Canadian flag on the backback myth

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 01:33:19 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

devil wrote in
news
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 23:50:26 +0000, Xomicron wrote:


Your numbers are inflated and have no basis in fact.

I am not aware that the thugs at the White House have been publishing
official fgures for Iraqi civilian casualties. So why not take his
guess as a valid starting point?

Because it isn't valid.

It's as valid as any alternative. Provide a better number from a credible
source.

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
Xomicron wrote:


So? The Soviets almoat singlehandedluy defeated the Nazis.

No, they didn't. If there was no Western front the Soviets would have
been
beaten.

I met an interesting man today, a former U Boat captain. According to
him,
Germany lost the war at the battle of Kursk (May/43).

Before that in fact. Kursk was the last serious German
offensive in the east but even that was only an attempt
to straighten the line and make it more defensible.

After the failure of the 1942 summer offensive and the
disaster at Stalingrad Germany was on the strategic
defensive. From the beginning of 1943 the allies
dictated the pace on both eastern and western fronts.

The last real chance for Germany to win was in 1941
and they fluffed it by not capturing Moscow.

They were in full
retreat. His own father defied orders and pulled back from his position in
Chechnya, and according to him, German troops headed west in the hope of
surrendering to the Allies because they could not hold back the soviets.



Thats true of Spring 1945 but from June 1944 onwards
there more German troops defending against the western
allies than were available on the eastern front. Key
German industrial capacity in the Ruhr was just too
close to the French and Belgian border which was why
the gamble of the Ardennes offensive was taken in winter 44

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

devil wrote in
news
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 01:31:24 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

"http://www.iamnotamerican.com" wrote
in :

in a recent article, ANONYMOUSE ) said:

these united States have not been at war since 1945.

Let's see...Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Persian Gulf
II...certainly
seems to have been some wars in the last 59 years.

No declared wars.

All illegal wars, right? A rogue state, engaged in terrorism, I
suppose.

There's no such thing as an illegal war.

Following up to Xomicron

Let's see...Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Persian Gulf
II...certainly
seems to have been some wars in the last 59 years.

No declared wars.

All illegal wars, right? A rogue state, engaged in terrorism, I
suppose.

There's no such thing as an illegal war.

so declared wars and undeclared ones are the same?
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:59:26 +0100, The Reids wrote:

Following up to Xomicron

Let's see...Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Persian Gulf
II...certainly
seems to have been some wars in the last 59 years.

No declared wars.

All illegal wars, right? A rogue state, engaged in terrorism, I
suppose.

There's no such thing as an illegal war.

so declared wars and undeclared ones are the same?

I guess he approves of Pearl Harbor too. At least he thinks it was
perfectly legal apparently.

devil wrote:

In hindsight, Canada ought to have charged a hefty fee for US-registered
planes who insisted in landing in Canada. Something like a million
buck/pax. Choice of that or the Atlantic. Still better than the US whose
choice was the Atlantic or getting shot down, right?


Not exactly a neighbourly thing to do! But that is just my Canadian perspective.

But no, Chretien was just too nice and he apparently had no hesitation in
doing the necessary for handling US government stupidity.

The right thing to do way to save all those lives! Then and there. It doesn't
matter what nationality they were, does it? Human lives are all the same aren't
they? These were innocent people weren't they?

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:25:08 -0500, Ken Pisichko wrote:



devil wrote:

In hindsight, Canada ought to have charged a hefty fee for US-registered
planes who insisted in landing in Canada. Something like a million
buck/pax. Choice of that or the Atlantic. Still better than the US whose
choice was the Atlantic or getting shot down, right?


Not exactly a neighbourly thing to do! But that is just my Canadian perspective.

But no, Chretien was just too nice and he apparently had no hesitation in
doing the necessary for handling US government stupidity.

The right thing to do way to save all those lives! Then and there. It doesn't
matter what nationality they were, does it? Human lives are all the same aren't
they? These were innocent people weren't they?

Well, sure.

But we could have made them pay for it. :-)

The point remains that it's amazing that the US government left even their
own US-registered planes at the mercy of Canadian charity the way they
did. At the very least, shouldn't we expect a bit of gratitude?

:-)

(And yes, we have heard that argument before. Nice to turn it around
though. :-))

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:58:53 -0400, Dave Smith
wrote:

Xomicron wrote:


So? The Soviets almoat singlehandedluy defeated the Nazis.

No, they didn't. If there was no Western front the Soviets would have been
beaten.

I met an interesting man today, a former U Boat captain. According to him,
Germany lost the war at the battle of Kursk (May/43). They were in full
retreat. His own father defied orders and pulled back from his position in
Chechnya, and according to him, German troops headed west in the hope of
surrendering to the Allies because they could not hold back the soviets.

Really? Then why did the war in Europe last another two full years?

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 21:51:01 +0000, peneny wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:58:53 -0400, Dave Smith
wrote:

Xomicron wrote:


So? The Soviets almoat singlehandedluy defeated the Nazis.

No, they didn't. If there was no Western front the Soviets would have been
beaten.

I met an interesting man today, a former U Boat captain. According to him,
Germany lost the war at the battle of Kursk (May/43). They were in full
retreat. His own father defied orders and pulled back from his position in
Chechnya, and according to him, German troops headed west in the hope of
surrendering to the Allies because they could not hold back the soviets.

Really? Then why did the war in Europe last another two full years?

Mopping up.

I guess the Germans still took a while to convince themselves game was
over?

http://www.iamnotamerican.com wrote:
in a recent article, PTRAVEL ) said:
Brava, Barbara! That has been my experience as well. The only thing this
thread proves is that rude and intolerant people can be found in all
countries.

This is likely the most accurate statement made in this thread.
However, the truth of the matter is that those from the good ol' U.S. of A
have a reputation as being the most rude and intolerant when travelling,
regardless of if it is a deserved reputation or not.

Actually that's not true at all. Americans consistently rate at the top of
the lists of preferred nationalities in polls of hoteliers and
restauranteurs aroiund the world. American travelers, by and large, are
friendly, polite, and quite free with the money.

I have seen it first hand. Someone I know was receiving bad service,
mentioned to a third party that "I've never had service this bad, even back
home in Canada" to which the waiter walking by said quite willingly
"oh...you're Canadian? We thought you were American" and the level of
service skyrocketed.

I doubt this very much.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu