBTs (Panzer I-V) while the Brits used infantry tanks (Mathilda, Valentine, Churchill, etc) and cruiser tanks (Cruiser, Crusader, Cromwell, etc), and the US troops deployed infantry tanks (Sherman) and TDs (M10, M18, M36). Once you split breakthrough and exploitation or infantry support and anti-tank warfare into separate vehicles, you're bound to end up with vastly different designs that might draw the short straw more often than not if not used properly.


If you include the lack of resources and manpower in particular, Wehrmacht tanks had to be superior individually, because they were doomed to be inferior numerically. Thus, the US could focus on easier and cheaper production. You don't need Zeiss optics and Krupp steel if you simply aim for number superiority. I'd say both design principles fulfilled their respective roles just fine, even though they could hardly have been more different. Simple, easy to maintain and reliable versus the latest in technology.

The Firefly was nice though, 17pdr was a beast.

Or maybe what I wrote is just a load of cockswallow and the German designs were, in fact, simply superior.

That said, this kitty was one hell of an engineering masterpiece. If they hadn't lost access to rare materials, even the transmission might have worked properly and those buggers wouldn't have broken down every 100km.

Still waiting to see the Panther at Koblenz again, last time was a blast.

^Nice copy pasta. Well then I raise you with this:

Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory said that the “ships that were situated in the high seas where freedom of navigation exists, according to the law of the seas” and called for those responsible to "be held criminally accountable for their wrongful acts".[181]

In a legal analysis published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a staff expert on international law explained that countries are not allowed to extend their sovereignty on areas outside of their coastal waters. In a zone extending 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the coast, countries have the right to inspect ships in order to enforce immigration and public health laws and regulations. In international waters, if there is reasonable suspicion of piracy or human trafficking, a country has the right to access foreign ships. If the suspicion remains, it can search the ship. Israeli soldiers have the right to defend themselves. If Israel has used force against the ships without legal justification, the crew members had the right to defend themselves.[text 2]

Robin Churchill, international law professor at the University of Dundee in Scotland, said there was no legal basis for boarding the ships as they were in international waters. [182] Ove Bring, Swedish international law professor, said that Israel had no right to take military action.[183] That was supported by Mark Klamberg at Stockholm University,[184] Hugo Tiberg, maritime law professor[185] and Geir Ulfstein, professor at maritime law at University of Oslo,[186] while Jan Egeland, director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs said that only North Korea behaved in international waters in the same manner as Israel.[187]

Canadian scholar Michael Byers notes that the event would only be legal if the Israeli boarding were necessary and proportionate for the country's self defence. Byers believes that "the action does not appear to have been necessary in that the threat was not imminent."[188] Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies of London, was quoted as saying that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention.[189] Anthony D'Amato, international law professor at Northwestern University School of Law, argued that the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force. He said the laws of war do not apply in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which isn't even a state. He said the law of the Geneva Conventions would apply.[9] Said Mahmoudi, an international law professor, said that boarding a ship on international waters, kill and capture civilians is not in line with the law.[190]

A group of Israeli lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman, petitioned the Israeli High Court charging that Israel had violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters. [191]

Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoğlu called the raid "a grave breach of international law and constituted banditry and piracy—it was “murder” conducted by a State, without justification".[22] Prominent Turkish jurists have characterized Israel's actions as a violation of international law and a "war crime."

Turkey's deputy parliament speaker, Guldal Mumcu, said in a declaration that "[t]his attack was an open violation of United Nations rules and international law," and that "Turkey should seek justice against Israel through national and international legal authorities. The parliament expects the Turkish government to revise the political, military and economic relations with Israel, and to take effective measures."[192]
Dr. Turgut Tarhanlı, dean of the Law department of İstanbul Bilgi University,[193] cited the concept of innocent passage, under which vessels are granted safe passage through territorial waters in a manner which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the state.[194] He said that the Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that a coastal state may consider intervention if a ship is engaged in arms and drug smuggling, the slave trade or terrorist activities. However, the case with the aid boats is totally different. They set sail in accordance with the Customs Act and are known to be carrying humanitarian aid, not weapons or ammunition. According to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Israel was not entitled to launch a military operation against the boats and activists.[195]

I don't see the clip being disrespectful - how many times has Bush been lampooned? The great and the good have had to bear being satirised. It really depends on how precious one is about national/historical figures. As a Brit I don't mind one iota if the target is the Queen, Gordon Brown, Churchill or whoever. I imagine most people here aren't too bothered. One exception might be Princess Diana - there are still alot of twits who get precious about her.