Question About Historical Sigs

[CPT Tripss]

Help me out here.

A (recently amended) sig reads, "Countries Set Free Courtesy of the United States and her allies: France, Germany, Norway, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Algeria, Morocco, Romania, Kosovo, Panama, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Afghanistan, Denmark, Kuwait, Egypt, Montenegro, New Guinea, Indonesia, Thailand, Greece, Russia, Tunisia, Ukraine, Albania, Hungary, Belgium, Austria, Libya, South Korea, Japan, Italy, Iraq." what do you mean?

Ok, so the Allies in WWII were involved in defeating the Axis Powers and ending the occupation of France, Germany, Norway, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, New Guinea, Indonesia, Thailand, Algeria, Morocco, Greece, Hungary, Belgium, and Austria. That borders on ancient history.

Kosovo, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, - IIRC, there was a lot of conservative opposition to US involvement with UN peacekeeping forces in the former Yugoslavia that recreated (or created these countries).

Exactly what did the US military do to free Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Ukraine, from the USSR?

Panama was a part of another sovereign country (Columbia) until the US decided, in the early 1900s, to dig a ditch and signed a treaty with a French citizen who claimed to represent Panama.

Libya , Japan, and Egypt were and are sovereign nations for many years. who did we free them from? Themselves?

South Korea? A creation of the UN . . . so it must be a favorite nation of real conservatives.

While it's a nice reading sig, it is just a tad audacious. Stick with music . . . Mad Dogs, Englishmen and Shelter People are a lot more friendly.

 

[loco4dis]

I do not think it appropriate to create a new thread using a user's name in the thread title. It is nothing more than a bullying attempt to have other, like-minded people join you in your bash-fest. If you have an issue with someone's siggy, send them a PM and discuss it. Don't try to set up a gang bash.

 

[Holly]

I do not think it appropriate to create a new thread using a user's name in the thread title. It is nothing more than a bullying attempt to have other, like-minded people join you in your bash-fest. If you have an issue with someone's siggy, send them a PM and discuss it. Don't try to set up a gang bash.

Looks more like an attempt to ask a legitimate question, and one I've wondered myself.

 

[loco4dis]

Looks more like an attempt to ask a legitimate question, and one I've wondered myself.

The question could be asked in a PM. This is bullying, pure and simple. Just watch the piling on, the vitriol, the hate, and then watch the thread get closed. I guess, after all of that, the OP will have some sort of satisfaction, but I don't really understand what it will be.

 

[CPT Tripss]

loco4dis - Sorry you perceive it as bullying. It isn't.

The sig is out there for all to see . . . I wonder what is behind it and am asking. Just asking for his historical rational . . . that's all. And Zip had no problem asking about a change in an open post. He could have polled his buds through PMs, but he chose not to.


Now if the person who has this sig asks me to pull this post because he feels it is bullying . . . that's another story.

As Holly's post shows, I'm not the only one who has this question.

 

[Sanchez]

Question for CPT Tripss: Why are you such a pompous bully?

 

[Michelle67]

IMHO the last statment makes it not just a question. Maybe you should make yourself a nice siggy that says whatever is meaningful to you, instead of telling other people what they should stick to?

 

[mirmartinez]

loco4dis - Sorry you perceive it as bullying. It isn't.

The sig is out there for all to see . . . I wonder what is behind it and am asking. Just asking for his historical rational . . . that's all. And Zip had no problem asking about a change in an open post. He could have polled his buds through PMs, but he chose not to.


Now if the person who has this sig asks me to pull this post because he feels it is bullying . . . that's another story.

As Holly's post shows, I'm not the only one who has this question.

I was curious too.
Many people have different views/beliefs of events in history.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I do not think it appropriate to create a new thread using a user's name in the thread title. It is nothing more than a bullying attempt to have other, like-minded people join you in your bash-fest. If you have an issue with someone's siggy, send them a PM and discuss it. Don't try to set up a gang bash.

OK, changed the title after reflecting on your concern.

 

[profdsny]

Question for CPT Tripss: Why are you such a pompous bully?

Looks like one could ask others on this thread the same thing. It's a legitimate question.
Btw, do you know that there were more UK soldiers that participated in DD in June of 44 than there were Americans? And that more Russians died fighting Hitler than all of the rest of the Allied forces on the Western Front combined?

 

[SwedishMeatball]

OK, changed the title after reflecting on your concern.

Alright, but you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure it out unless posts #5 and #8 are also edited.

 

[John Smith1]

The question could be asked in a PM. This is bullying, pure and simple. Just watch the piling on, the vitriol, the hate, and then watch the thread get closed. I guess, after all of that, the OP will have some sort of satisfaction, but I don't really understand what it will be.

 

[islandmum]

I was one offended by the origin al siggy but Zig has done the right thing and ammended it without a big furore.

sigs should reflect ones opinions and beliefs of course, but when something is quite obviously stated as fact and yet totally fictitious in its wording it should be changed by the member.

and I do believe as Zig says he/she (sorry I dont know them personally) was merely trying to honour veterans and current servicemen and women ... which I find admirable, especially as it now reflects history more accurately.

its done and finished.

 

[bavaria]

Someone drew my attention to that last week; it does not reflect my interpretation of history, nor the person who sent me the PM apparently.

 

[#1hockeymom]

I would hope that if someone felt that strongly about a message or a signature they would pm the person privately, first, instead of making it public with its own thread. The next route would be to come on a thread where you know they are, and ask them there. Another poster did just that and it was a very friendly conversation.

 

[declansdad]

I would hope that if someone felt that strongly about a message or a signature they would pm the person privately, first, instead of making it public with its own thread. The next route would be to come on a thread where you know they are, and ask them there. Another poster did just that and it was a very friendly conversation.

You are right in saying the other poster did that and it was a very friendly conversation. However the question about the signature was asked on a different thread and the signature owner did not respond. Instead they went to another thread and ask about what others thought and made light of it.

 

[#1hockeymom]

So, "Hey, do you see a problem with this?" being asked to your friends is a problem? That is what they did.

 

[declansdad]

So, "Hey, do you see a problem with this?" being asked to your friends is a problem? That is what they did.

So why not answer the poster that asked the question?

The question never was answered, the signature was simply changed.

 

[agnes!]

I have no idea what's going on in this thread.

agnes!

 

[declansdad]

I have no idea what's going on in this thread.

agnes!

It is about one particular signature that could have been read to discount the contributions of allies of the US.