Canadian flag on the backback myth

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 09:43:01 -0500, Olivers wrote:

devil extrapolated from data available...

..

US companies sold stuff such as roller bearings and oil to Nazi
Germany *throughout the war.* Ford, Standard Oil, and of course the
Bush family were the main culprits.


I suspect that reading anything but claptrap might revise your opinion of
who did what "throughout the war".....

Source: Charles Higham, "Trading with the enemy," Delacorte, NY 1983.

General Motors and Ford did have German subsidiaries prior to WWII, (GM's
larger). Neither company profited from the wartime production of those
factories, and both companies ended up writing off much of the asset value.
Standard Oil of New Jersey (one of several "Statndard Oils) along with
almost every other oil company ceased direct sales to germany in Sep, 1939,
although SONJ did have some assets in Rumania expropriated, IIRC. Of
course, until the Summer of 1941, the Soviet Union was Germany's largest
supplier of POL. By US standards, then and today, the Bush family remain
only modestly wealthy, barely players in the oil business, although the
President's grandfather, a long time senator from Connecticutt was
favorably regarded and the recipient of substantial political contribution
from "Big Oil".

Not talking about German subsidiaries. But parts such as roller bearings
*made in the US.* Oil from Texas.

Finding their way to Germany. With Roosevelt's knowledge. Not that he
liked it, but he decided it would be better to look the other way.

GM was not involved BTW.

devil wrote in
news
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:36:52 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

Ken Pisichko wrote in :

Bogart wrote:

The US won't "win"

Really? Where is Saddam? Where are the Sunni thugs who ruled that
country with an iron fist? Who makes up the new Iraqi government
and what are their goals? How many newspapers are now being
published in Baghdad free of censorship? How many women make up that
new governing council? How many young girls are for the first time
going to school in Iraq? How is it that Iraq now has more social
infrastructure in place than it ever did under Saddam? I understand
you're mad. Rabid dogs get mad. What I don't understand is your
ignorance and your willingness to spread it all over the world via
the usenet.


My my, so this is your definition of winning. OK so the US finally got
****ed off at Saddam AFTER supporting him and giving him all those
WMDs to fight those dastardly Ayatollas ... Why did you let him go on
for so long?

Ask Bill Clinton.

and will hand over the stinking mess they started (with their
invasion) for someone else to deal with while at the same time
extolling their mattra "WE won the war!! WE won the war!! What
revisionistic bull****.

Your superpower does not have the ability to create peace, just to
"win" by killing all opposition and flattening the country. Kinda
like the German Panzer division did when they opened up on the
Polish Calvary at the beginning of WW II. Even though they overran
Poland they had nothing but trouble for the rest of the "war". Then
the Germans were defeated. The US won't win the peace offensive
because they do NOT have the capability. If they did have that
capability why do they pass off the destroyed countryside to someone
else AND ask them to get involved in the peace process.

You need to look more closely at WW2 history. The two countries who
were the chief architects of WW2 - Germany and Japan were both
leveled by the United States and both rebuilt via the Marshal Plan
into first world countries by the same United States of America.

Oh, the USA won the war! More revisionist bull****. Why were RCAF,
RAF, RAAF and RNZAF aircrews bombing the AXIS powers? For practice?
Why are there thousands of British, Canadian, French, Australian, New
Zealand and other ALLIED soldiers buried all over this earth adjactent
to or near the cemetaries of AXIS warriors?

They weren't accomplishing much until the Americans arrived.

Surely you must mean the Soviets? Who al;most singlehanded defeated
the Nazis, while the US were more or less tied in the Pacific?

Who do you think was supplying the Soviets? The Americans of course. We
were supplying their war machine as well as fighting a two front war.

The Soviets would have been overrun if it wasn't for American assistance
and intervention in the European theater.

"Xomicron" wrote in message

Surely you must mean the Soviets? Who al;most singlehanded defeated
the Nazis, while the US were more or less tied in the Pacific?

Who do you think was supplying the Soviets? The Americans of course. We
were supplying their war machine as well as fighting a two front war.

All those US built T-34s?

devil wrote in
news
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 13:06:13 -0500, ANONYMOUSE wrote:

The Americans "arrived" because of what happened one Sunday morning in
Hawaii. Then they got their asses kicked badly enough that they
realized they better get into the war INSTEAD of SELLING war materials
to both the AXIS and ALLIES.

Hi,

actually as a neutral country these united States (the government)
didn't SELL war materials to either side.

we did have a program called "lend/lease" which allowed us to "loan"
war materials to britian for example... that was not a "sale" and was
thus legal... "lend/lease" enfields bring a premium on the collectors
market.

what private companies do that's not against the law is their own
business....

US companies sold stuff such as roller bearings and oil to Nazi Germany
*throughout the war.* Ford, Standard Oil, and of course the Bush family
were the main culprits.

Holy ****, if you're going to lie, at least tell the FULL lie so people
can see what a bull**** lie it is.

Dubya's grandaddy (Prescott Bush) owned stock and was on the board of
directors of a company called the Union Banking Corporation. UBC
provided loans to for the construction of Post WW I Germany. Most people
aren't aware that Germany was still rebuilding when they declared war on
the US. On 10/20/1942 (almost a year after Japan attacked, and several
months after Germany's declaration of war on the US), the US Alien
Property Custodian seized UBC under the recently passed "Trading With
the Enemy Act", because UBC was still receiving principal and interest
payments from Nazi Germany on loans nearly a decade old.

The same Prescott Bush was also on the Board of Directors of the
Harriman Fifteen Corporation, which was owned by Averell Harriman.
Harriman Fifteen owned 1/3rd (33%...not even a controlling share) of
Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation, the rest of which was owned by
German Industrialist Freidrich Flick, who had ties to the Nazi party
through Hienrich Himmler.

So, George Bush's great grandfather worked with a guy that owned part of
a company that was also owned by a guy who did business in Germany and
new a prominant Nazi. Isn't there a game like this, something about
Kevin Bacon?

Theres another one that goes like this: Prescott Bush invested in cruise
liners which were sometimes used by Nazi party members to travel between
the US and Germany. Or was that Kathy Lee Gifford?

Ken Pisichko wrote in :

Xomicron wrote:

David Smith wrote in
:

Xomicron wrote:

The United States did not lose the Vietnam militarily. They lost
it politically.

According to most Americans, you didn't lose the War of 1812
either.

The US didn't lose the War of 1812.

Sure you did. The US declared war on Britain and invaded Canada, but
were unsuccessful. After several attempts to achieve their objective
they gave up. So I guess your idea of a victory in that conflict,
like Vietnam, is gathering up your troops and running home.

The purpose of the war was to stop British impression of US sailors.
This was accomplished. The war was a successful defense of American
rights, culminating in the victory at New Orleans. Because New Orleans
was successfully defended, American expansion into the Southwest was
possible. Neither side lost territory.

Don't forget "your" opposition also left you with a Black House.

So, because the British burned the White House (which wasn't even called
the White House then) you think the US lost the war?

snicker

David Smith wrote in
:

Xomicron wrote:

David Smith wrote in
:

The US didn't lose the War of 1812.

Sure you did. The US declared war on Britain and invaded Canada, but
were unsuccessful. After several attempts to achieve their objective
they gave up. So I guess your idea of a victory in that conflict,
like Vietnam, is gathering up your troops and running home.

The purpose of the war was to stop British impression of US sailors.
This was accomplished. The war was a successful defense of American
rights, culminating in the victory at New Orleans. Because New Orleans
was successfully defended, American expansion into the Southwest was
possible. Neither side lost territory.

The British were impressing seaman to man their ships for the fight
against Napolean, and the sailors impressed were mostly British, most
with phoney certificates saying they were American. Consider them the
same as American draft dodgers who fled to Canada to avoid the draft.
The British stopped impressing sailors and ended their embargo of
European ports after defeating Napoleon. The fact remains that the US
aimed to invade and occupy Canada but failed, so they lost.

The goal of the war was to get Britain off the US's back. That was
accomplished, paving the way for American expansion west. Capturing Canada
would have been the icing on the cake but was not necessary to get Britain
to agree to a peace treaty.

devil wrote in
news
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:16:10 +0000, Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:15:44 -0400, David Smith
wrote:

Xomicron wrote:

these united States have not been at war since 1945.

Nice exercise in semantics. The US did not lose a war in Vietnam
because they have decided that technically it was not a war,
presumably?

The United States did not lose the Vietnam militarily. They lost it
politically.

Yep. After failing to achieve a military victory

Name one battle lost by US forces in Vietnam.

Losing the war as a whole and limping hime with your tail between your
legs isn't good enough for you?

(BTW, get ready for more of the same mewdicine in Iraq. Seems you guys
get to relearn the limits of military power every generation.)

Interesting revisionist history.

"Robert R." wrote in
:

I laugh when in a situation where I don't speak the language and the
person I'm attempting to communicate with speaks more slow, as if I can
grasp what they're saying when they speak that way.

Until then, I thought that only English speaking people like me who
dealt with those who don't speak it did that.

If you don't understand a word of Mandarin, someone speaking it at half
speed sure doesn't help.

Funny isn't it! I was listening to Arabic and I do not know a single
word but I keep wishing they would slow down a bit because I cannot tell
where one word ends and the next begins like a stream of water.

Almost as bad as trying to read that chicken scratch they call a language.

Scott Willing wrote in
:

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 02:13:19 +0000 (UTC), Xomicron
wrote:

Scott Willing wrote in
m:

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:30:16 +0000 (UTC), Xomicron
wrote:

(sneakysneak) wrote in
m:

Xomicron wrote in message
...

You may hate us but you're still our bitches.

Your ID handle is from some Futurama episode

No, it isn't, but yours is from a well known homosexual.

When USA is self-sufficient in terms of their
energy demands, yes.

The US has the potential to be, but we prefer to use up everyone
else's oil first.

Don't look now sonny, but you actually used up your *own* first.

And, things have been looking dicey in Saudi Arabia for quite some
time now. That's why Bush is over in Iraq making a lousy show of
ramming democracy down peoples' throats.

The liberals seem to believe that Arabs are not genetically capable of
democracy and think it would be better if we just let them kill each
other and threaten the rest of the planet.

It would appear that the right wingers seem to believe that Arabs are
not genetically capable of democracy either, since they apparently
need bombs, missiles, tanks, 15000 dead civilians and an occupying
force to "free" them and "help" them to determine their own future.

Your numbers are inflated and have no basis in fact.

Ken Pisichko wrote in :

Bogart wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 02:03:29 GMT, "Haximus" wrote:

I hear American reporters in Iraq have been identifying themselves as
Canadians.

Why would they do that when they're all carrying PASSPORTS.

Obviously they want to live. A US passport was a sure-fire way of
getting killed. Mr. Berg, wasn't it? Anything to survive.

Terrorists don't give a **** if you're Canadian. They're probably
chuckling at your false sense of security.