If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
Canadian flag on the backback myth
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. |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
Canadian flag on the backback myth
"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? |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
Canadian flag on the backback myth
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? |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
Canadian flag on the backback myth
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 |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
Canadian flag on the backback myth
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. |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
Canadian flag on the backback myth
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. |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
Canadian flag on the backback myth
"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. |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
Canadian flag on the backback myth
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. |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
Canadian flag on the backback myth
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canadian flag on the backback myth | Xomicron | Europe | 287 | June 23rd, 2004 10:42 PM |
An evening in Windsor / My first rude Canadian border guard | Abe Kouris | USA & Canada | 25 | June 3rd, 2004 03:38 AM |
Documents required for entry into Canada | Ted Elston | USA & Canada | 0 | May 3rd, 2004 03:09 PM |
BA - Canadian teacher available - ESL/ Computers - any country | T.Dillon | Asia | 1 | November 8th, 2003 12:31 AM |