Chris_Sleeps Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 But that doesn't make any sense, he didn't actually claim that Mcartney was a better songwriter than Lennon, just that that was apparently the perception amongst the public until Lennon died. I still say it isn't true. Lennon was a global superstar for many years after he left The Beatles. To say "Nobody thought him a great song-writer until after he was shot dead" is wrong. What more can I say than to point out that he was an integral part of the world's biggest band and had a succesful solo career? Everything else is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radomu Posted February 27, 2011 Author Share Posted February 27, 2011 You can also look at Gallipoli that was his idea 100,000 men died there brave young men from New Zealand and Australia not to mention how many Turks died in that blood bath for nothing at all , Dieppe in the second world war a nut-her waste of brave young men,s life's Canadians that time, invasion of Italy was his idea as well. He did apparently have very little concern for his troops, and sometimes used them like wasted bullets (like we saw in Dieppe, which was obviously going to fail). But we must also remember the firebombing of Dresden, which Churchill pledged to kill an additional 10 germans for every Englishman that perished under the Blitz. He intentionally targeted working class areas of Germany to add more casualties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 these men that died were happy to give their lives for our country, they believed the germans should be brought down.. Gallipoli was an action against the Turks, not the Germans, and it served considerably less than no useful purpose. As a strategist, Churchill was worse than useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 Gallipoli was an action against the Turks, not the Germans, and it served considerably less than no useful purpose. As a strategist, Churchill was worse than useless. Haven't you got a good word to say about anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shogun Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 But that doesn't make any sense, he didn't actually claim that Mcartney was a better songwriter than Lennon, just that that was apparently the perception amongst the public until Lennon died. How good the songs actually were or not has nothing to do with the point he was making. Never liked the Beatles that much ,The Rolling Stones were better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 He was undoubtedly a drunk and a war monger. There's no dispute when it comes to that. speaking of warmongering and drunkeness my little samuri troll ,theres no dispute about the sadistic atrocitys and tortures the japanese did in the death camps of ww2 and nanking (definately not overrated).look up what your wonderful race did in unit 731 if you've got the stomach for it.you lot make winston look like a pacifist:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 Does anyone else find it amusing, yet at the same time depressing how proudly certain people flaunt their ignorance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 speaking of warmongering and drunkeness my little samuri troll ,theres no dispute about the sadistic atrocitys and tortures the japanese did in the death camps of ww2 and nanking (definately not overrated).look up what your wonderful race did in unit 731 if you've got the stomach for it.you lot make winston look like a pacifist:D Are you serious? Grow up, it's not 'us vs them'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noob Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 JFK - A do nothing president. Sure, had he lived he may have been fine but the only thing he really accomplished was looking good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 JFK - A do nothing president. Sure, had he lived he may have been fine but the only thing he really accomplished was looking good. He put a man on the moon, for one thing. That has to rank as one of humanity's greatest achievements, although how much it had to do with him I'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.