Americans on the board...

Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=Slapdragon link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=90#98 date=07/05/04 at 19:36:57]

I wont get anywhere with this kid, I was just trying to see if he could support his positions with facts.[/quote]I will provide whatever facts I can in a reasonable amount of time later.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=Josh_Boelter link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=90#97 date=07/05/04 at 19:29:11]Man, I thought I'd solved all the world's problems by insisting that Britain should run the world because they gave us Keira Knightley. Seemed logical, to me. I went off-line, watched Requiem for a Dream on DVD, come back full of bewilderment because of a fantastic strange odyssey of a flick, and people are still talking about politics that have nothing to do with Keira Knightley. Or Jennifer Connelly, for that matter.

[/quote]

LMAO

J Con is another smokin brunette and yeah, my wife is smokin hot. I got lucky.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

I think Jennifer Connely runs circles around the Keira chick.. Keira needs to learn to pick up a fork.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

LOL

Personal experience?

This a Canadian site with a bunch of yanks hanging out. The Canadinas are our brothers. (except for Quebec) ::)
 
Re: Americans on the board...

Here you go Slappy:

American Revolution: Colonists sick of being screwed by the Brittish with taxes and stuff and fight back. Although if you think about it, they did just begin a process of systematic lying and stealing and killing with the Native Americans, so maybe they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

One could also say that the colonists (well, the aristocrats)were getting greedy and wanting a larger slice of the pie for themselves. I do remember reading about the class warfare at the time. It was the poor that had to fight the brittish.

4500 Americans died and about 6000 were wounded.

War o' 1812: A war that the US declared on the Brittish. This war was the result of constant disputes with the Brittish and not them trying to take away our freedoms. We lost about 2300 lives in this one.

Wars with Injuns: Between the war of 1812 and the Mexican war, we had to fight with someone right? So, we killed time be killing "indians" or "savages" (as they might have been called) and constantly forcing them farther and farther west. We made hundreds of treaties and I'm not aware of a single one that was kept. Over 1,000 Americans died fighting the indiginous people and their death toll was probably one hundred times more.

Mexican American: A classic imperialistic war for Texas. American blood was supposedly shed on American soil, but that has been disputed and I do remember reading that we were in territory that we claimed was ours, but really wasn't. We sent troops into this disputed territory, they attacked us like we were hoping and it was on. That state cost nearly 2000 American lives and wounded 4500 and many would probably say it was well worth it.

Civil War: The South seceeded from the Union because they wanted to keep their slaves. The North wanted the South back, so it was on. Nobody was fighting for slaves to be free like school books might have you believe. Over 200,000 Americans suffered a violent death, especially considering that in many of the battles you could only get one shot off before you had to be engaged in hand to hand combat. There were hundreds of thousands of non mortal woundings in this battle which back then might seem like a fate worse than death. Especially if you've ever seen some of the brutal methods of surgery.

Spanish American: An American ship goes down near Havanna and although there was no proof, Spain is blamed and American newspapers push for war with Spain. America didn't end up owning Cuba, but at least Spain didn't own it anymore (from US perspective). I'd like to read up on this war more when I have the time.

Shortly after the US defeated Spain and gained control of Cuba, they took over the Phillipines by brute force and annexed Hawaii.

Dubya Dubya I: The countries of Europe were invading each other for imperialistic reasons. Nationalism was intense in Europe around this time. An ocean liner with American citizens on it was sank by Germany which increased tensions. In July of 1916 the Brittish gassed the Germans. The Germans announced that they would engage in unrestricted submarine warfare and as a protest the US broke off relations with the Germans and joined the allied forces. The president declared it was "a war to make the world safe for democracy". There were a bunch of battles and the allied side won with the help of the US's vast resources. We lost 53,000 men in this war which was nothing compared to the European deaths.

Dubya Dubya II: WWII was considered the good war because our enemies were so goddam evil. However, by the end of the war "our side" had committed atrocities that I consider terrorism, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki in which as many as 230,000 civilians were targeted and killed. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor warrented a military attack against the Japanese government and military, not a terrorist attack against innocent people. And of course there's the conspiricey theory that Roosevelt and the US government knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and just let it happen. Here's a quote from a website I was looking at:

"President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war." I don't expect you to believe that, but it is possible and would surely do damage to it's rep as a "good war".

We lost about 300,000 men in this war and about two and a half times that were wounded.

Korea: A war to keep communism from spreading from North Korea to South Korea. This was an unpopular war at home and Eisenhower was elected on a promise to end the war. "U.S. losses were placed at over 54,000 dead and 103,000 wounded, while Chinese and Korean casualties were each at least 10 times as high."

Vietnam: A war to stop the spread of communism? Hmm... that's funny considering all the business we do with our good friend and ally China. After the French lost control of North Vietnam, the US didn't want it to become a separate communist country, so they started conducting small operations against the North. I don't remember where I read it, but I do remember that we first attacked Vietnam after a friendly fire incident blamed on the Vietnamese(hmm... how's that spelled?). This war still makes no sense to me. Other than political machismo, I can't really think of any good reason why nearly 60,000 Americans and 1.5 million Vietnamese had to die. That's not counting the wounded.

The cold war: A standoff with the "evil empire" to once again combat that pesky communism. There were no casualties that I'm aware of in this war. Of course, this war could have ended in the mutual destruction of both countries... and for what?

Desert Storm: Sadaam Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking nobody would do anything about it. However, he didn't realize the influence that Israel and Saudi Arabia have over the Unitied States. Israel was afraid that they'd be next and the US was afraid that Sadaam would go after Saudi Arabia's oil, so it was on. To pretend that the US actually cared about the people of Kuwait is a joke. I've read civilian death estimates of this war around 20,000. That's 20,000 men, women, and children dying violent deaths that were minding their own business. United Nations sactions led by the US on Iraq cause Saddams people to suffer, while Saddam prospered. Some estimates put the death of children, due to food and medication sanctions, as high as one million. ONE MILLION CHILDREN. In the meantime, Saddam continued to build himself palaces and remained unaffected by the sanctions which weren't lifted until the US seized Iraq in '03.

We also killed over 100,000 Iraqi soldiers in this war and only lost 147 of our own. Hmm... we lost 147 soldiers and they lost 20,000 civilians... that doesn't sound like an honorable battle to me. Sounds more like terror.

Operation Iraqi Freedom: Haliburton, oil piplines, revenge, Israel, the Saudis, getting reelected, wishful thinking, bad intel, ignorance. Even if you support this war, you must realize that the declared reasons for war were proven false. I've heard figures that put the civilian death toll around 11 or 12,000, four times the civilians killed on 9/11.

Right now black people are being massacred in Sudan and some estimate that a million people could die. There's no profit in saving poor black people, so don't look for the US to do anything but pretend to help out a little. I guarantee that they will not even try to solve the problem.

The United States has a history of ignoring and not even recognizing attocities commited all over the world. And as I have shown you, the United States has never engaged in war for altruistic reasons. And like I said above, if they'd like to show the world they care, why not help out the Sudanese. Reminds me of the situation with Somalia before the Iraq war... we sent like three troops to protect our embassy.

You've read my version of US history (and that doesn't even count the mass murderer Christopher Columbus), now give me your blindly patriotic versions!  ;D :P :-*
 
Re: Americans on the board...

OK< now I have something to work from, and I know your problem with the whole issue, you are a bit lost in the woods.

First off, some notes to set you correct, because other may see you as dishonest in your arguments. Casualties are neither here nor there in these arguments, so mentioning them seems like simple googling gone wild. I would remove them before you try this schtick anywhere else since it lames down your discussion. Second, I can find nothing yet which supports your thesis in most of these. I will assume you have given up trying to prove you are correct and are instead filling the air with lead, so I will bat down a few of your misconceptions on history, and present at the end you basic underlying errors in your understanding of world history.

[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=90#104 date=07/05/04 at 22:51:09]Here you go Slappy:

American Revolution: Colonists sick of being screwed by the Brittish with taxes and stuff and fight back. Although if you think about it, they did just begin a process of systematic lying and stealing and killing with the Native Americans, so maybe they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

One could also say that the colonists (well, the aristocrats)were getting greedy and wanting a larger slice of the pie for themselves. I do remember reading about the class warfare at the time. It was the poor that had to fight the brittish.

4500 Americans died and about 6000 were wounded.[/quote]

You completely fail to understand the demographic of the revolution, its causes, effects, or even the basic reasons the war was fought. It is almost like you are puking back something from "the Militant" you found on google.

The revolution was fought by a wide swath of the population. Washington was a rich planter, Nathaniel Greene was a back woods countryboy, poor youths such as Andrew Jackson, my forbear, and people of the middle class such as Francis Marion all fought next to each other. The upper class were by and large Tory, and not revolutionary. The revolutionaries where middle class businessmen with a sprinkling of upper class and many lower class.

The Revolution was, first and foremost, fought for the concept of democracy and liberty. These concepts came about from a number of directions, including contact with the Five Nations, the development of an intellectual middle class, and a number of extraordinary people. "Getting rich" was part of the package because the culture of the Americas considered personal mobility part of liberty -- you could be as rich as your own personal ability would let you be.

The argument of if the colonist should be in the new world in the first place is more complex. however solveable. Simply pay the nearest Indian tribe a personal repartation and leave the United States for Europe, and you will have done you part. The voluntary repatriation of land to the Indians is always possible by people who feel strongly enough about this.

Nearly every author of the time spoke of this war in terms of its altruistic goals.

[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=90#104 date=07/05/04 at 22:51:09]War o' 1812: A war that the US declared on the Brittish. This war was the result of constant disputes with the Brittish and not them trying to take away our freedoms. We lost about 2300 lives in this one.[/quote]

The British were kidnapping US citizens into slavery on the high seas, attacking cargo ships and taking their manifests, and acting in generally unfriendly manner. So it is demonstratably about freedom.

(If you are keeping score you are wrong on two, right on zero at this point. Here I could stop, since I have already shot down your thesis, but I will continue.)

[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=90#104 date=07/05/04 at 22:51:09]Mexican American: A classic imperialistic war for Texas. American blood was supposedly shed on American soil, but that has been disputed and I do remember reading that we were in territory that we claimed was ours, but really wasn't. We sent troops into this disputed territory, they attacked us like we were hoping and it was on. That state cost nearly 2000 American lives and wounded 4500 and many would probably say it was well worth it.[/quote]

Here you demonstrate an outstanding lack of understanding for the true situation. Texas, a soveriegn nation, had recently gained its independence from Mexico. This had been a nearly universal revolt by the people of Texas, many of which were originally Americans, but against the policy and wishes of the US. And Texas had no desire to be part of the US, not at first.

But under threat from reconquest by Mexico under Santa Anna, Texas moves closer to the US. When Herrara takes control, things calm, and a resolution is almost found which would recognize Texas but keep it out of the US, when Paredas y Arrillegas comes to power in Texas and renigs. The war, which begins at this point, is not altruistic, but certianly not how you portray it. Certianly after the massacres of Goliad and the Alamo, the Texans had no desire to play nice with Texas, and the US accepted that if Texas wanted to become part of the US, it could do so, no matter how poor and far away it was.

[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=90#104 date=07/05/04 at 22:51:09]Civil War: The South seceeded from the Union because they wanted to keep their slaves. The North wanted the South back, so it was on. Nobody was fighting for slaves to be free like school books might have you believe. Over 200,000 Americans suffered a violent death, especially considering that in many of the battles you could only get one shot off before you had to be engaged in hand to hand combat. There were hundreds of thousands of non mortal woundings in this battle which back then might seem like a fate worse than death. Especially if you've ever seen some of the brutal methods of surgery. [/quote]

Not true in one bit. Lincoln was elected on an anti-slavery ticket, although he favored some rather mild systems of gradual emacipation and paying for slaves. From the northern point of view this had everything to do with some very real altruistic emotions. Entire units, from Ellsworth and his Zoaves to most of the early New England regiments were anti-slavery types who came to colors early. The main problem you seem to have with understanding history is two fold, one I will address later (called gnostic heresy) and one right now, that you live in a black and white world, when history is really a bunch a greys. Just because some men did not not to war to end slavery does not mean all men did not go to war to end slavery.

[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=90#104 date=07/05/04 at 22:51:09]Dubya Dubya I: The countries of Europe were invading each other for imperialistic reasons. ed. note -- this is incorrect Nationalism was intense in Europe around this time. An ocean liner with American citizens on it was sank by Germany which increased tensions. In July of 1916 the Brittish gassed the Germans. The Germans announced that they would engage in unrestricted submarine warfare and as a protest the US broke off relations with the Germans and joined the allied forces. The president declared it was "a war to make the world safe for democracy". There were a bunch of battles and the allied side won with the help of the US's vast resources. We lost 53,000 men in this war which was nothing compared to the European deaths. [/quote]

You have a weird way of twisting history and cherry picking facts to twist the truth in the construction of a big lie. First off, why mention the use of has by the British in 1916, it makes you seem incredibly dishonest. If you had ever read anything about this war, gas was first used April 22, 1915 at the Second Battle of Ypres by the Germans. However, you seem to mess this topic all up. First off, you present no reason why this is not an altruistic war, or why it was done all for self-gain. Second, your argument is so disjointed as to be not understandable. If you are risking your life by putting this out, then don't worry, you know slightly more about this war than my nine year old Brazilian neice, but not by much. Third, you get the reason for the US joining the allies overtly rather than covertly wrong -- unrestricted submarine warfare was part, but I think if you read Barbara Tuchman you will find the Zimmerman Telegram was more the cause, and everything else mere aggravation. The zimmerman telegram was a direct provocation to the US, since one soveriegn says to another soveriegn why don't you do terrible things to the US and we will help you, which is likely why you changes the main reasons for the start of the war since it shoots a hole in any argument you can come up with about this having no self defense issues.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=90#104 date=07/05/04 at 22:51:09]Dubya Dubya II: WWII was considered the good war because our enemies were so goddam evil. However, by the end of the war "our side" had committed atrocities that I consider terrorism, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki in which as many as 230,000 civilians were targeted and killed. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor warrented a military attack against the Japanese government and military, not a terrorist attack against innocent people. And of course there's the conspiricey theory that Roosevelt and the US government knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and just let it happen. Here's a quote from a website I was looking at:

"President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war." I don't expect you to believe that, but it is possible and would surely do damage to it's rep as a "good war".

We lost about 300,000 men in this war and about two and a half times that were wounded.[/quote]

First. The conspiracy of Roosevelt knowing the Japanese were going to attack is by and large discounted by even black helicopter types. You can take a page from Moore, throw a total lie out, and hope it is not caught, but it makes you look uneducated.

Second. By the Geneva convention in place in WW2, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was legal. This was because they were, 1) never declared open cities, 2) were defended, and 3) contained military industries and barracks for soldiers. Although it is harder to make this argument about Dresden and Coventry, and impossible for the mass bombing of Nanking by the Japanese that killed more people in a single day than either atom bomb, Hiroshima was not only legal, but accepted practice.

Third, if you have to inflate the numbers killed in the atom bombings by three times to make them seem worse than they are, you are grasping at straws.

[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=90#104 date=07/05/04 at 22:51:09]Korea: A war to keep communism from spreading from North Korea to South Korea. This was an unpopular war at home and Eisenhower was elected on a promise to end the war. "U.S. losses were placed at over 54,000 dead and 103,000 wounded, while Chinese and Korean casualties were each at least 10 times as high."[/quote]

First off, to correct your errors. The Korean war did not start out about communism, which Truman wanted to live with, but the right of a soveriegn nation not to be invaded by its neighbor for no reason. The UN, nearly unanimously, voted for intervention in this conflict. The war was a strain, but not unpopular.

Second, that the US participated in an international effort to protect the people of South Korea from genocide and destruction was nothing less than altruistic.

My message is too long, so I will stop here. Suffice to say, you quoted no one, and barely even tackled one of these conflicts with any understanding of them.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

ROTFLMAO!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

At least we know how Bagdad Bob spends his free time.

07-minister.jpg

Bagdad Bob or Tony_H?

Famous Quotes by Tony_H ...err I mean Bagdad Bob

"They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any
place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are
trying to sell to the others an illusion."

However, by the end of the war (WWII) "our side" had committed atrocities that I consider terrorism, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki in which as many as 230,000 civilians were targeted and killed.

Called Americans and Brits "Tarateer"– In Iraqi slang, Tartoor means a guy full of farts (i.e. hot air)

We also killed over 100,000 Iraqi soldiers in this war and only lost 147 of our own. Hmm... we lost 147 soldiers and they lost 20,000 civilians... that doesn't sound like an honorable battle to me. Sounds more like terror.

"Lying is forbidden in Iraq. President Saddam Hussein will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as he is a man of great honor and integrity. Everyone is encouraged to speak freely of the truths evidenced in their eyes and hearts."

The United States has a history of ignoring and not even recognizing attocities commited all over the world.

"I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad."

Britain "is not worth an old shoe"

"We are in control. They are in a state of hysteria. Losers, they think that by killing civilians and trying to distort the feelings of the people they will win. I think they will not win, those bastards."

I've read civilian death estimates of this war around 20,000. That's 20,000 men, women, and children dying violent deaths that were minding their own business.

"The British forces which were dropped there have been eliminated mostly on the (battle)field, except for those who fled ... It is a complete defeat ... Amazingly the Americans have pushed the British to do that. They pushed them ahead as if it is an experiment. The result was very tragic for the British."

"Today I have visited whole Baghdad city, no invaders found. You go and see how we have ousted them from this city. They are cying outside and waiting to receive bullets. They will be killed shortly."

You've read my version of US history (and that doesn't even count the mass murderer Christopher Columbus), now give me your blindly patriotic versions!

Here's a new avatar to replace the one you have now.
tz.sahaf.jpg
 
Re: Americans on the board...

LMMFAO :D ;D

Slapdragon, your right-wing bias is really laughable except for the Hiroshima stuff. I don't find that funny at all. I don't care if you say it was legal, that was terror plain and simple. I want to smack anyone that supports that kind of action.

I chose to list the casualties of each war because I don't think that people should be asked to judge a war without knowing the cost. How do you know if a DVX is worth buying if you don't know the price? Some people might not be willing to spend 50K on a DVX and some people might not be willing to spend 60k lives on Vietnam.

I didn't inflate those Hiroshima and Nagasaki figures. What's your numbers? I could probably find two or three sources supporting my numbers if I needed to.

Seriously though, you can go on for pages with details supporting your political point of view, but I just don't trust you. You're just as biased as I am and you're not even willing to admit any mistakes that the US has made. I'll admit it, I'm biased and I'm not objective. When I look at a war, I don't think about the stuff in history books. I think about the stuff that people might not be aware of, including the cost in lives. Why don't you admit it?

Your even worse than I am because you probably know for a fact how crooked our government is, but you choose to ignore the bad stuff and highlight the stuff that looks good.

Since your so informed and patriot (from Brazil) why don't you come up with a list of all the atrocities that have occurred in the past 200 years and then put a check mark next to the one's that the US has intervened in.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

That's aweful funny there Ranger, but the really funny thing is that everything I said is true.

If you can't believe it, then maybe you should reconsider your position.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

I had no intention of wading into this quagmire but I just can't resist. To Slapdragon and Ranger, I believe that people like you are the greatest threat to democracy and freedom in modern times. Ranger, you seem not to care the slightest bit for the freedom you claim to love and defend. Tony H may be biased and too quick to throw around words like cowardly and asshole, but he is only offering an opinion on HIS government, and that is one of the freedoms you claim to cherish. Why the hell should anyone leave his country because they disagree with the government? By that logic the founding fathers should have pulled up and moved to Mexico, instead of commiting treason by rebelling against their legal government. Would you have the balls to do that? What would they think of you? The same as they thought of the Loyalists, I would guess. I think you are in the wrong country man. Maybe you should move to one of those countries where no one ever questions the government, like say, Korea.

Slapdragon, at first I sided with you but over time you showed yourself to be a hypocrite, an elitest snob and an arrogant ass. You started off all high and mighty by admonishing Ranger for jumping on Tony H, but when Tony H turned on you, the gloves came off, didn't they? I will be happy to provide examples from your quotes, but honestly, there are so many examples I need time to shape my argument. More later.

Before you blast me back,(it's fair that you get your turn) let me just say this. My father, a Canadian, fought in WWII. He did recon for the U.S. Army Rangers in Europe after Normandy, and was wounded while doing so. He also lost his brother in that war. Of the three of you, I can tell you with dead certainty that Tony H is the only one with whom he would share a beer, and that's a fact you can bet your ass on.

P.S. Ranger, of Tony H and Slapdragon, I think it is obvious which one would think twice before sending guys like you and your buddies off to die for some weapons of mass distraction.

And Slap, if you want us to know that you are a proud American, why hide behind the Brazilian flag?

Sometimes it doesn't show, but I humbly give my opinion with respect for you all and a true love of freedom. By the way, why do so many Americans think that they have a monopoly on freedom and democracy? We have more personal freedom in Canada than you do in America, and I would be happy to debate that with anyone, anytime.

This is a joke that was popular with the troops in Europe in WWII.

'A soldier approaches an armed checkpoint. The guard says,
"Who goes there?"
The soldier answers, " British."
The guard says, "Pass, British."
A second soldier approaches.
"Who goes there?"  Says the guard.
The reply is "American."  
"Pass, American."
A third soldier arrives.
"Who goes there?" says the guard.  
"None of your goddamn business!" Came the reply.
"Pass, Canadian."
That was my dad.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=roadking67 link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=105#110 date=07/06/04 at 03:52:54]We have more personal freedom in Canada than you do in America, and I would be happy to debate that with anyone, anytime.[/quote]

OK, shoot. I may not even respond; I just want to see this.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

In my limited observation, I'd say there's definitely more freedom in broadcasting in Canada than in the U.S. I live across the border near Detroit and we get Channel 9 from the CBC in Ontario. It's not something I see often on Channel 9, but I have seen (gasp!) bare breasts and heard (double gasps!) four letter words on Canadian radio and TV. Over here, people get in an uproar over Janet Jackson's one-second breast flash or Howard Stern talking about sex on the radio. One of the FCC's primary jobs is restricting freedom. It's kind of funny because I can hear a song bleeped to bits on the radio then hear the same song on a Windsor-based station a few minutes later with all the four-letter words audible.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

Yep, that's the station I was thinking of, but I also hear less censorship speech on other radio stations when I'm in Ontario. I don't get the whole bleeping thing. It's not as if I don't know what Eminem is really saying when they bleep or blank out the f-bomb.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

I gotta say it but Tony H definatley has no idea whatsoever of what he is talking about. Running to a search engine and pulling the facts off the first few websites shows the ignorance of the subject matter. Its no matter, not everyone has an interest in History much less a knowledge base.

Personally I think Slapdragon has nothing but state the facts. He has done so in a professional and tactful manner at that. If anyone thinks he is acting 'elitist' or 'snobbish' it's only cause he's trying to 'edubacate' someone who has no clue.

Canada, Canada, Canada. I love Canada. In fact I have never heard anything that would make me feel otherwise. I even hung out wiuth some Canucks in the Canadian Coast Guard. I imagine that is a free world and I do confess I have no idea one way or the other about how free or more free it is. I do know one thing and Ive said this before:

You guys have some really nice real estate kicking back behind us. Perhaps you guys should pay a military tax to us since your investment in your own military is about as much as my house. (Now dont everyone get up and arms over this statement as I have said "My perception of Canada is kind of like the Australians; how can you not like them?). So before you start throwing around "We have more freedom blah blah blah" just remember we got your back due to real estate location. No worries; Mexico kind of has the same deal.

As far as Roadkings father fighting in World War 2; this I know. The Canadians were instrumental in World War 2. Yes. They were a part of DDAY and the entire campaign. Not sure why your father would share a beer with Tony H personally when he has no clear idea of what he's talking about. So your father would rather share a beer with a self proclaimed "Anarchist?" I dont know, maybe they talk about Shrek 2. My two grandfathers (and a couple Uncles) were in the ETO (One actually in Africa). And I know exactly the type they would prefer to share a beer with. I have met a ton of World War 2 veterans and these guys are the biggest 'flag waving' people I have ever met. Your statement surprises me.

Tony H has misstated facts as well as bashed the very country he lives in. (Backpeddaling on every other thread) while Slap and Ranger have basically defended. If Ranger seems a bit more virile its no doubt due to his current state of affairs.

We Amercians are proud and we are cocky. And people tend to cry about this. We dont apologize for being bad motherfuckers. Not gonna happen. We currently are the power oon this planet in every sense of the word. We have helped just about every country out of some jam only to be chastised for it; the French being the most ungrateful.

And you know what? **** all that "Opinion" bullshit. In Vietnam, it was the same people speaking out against the war and our government only to spit on the soldiers when they returned. Tony H still hasnt answered exactly what it is he doesnt like about the government. (The current admin sucks Ill admit). Its popular is it not? TO bash the government? Its the hippy thing to do and Tony H has stated "I am an Anarchist" which is so absurd yet Im sure still has a job and pays his taxes and runs down to blockbuster and 'obeys the law' for fear of being in trouble. A true Anarchist Im sure.

What I am saying is not popular I am sure but Im not running for office and Ive never been PC. IF Tony H has issues with our government and our country then so be it. But dont tell me you are an Anarchist but a 'true patriot' and 'would fight quicker than anyone else'.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=roadking67 link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=105#110 date=07/06/04 at 03:52:54]I had no intention of wading into this quagmire but I just can't resist. To Slapdragon and Ranger, I believe that people like you are the greatest threat to democracy and freedom in modern times.
[/quote]
Whereas ignorance, stupidity and apathy are not?

[quote author=roadking67 link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=105#110 date=07/06/04 at 03:52:54]Ranger, you seem not to care the slightest bit for the freedom you claim to love and defend.
[/quote]
By your logic, am I not also entitled to the same freedoms of speech that you are now defending Tony_H on?  Do I not also have the same right to make value judgments that Tony_H has freely expressed throughout this thread?  At what point did I ever mention that I wanted to suppress any of Tony’s freedoms?  I merely made a judgment call, as he has, based on his incendiary comments and poor forum etiquette where he was openly insulting to those that wanted to share a Happy Fourth greeting.

[quote author=roadking67 link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=105#110 date=07/06/04 at 03:52:54]Tony H may be biased and too quick to throw around words like cowardly and asshole, but he is only offering an opinion on HIS government, ...
[/quote]
As I have.  What’s good for the goose …

[quote author=roadking67 link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=105#110 date=07/06/04 at 03:52:54]… and that is one of the freedoms you claim to cherish.
[/quote]
I do, but I still think he’s a buffoon and it’s my FREEDOM to express that viewpoint.

[quote author=roadking67 link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=105#110 date=07/06/04 at 03:52:54]Why the hell should anyone leave his country because they disagree with the government?
[/quote]
It was more than just a simple disagreement over the government and you know that.  Additionally, he also referred to Canada, Australia and the Netherlands as “better countries”.  It only made sense that he should naturally relocate to one of those better countries.  I’m sure he would be happier elsewhere.

[quote author=roadking67 link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=105#110 date=07/06/04 at 03:52:54]By that logic the founding fathers should have pulled up and moved to Mexico,
[/quote]
Na, the water sucks.

[quote author=roadking67 link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=105#110 date=07/06/04 at 03:52:54]… instead of commiting treason by rebelling against their legal government. Would you have the balls to do that?
[/quote]
Actually, I would.  Not that this is any of your business, but I’ve already seen action in a combat zone and sadly I’ve seen men die.  After Korea, I will probably be sent back to Iraq.  I’ve already lost two friends to this war.  I haven’t seen my family in almost two years.  So don’t get pretentious with me asking whether or not I have the balls.  In my circles, you haven’t earned that right.  If you had made that comment in my presence you would be on the ground at this moment.  Fact!

[quote author=roadking67 link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=105#110 date=07/06/04 at 03:52:54]What would they think of you? The same as they thought of the Loyalists, I would guess. I think you are in the wrong country man.
[/quote]
I think it’s time that I gave you some additional perspective into my background.  My parents live in Fredericksburg, Virginia.  My mom grew up as young girl within stones throw of Martha Washington's home and the infamous Sunken Road during the Battle of Fredericksburg.  My grandfather once owned a business across the street from Hugh Mercer’s apothecary (one of George Washington’s generals who died at the Battle of Princeton), later she with my grandparents built a house just outside the city.  The land the house was built on was once the campground of several CSA regiments during the Civil War and Colonial and British regiments during the Revolution.  Behind the house and just beyond the farmland, there remain entrenchments and field fortifications that snake back into the undergrowth of the woods behind it.  The road that flanks my parents home is the same route George Washington and Rochambeau’s armies used during movement toward Yorktown in 1781.  And last but not least, hidden deep in the woods is a vacant old mansion, built in 1720 by a former influential tobacco family called Conway.  This was the same house that would eventually see the birth and early years of the father of the US Constitution and our fourth president – James Madison.  This was James Madison’s grandparents and mother home.  On my wife's side, both her grandparents were POWs in Japanese prison camps.  One was eventually beheaded just before the end of the war.  Anyway, I could go on with this, but I suspect my words will fall on deaf ears.  
<edit: I also had the privilege to raise the US flag over the USS Arizona.>

So spare me the lecture on which country I should belong in.  I think I have a good grasp into the principles and ideals that were the foundation of this country.  I don’t need a Canuck to remind me of that.

[quote author=roadking67 link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=105#110 date=07/06/04 at 03:52:54]Before you blast me back,(it's fair that you get your turn) let me just say this. My father, a Canadian, fought in WWII. He did recon for the U.S. Army Rangers in Europe after Normandy, and was wounded while doing so. He also lost his brother in that war. Of the three of you, I can tell you with dead certainty that Tony H is the only one with whom he would share a beer, and that's a fact you can bet your ass on.
[/quote]
Let me start off by saying that I thank your father and your uncle for their service during WWII.  Now whether your father would desire to drink with Tony instead of Slapdragon or myself … okaaaaay, and your point is (besides being insulting)?  No offense, but I could care less who your father wants to have a beer with.  Did it ever cross your mind that if your father were sharing a beer with Tony_H then I probably wouldn’t want to be in his company anyway?  I’ve known too many vets, from too wars, from too many countries to feel slighted by someone knowingly drinking with a person that refers to the flag as toilet paper and calling Memorial Day stupid.  To each his own I guess.

[quote author=roadking67 link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=105#110 date=07/06/04 at 03:52:54]P.S. Ranger, of Tony H and Slapdragon, I think it is obvious which one would think twice before sending guys like you and your buddies off to die for some weapons of mass distraction.
[/quote]
Honestly, I believe Slapdragon would think twice before committing soldiers and here’s why, at least with Slapdragon I would feel reasonably assured that he at least would think through the issues before acting, unlike Tony_H, who is about as enlightened on history and politics as a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip.  That’s okay, but no thanks!  Sometimes taking the Neville “Peace in our time” Chamberlain approach to issues is not always the best course of action.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

First off, to close this out:

Tony_H.  
The fact that you cannot respond to my factual discussion of these wars is a sign that the google train is winding down.  I will take this as a victory and run with it.  Note that you tried to change the goal posts (our discussion was the altruistic nature of conflicts, your thesis is that the United States never had altruistic reasons for any conflict, mine was that you were incorrect and that the US has often had altruistic goals, and that it was incorrect to say it never did) and you sort of danced all over the map, bringing casualties into the question (not part of the equation, if you want to argue the difference between the value of conflict and the losses incurred in that conflict, then you are in a different form and style of discussion) and then presented, as your two seemingly piece del la resistance, the urban legend that Roosevelt knew about the Pearl Harbor attack (and if you had bothered to read on the subject this has long ago been refuted) and some sort of babble about the use of the atom bomb, the politics, legality, and morality the use of which you do not even try to comprehend.

If you ever try and do what I asked you to do, and that is support a simple statement of yours with facts, I will return to it.  Until then, I wish you well and hope that the black helicopters don't find you for telling too much truth.  For your help, I have asked some friends in the FBI to watch your house, the old man in the walker and the two kids on bikes will keep you safe from the world conspiracy, they are trained and deadly agents.

roadking67
Here, I wonder if you read the same thing I wrote, as you seemed to have jumped to many conclusions that make no sense, almost like you read the first and last sentences and then made up your mind.

First off, I made very specific conditions why Tony_H should leave the US.  I did not say it was because he did not like it or was complaining, as you imply.  He claimed that the Indian was cheated from his land, and used it as a "fact" to support his claim that the USA was a terrible nation (or whatever he was trying to claim, it was hard to tell for a while what he was talking about).  Essentially, he is one of the millions of people who like to *****, but when offered the chance to do, quails at the opportunity.  If he wants to set things right in this one area, then he has the ability.  He can sell his house and stuff, and move to Europe, donating excess money to a local Indian tribe, thus attoning for the sin he is trying to accuse the rest of us of having.  Then, I will have respect for that one "opinion" of his and say, "damn, that guy really put his money where his mouth is."  If he is unwilling to solve something that is actually in part solveable by his own actions, he is a parlor pink and should be given the moral and intellectual respect he deserves (none).  

Second.  I like it how you proclaim great pity for the "opinion" of Tony_H and then call for the censorship of Ranger and I in the same breath.  Freedom of speech means placing your ideas into the market place of ideas.  Tony placed his there, then you and he become offended when anyone should want to kick their tires and see if they are worth anything.  Well, they have been measured, and found wanting.  His "opinions" fall before fact and the world spins as it should.  But do not cloak yourself or Tony in the culture of victimology and proclaim you are being "oppressed" because people dare speak out against your narrow minded and ill informed opinions.

Elitism.  I now have the operational definition for what you all are claiming this is.  It means to have an educated point of view.  Anyone who uses facts to support an opinion is an "elitist" trying to pull one over the eyes of the poor guy who just knows what he knows from reading comic books.  If this is your definition, then I accept the title elitist.  Not only do I read books, but once in a while I write them (shudder) and sometimes I write scripts even (more shudder) and I also took a few courses where I learned at the knees of people who I am not worthly to clean their cars a little about a lot of things.  I AM AN ELITIST BECAUSE I CAN READ.  I wonder when, in your world, you will advocate (just to make everyone equal), that reading gets banned.  

Your grandfather.  Mine also fought in WW2.  He was activated with the 34th Infantry Division when his Iowa National Guard unit was federalized as part of that Division, in March of 1941, and was in service when the US entered WW2.  He was one of the first US soldiers to enter England in 1942.   He was captured at Kasserine pass in 1942, and spent the rest of the war in prison. With two Canadians and another American he escaped from Stalag XIIA (I think) and in helping them escape, was recaptured and tortured for eleven days in Limburg, Germany, not revealing the direction of his comrads had taken, or where they were going.  He escaped two more times, and was recaptured both times.  The last time he was tortured for more than a month, and was found by allied soldiers on a train to a concentration camp.  Of course, he never talked about this.  I do know that, knowing a little about your grandfather from who he would and would not drink with, my grandfather likely would treat yours as a lunatic, and likely so would the Canadian soldiers who wrote to him until the end of his life.  They might show pity for one so mentally unbalanced, and likely would buy him a drink, but they would not go any farther.  So the fact your grandfather wont drink with me is not a big issue, my grandfather would.

My Patriotism:  Since I have made no comments on this forum one way or another regarding this, then I assume you simply want to make up your own idea rather than explore mine.  OK, I agree to allow you to make up what you want.  I do not agree to be who you want me to be, but I agree it is your right to create a falsehood in an attempt to back up your concept of the current facts.  Watch it though, your Grandfather may choose to stop drinking with you.

The Brazilian Flag:  An honest person might ask why does one have the Brazilian flag posted.  A dishonest one invents their own explanation.  Which sort of person are you?  And again, I remind you that your grandfather may withhold his drinking company from you if you stray from the path here.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

I'll read your post later because I'm leaving, but you should really stop with the "google" this and "google" that. It's just another example of your snobbery. Most of my info comes from stuff that I've read in books or saw on the History Channel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top