02 Dec 04
Originally posted by MayharmWhy did we let him continue killing his own people for another decade and shoot at american airplanes for that same period... trying to enforce the UN imposed no fly zone?
[b]"we learned not to let facist states come to fruition"
"Not to appease fascists."
Are you somehow suggesting that the sanctions were simply "appeasing" saddam? That prior to US invasion the UN was allowing a fascist state to come to fruition?
IF the world had acted when hitler invaded poland, as it did when saddam i ...[text shortened]... is tracks over a decade ago, I'd have to say that lesson was learnt...
MÅ¥HÅRM[/b]
Are you saying that Saddam wasn't a brutal dictator? That he wasn't on par with Tojo and Hitler? I'll say he was the same. He even had the same identical extermination and final solution for Jews as state policy. He bragged about it for crying out loud.
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicLook, I'm not taking any sides, I'm just making an argument becuase it is fun and I saw the opportunity more clearly in your post. OP's statements are ambiguous, sure, but I think you made the grosser exaggeration.
How quickly you defend non-Americans...at least you are consistent...was he not being 'ambiguous' or 'intellectually dishonest'?
😲
I didn't say ''intellectually dishonest'' either.
02 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by chancremechanicIt is patently illogical to interpret my opinions on when I did and did not post. Mateulose does not deserve responses because he is incoherent and boring.
How quickly you defend non-Americans...at least you are consistent...was he not being 'ambiguous' or 'intellectually dishonest'?
😲 And, I suppose 'something' thst kills 3,000 people is also hardly 'minimal'?...did you res ...[text shortened]... so, split hairs all you want....I'll stand by the comparisons....
In short, I am only disputing the point that the Candian contribution to WWII was 'minimal'. This has nothing to do with 9/11 or Pearl Harbor or American car deaths in a representative 14th of the country or any other events that kill approximately 3000 people.
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by royalchickenHoly Crap!
[... does not deserve responses because he is incoherent and boring.[/b]
Now I know why nobody ever responds to me!
<slaps forehead... really hard, gathers from the floor, misses the chair and barks at the dog who is laughing it's ass off in the corner>
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by royalchicken"Patently illogical" 😵...LOL...somehow I picture you in a Dr. Spock costume, calculator and math book in hand, tutoring people like me on the impossibility of multiplying 0x3 to get 18...thanks for the chuckle....keep up the studies....😉
It is patently illogical to interpret my opinions on when I did and did not post. Mateulose does not deserve responses because he is incoherent and boring.
In short, I am only disputing the point that the Candian contribution to WWII was 'minimal'. This has nothing to do with 9/11 or Pearl Harbor or American car deaths in a representative 14th of the country or any other events that kill approximately 3000 people.
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicIndeed. Actually, I do wonder what you meant by ''minimal contribution''.
"Patently illogical" 😵...LOL...somehow I picture you in a Dr. Spock costume, calculator and math book in hand, tutoring people like me on the impossibility of multiplying 0x3 to get 18...thanks for the chuckle....keep up the studies....😉
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by royalchickenI was using wrong terminology. No country, including Canada, 'minimally' contributed in WW2, as all contributions accounted for the eventual destruction of Fascism; however, I take issue with these 'clowns' who get their History from Turner Classic Movies and deduce that because John Wayne killed 30 Japanese singlehandedly on Iwo Jima, Americans think they must have won the war 'single-handedly'...🙄
Indeed. Actually, I do wonder what you meant by ''minimal contribution''.
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicWell, hell I was nicely pissed off at your previous posts, now you settle me down again! Yeah WWII was a really big show for sure ... I think the idea that Americans "think they won the war single-handedly" comes partly from such series as "The 20th Century" narrated by Walter Cronkite. The series ignores (mostly) America's allies, but that's not too surprising since I doubt that CBS had film rights to the ally's war footage.
I was using wrong terminology. No country, including Canada, 'minimally' contributed in WW2, as all contributions accounted for the eventual destruction of Fascism; however, I take issue with these 'clowns' who get their History from Turner Classic Movies and deduce that because John Wayne killed 30 Japanese singlehandedly on Iwo Jima, Americans think they must have won the war 'single-handedly'...🙄
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by KneverKnightThank you for you unbiased response...
Well, hell I was nicely pissed off at your previous posts, now you settle me down again! Yeah WWII was a really big show for sure ... I think the idea that Americans "think they won the war single-handedly" comes partly from such series as "The 20th Century" narrated by Walter Cronkite. The series ignores (mostly) America's allies, but that's not too surprising since I doubt that CBS had film rights to the ally's war footage.
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicCBS can't be blamed for only reporting facts they had access to eg. much of the former USSR's war effort was still secret then.
Thank you for you unbiased response...
Besides that, what's wrong with the USA, Canada, Britain or whoever trumping their war efforts, or their country's acheivements? We all do it to some degree, but most of us don't have a Hollywood, if you see what I mean.
02 Dec 04
Wow. I go away at 3 pm figuring the post wasn't generating much interest but I apparently didn't give enough time for that paragon of American jingoism, chancremechanic, to jump in.
I'd like to take this time to thank chancre for spouting every unproven negative American stereotypical perception of Canada he could think of in one post.
Chancre, I'd be happy to debate the relative contribution the U.S. and Canada have made to world peace anytime you'd like, but the point of my post is that I think its strange for the President of the U.S. to try to motivate Canada into a war by referring to our contribution in another war that the U.S. tried very hard to stay OUT of.
I don't question his right to ask us to participate, just like I don't question our right to stay out of it. I just think the manner in which he chose to pursue the issue was peculiar.
As for American war movies, I've seen plenty and I gotta say it's very hard to find one in which people from other countries AREN'T represented as:
a) the enemy
b) an impediment to victory
c) a love interest
d) comic relief
There was one WWII movie I seem to recall in which this joint U.S./Canadian strike force was created for some reason or other... but the quality wasn't very good and the actors sucked, so it was probably made in Canada.
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by pcaspianIt's a commonly held belief Ducks don't echo when they quack, whoever made that one up must be pissing them selfs laughing...
Is it commonly believed that the USA were to enter into the war in anycase, hence Japan's decision to attack the USA.
It's a commonly held belief amongst many that having your pawns in a nice zig zag is a good defensive structure
It was a commonly held belief Sadam had WMD.
None of those are true but they are all commonly held beliefs. Who believes the americans were going to enter the war anyway? When exactly did "they" believe this was going to happen? An easy commnet to make 50 years later... "we were gonna join anyway!"...sure you were 😉
I'm afraid I'll have to face the charge, yet again, of being an "unbeliever"
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by wibLend Lease was hardly the act of neutral power.
Even then the US didn't declare war on Germany. We declared war on Japan. Germany declared war on the US 3 days after Pearl Harbor I believe. It may have been 4 days later. Either way, the US went to war in Europe.
President Bush needs to read a history book. He could start with one that addresses the Russian invasion of Afganhistan in 1980. How well ...[text shortened]... ussia finally crawls out of Afghanistan with their tails tucked between their legs.
US destroyers escorting cargoship halfway across the Atlantic wasnt either.
The Flying Tigers were U.S.Army Air Corps "volunteers" not a mercenary unit.
.
A British Catalina aircraft of No. 209 Squadron, piloted by US Navy observer Ensign Leonard B. Smith, USNR (US Naval Reserve), spotted Bismarck at a range of about eight miles. While Ensign Smith flew the aircraft and evaded accurate German antiaircraft fire, his British copilot radioed a report of the enemy warship's location 24 may 1941
02 Dec 04
This post certainly is covering a lot of ground, though as far as the "war on terror" goes It took an attack on sept3mber 11th to wakw up bush to the problem. Up until then he never really seemed interested in the middle east as long as the oil kept flowing (with the ecception of his personal vendetta with Saddam.). The rest of the middle east problems he left to his buddy sharon. After 9/11 He was able to get support for going after al-quidia (sp) but then began to use the situation for his own agenda. (sort of like if after 12/7/41 the us attacted mexico). Sure Saddam was bad, but so are many others in the world who we don't seem to care about. The fact is Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism of defending the U.S. but rather a personal agenda of bush.
02 Dec 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhat has either of those points got to do with "appeasing" saddam or allowing his fascist state to "come to fruition"?
Why did we let him continue killing his own people for another decade and shoot at american airplanes for that same period... trying to enforce the UN imposed no fly zone?
Are you saying that Saddam wasn't a brutal dictator? That he wasn't on par with Tojo and Hitler? I'll say he was the same. He even had the same identical extermination and final solution for Jews as state policy. He bragged about it for crying out loud.
You suggested that that was the situation prior to the US invasion.
What evidence do you have to support that?
Further axplainations on how saddam was a nasty dictator are not admissable. If you need the reason why explained to you, that will render your claim nonsense. (but feel free to whine about it afterwards, I could do with the amusement 😉 )
MÅ¥HÅRM