Britain's Greatest Ever Foe?

[hjmick]

George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe - Telegraph

America, Fuck Yeah!

Wait... Technically he was British...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just 'cause he was a Brit citizen until he said "the fuck I am, nit wit" makes it even better!!!

 

[Toronado3800]

Neat list. Thanks for the good read.

 

[boedicca]

Meh. Emperor Claudius would have been a better choice. I don't recall George Washington invading England and enslaving the population he didn't slaughter.

 

[Swagger]

Meh. Emperor Claudius would have been a better choice. I don't recall George Washington invading England and enslaving the population he didn't slaughter.

Although, to be fair, the Romans did bring civilisation.

 

[California Girl]

Meh. Emperor Claudius would have been a better choice. I don't recall George Washington invading England and enslaving the population he didn't slaughter.

Although, to be fair, the Romans did bring civilisation.

I heard that.... when exactly did y'all become uncivilized again... because I know your country... y'all ain't very civilized.

 

[Swagger]

Meh. Emperor Claudius would have been a better choice. I don't recall George Washington invading England and enslaving the population he didn't slaughter.

Although, to be fair, the Romans did bring civilisation.

I heard that.... when exactly did y'all become uncivilized again... because I know your country... y'all ain't very civilized.

Er, chucking-out time.

 

[boedicca]

Meh. Emperor Claudius would have been a better choice. I don't recall George Washington invading England and enslaving the population he didn't slaughter.

Although, to be fair, the Romans did bring civilisation.

Britain had civilization prior to the arrival of the Romans, bub.

 

[Dragon]

i have considerable respect for Washington, but if they're talking about enemy generals, I think Napoleon really has to top the list, or perhaps William of Normandy if you want to restrict it to foes who actually won their wars.

 

[Swagger]

Meh. Emperor Claudius would have been a better choice. I don't recall George Washington invading England and enslaving the population he didn't slaughter.

Although, to be fair, the Romans did bring civilisation.

Britain had civilization prior to the arrival of the Romans, bub.

'Britain' didn't exist before the Romans.

 

[boedicca]

So? There was "civilization" within Britain prior to the Romans' arrival.

 

[California Girl]

Although, to be fair, the Romans did bring civilisation.

I heard that.... when exactly did y'all become uncivilized again... because I know your country... y'all ain't very civilized.

Er, chucking-out time.

Yea, it's a pity. You have such a beautiful country. Shame that you can't respect it.

 

[Peach]

i have considerable respect for Washington, but if they're talking about enemy generals, I think Napoleon really has to top the list, or perhaps William of Normandy if you want to restrict it to foes who actually won their wars.

Rommel

 

[Swagger]

So? There was "civilization" within Britain prior to the Romans' arrival.

Civilisation isn't the word I'd use to describe the different tribes who had their own respective languages and culture in Britain (or Albion) before the arrival of General Plautius and his legions.

 

[Ragnar]

i have considerable respect for Washington, but if they're talking about enemy generals, I think Napoleon really has to top the list, or perhaps William of Normandy if you want to restrict it to foes who actually won their wars.

Napoleon was a foe of much of Europe and even Russia though not particularity of England. Though I'd concede, if more successful, he eventually could have been the greater foe.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUJsYLiizvU]ABBA : Waterloo (Momarkedet 1975) HQ - YouTube[/ame]

My guess is the voters decided England lost more in the colonies due to Washington than was lost due to Napoleon's er... shenanigans.

 

[Peach]

i have considerable respect for Washington, but if they're talking about enemy generals, I think Napoleon really has to top the list, or perhaps William of Normandy if you want to restrict it to foes who actually won their wars.

Napoleon was a foe of much of Europe and even Russia though not particularity of England. Though I'd concede, if more successful, he eventually could have been the greater foe.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUJsYLiizvU]ABBA : Waterloo (Momarkedet 1975) HQ - YouTube[/ame]

My guess is the voters decided England lost more in the colonies due to Washington than was lost due to Napoleon's er... shenanigans.

Rommel

 

[JakeStarkey]

So? There was "civilization" within Britain prior to the Romans' arrival.

What civilization? The natives burned folks alive in wicker cages for hoots.

 

[dilloduck]

So? There was "civilization" within Britain prior to the Romans' arrival.

What civilization? The natives burned folks alive in wicker cages for hoots.

Every civilization has it's population control techniques.

 

[Ragnar]

i have considerable respect for Washington, but if they're talking about enemy generals, I think Napoleon really has to top the list, or perhaps William of Normandy if you want to restrict it to foes who actually won their wars.

Napoleon was a foe of much of Europe and even Russia though not particularity of England. Though I'd concede, if more successful, he eventually could have been the greater foe.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUJsYLiizvU]ABBA : Waterloo (Momarkedet 1975) HQ - YouTube[/ame]

My guess is the voters decided England lost more in the colonies due to Washington than was lost due to Napoleon's er... shenanigans.

Rommel

I thought a decent case was made for Rommel in the article. Though arguably both Rommel and England had a common foe in Hitler. (granted it's nice when your foe's boss is batsh** insane)

 

[Douger]

Man. I get bored posting this reality.............