U. S. choppers kill... who? Enemy or innocents?

[Zzarchov]

Right... another spin that they use. Canadians weren't fully (I mean FULLY) engaged until Sicily 1943... two years after the US entered the war unless you count the failed raid at Dieppe in 1942.

By their own Canada at War website... the first Canadian infantryman (Pvt. John Gray) killed was December 13, 1941.

1.) Failed raid means what? Thats like saying American's don't get to count pearl harbour as being involved because it was a giant failure, and claiming they don't get to count being overrun and taken as POW in the pacific either.

2.) You are aware infantry is not the same as armed forces. Are you saying Britain doesn't get to count the Battle of Britain? That the war in the Atlantic or Pacific don't count?

You must certainly believe that Midway's losses didn't count as being involved since no infantrymen died.

Its also unfair though to claim the USA wasn't involved in combat before its official start.
It had volunteer squadrons in China and Britain fighting the Axis, as well as naval escorts long before pearl harbour.

To claim America wasn't involved until Pearl Harbour is like claiming China wasn't involved until then. It wasn't official, but America was helping defeat Japan and Germany long before it was attacked.

 

[Logic 7]

1.) Failed raid means what? Thats like saying American's don't get to count pearl harbour as being involved because it was a giant failure, and claiming they don't get to count being overrun and taken as POW in the pacific either.

2.) You are aware infantry is not the same as armed forces. Are you saying Britain doesn't get to count the Battle of Britain? That the war in the Atlantic or Pacific don't count?

You must certainly believe that Midway's losses didn't count as being involved since no infantrymen died.

Its also unfair though to claim the USA wasn't involved in combat before its official start.
It had volunteer squadrons in China and Britain fighting the Axis, as well as naval escorts long before pearl harbour.

To claim America wasn't involved until Pearl Harbour is like claiming China wasn't involved until then. It wasn't official, but America was helping defeat Japan and Germany long before it was attacked.

America were helping financially the nazi , that is a fact that you seem to forgot.

 

[Logic 7]

Ok... lets see the back up. Where did Cheeney say that. I also want to know how we are profitting from Iraqi oil. More unsubstantiated hogwash.

We are there and you know and I know the worst thing to you that America can do is succeed over there. Even if the success of the mission is a benefit to the Iraqi's it is a tradgedy for folks like you. You WANT the US to fail... admit it.

I"ll find those , just for you.

 

[Zzarchov]

America were helping financially the nazi , that is a fact that you seem to forgot.

America? no. Multinational corporations were involved in both America and Germany, sure thing, they were as much German as American after all. But America is the one who blocked sale of helium to the hindenburg (thus resulting in its explosion) and the ones who kept Germany from taking Iceland and Greenland, they were the ones protecting British convoys (before the war began) and were involved in lend-lease (thus were involved in the conflict, and really should have seen pearl harbour coming), it also gave some 50 Destroyers to the Canadian and British Navies in 1940.

While I do forget it, thats because its not a fact.

 

[Logic 7]

America? no. Multinational corporations were involved in both America and Germany, sure thing, they were as much German as American after all. But America is the one who blocked sale of helium to the hindenburg (thus resulting in its explosion) and the ones who kept Germany from taking Iceland and Greenland, they were the ones protecting British convoys (before the war began) and were involved in lend-lease (thus were involved in the conflict, and really should have seen pearl harbour coming), it also gave some 50 Destroyers to the Canadian and British Navies in 1940.

While I do forget it, thats because its not a fact.

They were,there was many nazi in high ranked military who escaped from germany to be in usa, and the cia hided them and they worked at the same time for the CIA, well documented, bush family, carl rove grandfather with rocketfeller helped hitler built concentration camp until 1942,same for IBM, daddy Schwarzenegger was also an SS, yes those are the facts, even though they helped the allies, that is an old strategie for the americans, helping both side.

 

[Zzarchov]

1.) IBM is a multinational corporation. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES. It isn't American because it operates in America, it was equally german.

2.) Operation paper clip took alot of scientists from Germany and Japan. So did Russia's version. What did you think should happen, we should whipe out the entire population of Germany? Push comes to shove you can't whipe out their population, if they weren't personally responsible for war crimes the west took them in. And why not?

3.) Why does it matter if Schwarzenegger's dad was an SS? He's Austrian. Hint, half of germany, Austria, Poland and France were in the SS. It was a world war, these people went on to lead normal lives after demilitarization and GASP had families, who grew up to lead their own lives.

God your such a bigot. Ya he's austrian, so what? Should central europeans be relegated to serf status till the end of time for things done before their birth?

 

[gopher]

Still waiting for proof that the McClatchy report is biased rather than factual.

 

[Zzarchov]

Still waiting for proof that the McClatchy report is biased rather than factual.

Its there. It was openly stated, I did so after your post. You also need a dictionary. Biased doesn't mean it isn't factual. It means they slant it to favour one view point.

Ie, If the real story was "12 armed men opened fire on a military convoy killing two soldiers and injuring three civilian bystanders"

Bias would be to say either:

"12 terrorists opened fire on a crowded street and murdered five people"

OR

"12 freedom fighters opened fire on occupation forces and killed two enemy"


Both are still factual, what they are is biased (one for and one against)


It was point blank shown how that article was biased, if you refuse to believe that then your hopeless. But please note, bias does not mean false, it means misleading.

 

[EagleSmack]

1.) Failed raid means what? Thats like saying American's don't get to count pearl harbour as being involved because it was a giant failure, and claiming they don't get to count being overrun and taken as POW in the pacific either.

2.) You are aware infantry is not the same as armed forces. Are you saying Britain doesn't get to count the Battle of Britain? That the war in the Atlantic or Pacific don't count?

You must certainly believe that Midway's losses didn't count as being involved since no infantrymen died.

Its also unfair though to claim the USA wasn't involved in combat before its official start.
It had volunteer squadrons in China and Britain fighting the Axis, as well as naval escorts long before pearl harbour.

To claim America wasn't involved until Pearl Harbour is like claiming China wasn't involved until then. It wasn't official, but America was helping defeat Japan and Germany long before it was attacked.

The point I was trying to make was that Canadians always harp on the fact that the US wasn't involved in WWII until 1941. So insinuating we did nothing. I was merely pointing out the fact that Britain didn't put them into the fight en masse until 1943. The statement of the Canada's first casualty was basically a cut and paste. He was listed as Canada's first killed in action and he happened to be an infantryman. If he was an airman or sailor I would have added that. He was executed by the Japanese a week after Pearl Harbor.

And Marine infantry were killed during the Battle of Midway because of the Japanese initial air strikes on the island of Midway.

 

[Zzarchov]

My bad about the marine infantry, but you do get the gyst of what im saying. Especially regarding dieppe. I should also point out, Canadians were in the defense of Hong Kong (where that infantryman died), so I would hardly say were weren't involved until 1943.

 

[EagleSmack]

My bad about the marine infantry, but you do get the gyst of what im saying. Especially regarding dieppe. I should also point out, Canadians were in the defense of Hong Kong (where that infantryman died), so I would hardly say were weren't involved until 1943.

I get what you mean. I was just being a counter point to that argument. Canada contributed greatly to the war effort as did the US. But when some Canadians attack the US in not getting involved until Japanese planes were making their torpedo runs is spinning another one of those...

"Canada RULES! USA STINKS!"

...type threads. Know what I mean?

I tend to get sophmoric and flame those types right back. However in doing so I know I must get some of the good guys from Canada riled up.

 

[gopher]

Its there. It was openly stated, I did so after your post


I saw your paraphrase but it did nothing to prove bias. Perhaps you may feel that way but your note is simply not convincing.

 

[Zzarchov]

Its there. It was openly stated, I did so after your post


I saw your paraphrase but it did nothing to prove bias. Perhaps you may feel that way but your note is simply not convincing.

Im afraid you don't understand what Bias is then.

 

[gopher]

bias = quite fitting for the Fox network

 

[Zzarchov]

Ok, how about you write down, what you would consider bias, what would have to be done, to make this article contain bias, give an actual example.