The casual arming of the idiot cousins in the country directly south of Canada.

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
From Wiki:

"Mariners died at a rate of 1 in 24, which was the highest rate of casualties of any service.[15] All told, 733 American cargo ships were lost[16] and 8,651 of the 215,000 who served perished on troubled waters and off enemy shores." So % wise, they really did
suffer greater loses than other services.

I do know the difference between 1941 and 1942 ........typo errors are possible. My arguments are based on what I feel is morally and ethically right. How is it, that for many of you, typo and technical loopholes mean more?

As for China yes, most of the world does trade with them. So, I guess at this point, it is legal for private industry to conduct business as usual because war has not been declared. But what if some private industries sell chemicals or nuclear capability to anyone who can pay for them even against a country's foreign policy?? Is this still legal??

Roosevelt began rearmament of the US in 1938 but he came up against strong opposition from Borah & Taft. He aligned the US with Britain and the Allies during this time but had not officially entered the war. So, as I understand what several of you are saying, private industry was and should be free to work against the interests of the country and it's foreign policy.

No wonder the world is in such horrible shape. Isn't this sort of thinking that led Bush to believe there were WOMD in Iraq?? How was he to know, that Hussein felt himself so secure he never bothered to build them, even though it was known he had the wherewithall to build them. Does anyone wonder how come they knew this?? And of course Iraq sitting on all that oil had nothing whatever to do with the decision to invade.

My personal feeling it is wrong to deal arms and weapons with regimes who make no attempt to conceal their aggressive intentions.
I don't think private industry should have the right to sell nuclear materials or weapons to societies with violent tendencies. There is a difference between having the ability to defend one's country and aggression against another.

But heck, I understand certain governments continue to pay mercenaries to do their dirty work. . Sort of like hiring hit men. Gives deniability for awhile, until someone traces down the money trails.

Anyway, you'all have your ideas just as I have mine on what is honourable and right.

Move them goal posts!

Per Capita eh?

And these Merchant Marines all died at the hands of the Germans and their U-Boat torpedoes while they were delivering weapons to the Germans.

What weapons were they delivering again? You haven't answered yet.

LMAO... too easy.

And of course Iraq sitting on all that oil had nothing whatever to do with the decision to invade.

... meanwhile in the skies over Libya...
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
I am!

What arms were we selling the Germans? If we were selling the Germans arms why were they sinking US Merchant ships prior to our entry into WWII?

American did sell war supplies (sorry not arms directly) to Germany before WW-II began, and we did stop when Germany started sinking our ships. The United States in 1934 didn't care who won the war brewing in Europe, we sold to both sides, in fact we had a plan to wrest Canada from the British Empire if necessary. (War Plan Red). We still had a very large population still fighting the Revolutionary war, just like some today are still fighting the Civil War.

War Plan Red/Supplement No. 3 - Wikisource
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario

Sorry luv, I have your number now...
I smell a cop out coming...

I will not whine, and I do not cry.
And yet you are whining and crying while you ignore the serious errors I pointed out in you material.

Actually, I am quite fed up defending what I passed on.
I bet you are. I would be too, if I was postring erroneous junk like you.

You do not like my links and l do not like your notion of logic nor the type of twisty slants you apply.
I never said I didn't like your links. I showed how they are wrong. Without any slanty twists. Those slanty twists, were in your links.

So don't bother pulling apart anymore links.
Ya, I would be crying like that if I posted those links too.

Keep your love of the Bush family and their highjinks.
I never said I loved the Bush family and their 'highjinks'. I simply provided the facts, that you are crying about and dismissing. Even though you anyone with half a clue can see the errors. If they are objective that is.

An economist follows the money trail and that is very hard to twist with a personal bias...
No it's not. It's actually just as easy as trying to rewrite real history to suit an agenda.

It doesn't matter in anycase if you can read them or not, does it??
Yes actually it does matter, if you are actually trying to prove your case.

Wanna bet that a claim will be made that this link has already been posted? (broken of course);-)
Actually I pointed that one out to bb a page or two ago.

I do know the difference between 1941 and 1942 ........
That's obvious.

My arguments are based on what I feel is morally and ethically right.
No, they're based on a serious lack of objectivity and erroneous material. As I have already sufficiently shown.

How is it, that for many of you, typo and technical loopholes mean more?
Fact is not a typo or technical loophole.
As for China yes, most of the world does trade with them. So, I guess at this point, it is legal for private industry to conduct business as usual because war has not been declared. But what if some private industries sell chemicals or nuclear capability to anyone who can pay for them even against a country's foreign policy?? Is this still legal??

So, as I understand what several of you are saying, private industry was and should be free to work against the interests of the country and it's foreign policy.
What national interest and what foreign policy?

Isn't this sort of thinking that led Bush to believe there were WOMD in Iraq??
No.

My personal feeling...
That is all you have, 'feelings'. Your facts don't add up.

Anyway, you'all have your ideas just as I have mine on what is honourable and right.
That isn't the question. My feelings about what is honourable or right, isn't on the table. Facts are. And your facts have been torn to shreds, you've failed to make your case or back up your claims.

 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
American did sell war supplies (sorry not arms directly) to Germany before WW-II began, and we did stop when Germany started sinking our ships. The United States in 1934 didn't care who won the war brewing in Europe, we sold to both sides, in fact we had a plan to wrest Canada from the British Empire if necessary. (War Plan Red). We still had a very large population still fighting the Revolutionary war, just like some today are still fighting the Civil War.

War Plan Red/Supplement No. 3 - Wikisource

Do you think there is a difference saying the US was supplying arms to Germany and the Brits while the war was going to saying the US was trading with Germany prior to WWII?


I see a huge difference.
 

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
I smell a cop out coming...

hmmmm.......And the reason is??

And yet you are whining and crying while you ignore the serious errors I pointed out in you material.

Nope.......don't do either. It is quite easy to ignore opinions.
.........



I never said I didn't like your links. I showed how they are wrong. Without any slanty twists. Those slanty twists, were in your links..

Oh I see, you like my links LOL. No you didn't and with slanty twists. Dismissing facts because you didn't like the "qualifications of the writer, the site did not suit, or you considered exerpts from books for sale as spam are slanty twists.
..........

I never said I loved the Bush family and their 'highjinks'. I simply provided the facts, that you are crying about and dismissing. Even though you anyone with half a clue can see the errors. If they are objective that is.

LOL..omygawd, you don't have to say it!! It is perfectly obvious to anyone who can read. I recommend you really look into the meaning of word objective......Oh....I would wager you voted for Harper, and not just because there wasn't a choice.
.............

No it's not. It's actually just as easy as trying to rewrite real history to suit an agenda.


"Real history"?? Come now, historians do it and they don't even have to try....... However, the money trail always tells the truth. Please, let me in on the secret of my agenda.
................

Yes actually it does matter, if you are actually trying to prove your case.

Wrong again. Not my responsibility to prove or disprove the writings of another.
.............

Actually I pointed that one out to bb a page or two ago.

And this proves what?? Frankly, that is a further strike against the value of your opinions in my view.


No, they're based on a serious lack of objectivity and erroneous material. As I have already sufficiently shown.

Nope......You have shown no such thing. You have shown, though, much more than you think about your objectivity in your posts.
............................


Fact is not a typo or technical loophole.
As for China yes, most of the world does trade with them. So, I guess at this point, it is legal for private industry to conduct business as usual because war has not been declared. But what if some private industries sell chemicals or nuclear capability to anyone who can pay for them even against a country's foreign policy?? Is this still legal??

What national interest and what foreign policy?

Depends on the country, time in history, and the politicians' view of those who elected them. What I think it should be?? Protection and general welfare of those that elected them, first and then advancement of human civilization without harming as little as possible, other segements of humanity, the environment or other species. Foreign policy should reflect that. Oh, I do realize how far from reality this is.

That is what national interest and foreign policy should be. Time to demand this sort of behaviour instead of excusing, covering up, and tacitly accepting such slimey actions.


............


That is all you have, 'feelings'. Your facts don't add up.

Wrong again, I presented proof of the money trail and those facts do add up.
...................

That isn't the question. My feelings about what is honourable or right, isn't on the table. Facts are. And your facts have been torn to shreds, you've failed to make your case or back up your claims.

Dream on, your views have always been on the table. Your posts reveal so much more than you are aware of. "My facts" were not torn to shreds. It was never my case or my facts to prove or make. There is enough of a money trail that indicates/proves some US industries did participate in rearming Germany, in my opinion, precipitating the 2nd WW.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
hmmmm.......And the reason is??
You can't support your case without resorting to material that I have adequately proven erroneous.

Nope.......don't do either.
So you say, and yet your post was filled with it.

It is quite easy to ignore opinions.
I imagine you do find that easy. Given your devotion to ignoring facts as well.

Oh I see, you like my links LOL.
Yes, I found them highly entertaining.
No you didn't and with slanty twists.
I'm sure you think facts are 'slanty twists". Hence your stone like grip on them.

I'm sure you think asking yourself why the "alien property custodian" would need to hang on to an Americasn families holding during war time, is a slanty twist. But to everyone else that is objective and not prone to believing flights of fantasy and "slanty twists", it's a pretty good indication, that someone is lying through their eye teeth.

Dismissing facts because you didn't like the "qualifications of the writer, the site did not suit, or you considered exerpts from books for sale as spam are slanty twists.
You posted a link to a book. Not specific excerpts.

LOL..omygawd, you don't have to say it!! It is perfectly obvious to anyone who can read.
So because I know what the office of the alien properties custodians mandate is. I'm a Bush family supporter?

I recommend you really look into the meaning of word objective......
Classic projection, and especially ironic, giving the silliness it followed.
Oh....I would wager you voted for Harper, and not just because there wasn't a choice.
By wager you mean assume, as a form labeling so you can dismiss my posts as prejudiced, because they keep tearing your silliness apart?

"Real history"?? Come now, historians do it and they don't even have to try.......
I agree, which is why I read your links. I'm actually objective.

However, the money trail always tells the truth.
I worked for ThyssenKrupp. I must be a Nazi too, by your logic.

Please, let me in on the secret of my agenda.
It's no secret, you're the usual run of the mill, un-unique, anti American, Canadian. With such a dismissal knowledge of your own countries rich history. That to feel good about your nationality, you must degrade the US at every turn, using lies, innuendo, and myths to do it.

You're in a large crowd of deluded.

Wrong again. Not my responsibility to prove or disprove the writings of another.
Correct, which is why I never made that claim. I just threw a shadow on the veracity and honesty of the material you posted.

And this proves what??
That parts of your own links disprove your very claims, lol.

Frankly, that is a further strike against the value of your opinions in my view.
I would imagine it would.

Nope......You have shown no such thing. You have shown, though, much more than you think about your objectivity in your posts.
Yes, I imagine you would see it that way, when you can't actually prove your claims, and what little nonsense you do actually provide, gets easily torn apart.

Oh, I do realize how far from reality this is.
Like the bulk of the material found in your links.

That is what national interest and foreign policy should be.
That's awesome and does nothing to prove your claims.

Wrong again...
Yes you keep saying that, but have yet to prove it.

I presented proof of the money trail and those facts do add up.
And your material was against your other material to show where the inconsistencies and erroneous information was.

Dream on, your views have always been on the table.
And what would those be?

Your posts reveal so much more than you are aware of.
Such as?

"My facts" were not torn to shreds.
You keep saying, I'm sure it will only take a couple dozen more utterances, before even you believe it.

It was never my case or my facts to prove or make.
You stated that the US was supplying arms to Germany and the allies. We're all still waiting for the proof.

There is enough of a money trail that indicates/proves some US industries did participate in rearming Germany, in my opinion, precipitating the 2nd WW.
That wasn't what you claimed. But in the face of the beating your material has taken. I would imagine that reversal and lie, would be apropos.

I shall take that as a sign of defeat.



ggggg
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
Can't bump up this thread but it might make interesting reading to some


How to quote and multiquote
 

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
It's no secret, you're the usual run of the mill, un-unique, anti American, Canadian. With such a dismissal knowledge of your own countries rich history. That to feel good about your nationality, you must degrade the US at every turn, using lies, innuendo, and myths to do it.


...............
The only thing you got right in that whole post is that I am a Canadian. I lived and still do that rich history and I know it very well, right down to the huge differences between French & English official historical versions. I knew your objectivity and method of deduction were poor but to find it totally lacking does astonish me.


I am a bilingual Quebecer and very proud of my country my province and my heritage. I have no need to pull down another country or it's citizens down to build up Canada. It is, in my view one of the best countries in the world. Unlike you, I do keep an open mind. I know the faults of my country, as well as I know the faults of my second country....the US.

As for the rest,of your post, I take it from whence it comes. Not worthy of my time or effort responding to all your off the wall one line comments.

I do understand your overwhelming need to win arguments and how necessary it appears to be to your self esteem. Who am I to cause disillusionment.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
The only thing you got right in that whole post is that I am a Canadian.
And the use of lies, innuendo and myths of course.

I lived and still do that rich history and I know it very well, right down to the huge differences between French & English official historical versions.
Yes, there's only two versions. Please note sarcasm.

That aside, I was educated in Quebec, and can honestly say that there is only one version of history more monumentally out of whack with reality, then that of English Canada's. That would be the French Canadian version.

And that opinion, I can support with hard fact.

I knew your objectivity and method of deduction were poor but to find it totally lacking does astonish me.
And yet I easily used material from your own links, to put into disrepute, material from other links of yours.

And while I do not believe the bulk of the nonsense in your links, simply because of the overwhelming inconsistency, that you obviously missed. You remain steadfastly convinced it's the gospel truth despite the fact that I pointed out the inconsistencies. Using your own links to do so.

Yes, it must be my lacking in deductive reasoning and objectivity that is at issue here.

I am a bilingual Quebecer and very proud of my country my province and my heritage.
Ahhh, that answers a lot of questions.

I have no need to pull down another country or it's citizens down to build up Canada.
And yet you do.

Unlike you, I do keep an open mind.
Yes, which is why you ignore the inconsistencies in your own material. Again, not the sarcasm here.

I know the faults of my country, as well as I know the faults of my second country....the US.
So do I, which is why I don't need to make them up or believe in every silly conspiracy theory that comes down the pipe. Unlike you.

As for the rest,of your post, I take it from whence it comes. Not worthy of my time or effort responding to all your off the wall one line comments.
I love it when my predictions come true. Thank you.

I do understand your overwhelming need to win arguments and how necessary it appears to be to your self esteem.
There was a contest?

All I wanted was for you to back up your claims with some facts.

I'm still waiting.

Who am I to cause disillusionment.
Irony aside, of course.

Did you miss the questions I asked? Or do you have a cop out for that too?
 
Last edited:

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
Quote: That aside, I was educated in Quebec, and can honestly say that there is only one version of history more monumentally out of whack with reality, then that of English Canada's. That would be the French Canadian version.

And that opinion, I can support with hard fact.

So, your opinion actually coincides with mine?? Good grief, not feeling well today are you. Now should I be asking you to supply those hard facts?? You know make you prove your opinion.


LOL So you admit historians are not the factual source you have been touting but are basicly flawed by bias........so what excuses do you have regarding the money trail used for rearming Germany uncovered by an economist?? You know the laundered money used by certain American industries fed through different banks and countries. Those funds that were then used to supply materials to German subsiduaries that built those weapons and the funding of other companies that contributed to the rearmament.
Do you even acknowledge that helping to rearm Germany even played a part in WWII



Oh I am curious....... because I am bilingual and can read, this explains what? other than I put the effort into learning a second language.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Do you think there is a difference saying the US was supplying arms to Germany and the Brits while the war was going to saying the US was trading with Germany prior to WWII?


I see a huge difference.

Germany did start running out of materials to manufacture items because the source/sources dried up. In answer to your question, not really what we were trading was turned into weapons of one sort or another that we as well as the Brits had to destroy during the war.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Where did the money come from to build the Nazi war machine? You can't buy materials without money.

Best answer from Answers:

He secured the backing of industrialists and capitalists after securing representation in the Reichstag. These people hoped to control Hitler, and that Hitler would curb the 'soclaist' tendencies of his party. A year later, Hitler had an outright majority.

Hitler's pre-war build up was always financially shaky. He traded with paraiah states like the Soviet Union, making deals to exchange industrial goods for raw materials, hence no money needed to change hands. He sold weapons to countries like Switzerland for hard currency, in addition to normal German trade.

Once the war began, people lived austere lives and gave everything for the nation, and later huge amounts of slave labour were used to keep the German war machine going.

Where did Hitler get all the money and resources to build his empire? - Yahoo! Answers
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,193
14,246
113
Low Earth Orbit
He secured the backing of industrialists and capitalists after securing representation in the Reichstag.
Captialists and industrialists? Such as? When using "capitalists" in the time frame given that leaves few options other than westerners and Europeans themselves.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Captialists and industrialists? Such as? When using "capitalists" in the time frame given that leaves few options other than westerners and Europeans themselves.

Lots of western capitalists in that time frame supported Germany, especially before Hitler went bonkers. But don't forget countries like Russia, Spain and Italy.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,193
14,246
113
Low Earth Orbit
Lots of western capitalists in that time frame supported Germany, especially before Hitler went bonkers. But don't forget countries like Russia, Spain and Italy.

None of them bothered to read Mein Kampf?

How many stood around scratching their asses after all was said and done and said " I never thought he'd pull it off'?