Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #21  
Old 08-22-2008, 09:08 PM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,770
iTrader: 5 / 100%
We had hundreds of ships in the Atlantic. We even fought the Germans in our own waters. If I were as arrogant as you, I would tell you we saved you from the Germans.
And, if you doubt we had any impact, ask Ferre about Canadian contributions during WWII. Ask a Frenchman. Ask someone from Belgium. Ask someone from Britain. For God sakes, man. Ask someone because you seem to be completely clueless.
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #22  
Old 08-22-2008, 10:27 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Ok, I've researched it even further, without the help of the U.S. Canada would have failed it's mission. Without U.S. intervention Great Britain would have fallen to Germany. You have to face it, without the U.S. you couldn't defend yourselves, then or now.

By the way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Merchant_Navy

You spend so much time looking over here at the U.S. and criticizing everything you think it does wrong, I think you need to spend a little more time in your own back yard, you're not as clean as you come off as.

And believe it or not, it was War that made your country an industrialized and more prosperous country, I know you hate to think about such things but facts are facts.
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-22-2008, 10:31 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Quote:
Early in the war, Canada's commitment to the British-French forces in Europe was limited to one division. Canada's military deployment reached corps-level strength for the invasions in Italy in 1943, and Normandy in 1944. Over the course of the war, 1.1 million Canadians served in the army, navy, and air force. Of these more than 45,000 gave their lives and another 54,000 were wounded.[4] Countless more of His Majesty's Canadian subjects shared in the suffering and the hardships of war at home and abroad.

The war's impact on Canadian history was considerable, though it was likely not as significant as World War I. The conscription crisis had a major effect on unity between French and English-speaking Canadians, though was not as politically damaging as that of WWI. The war effort strengthened the Canadian economy, led to diversification in manufacturing and enhanced national thanksgiving. Canada's status as a nation was strengthened after 1945.[5]
Some history

Quote:
For six long years the Canadian navy was one of the principal contenders in what was to be known as the Battle of the Atlantic. Beginning the war with a mere 13 vessels and 3,000 men, the Royal Canadian Navy ended it with 373 fighting ships and over 90,000 men. In the crisis of 1940, when German armies were marching into France, four destroyers of the RCN, were sent to the English Channel where they provided aid in the evacuation of forces, landed military troops, and carried out demolitions. After the fall of France the Canadian destroyers joined the Royal Navy in the struggle to protect the southwestern approaches to Britain where German submarines vigorously pressed their attacks. By July 1940 all ocean shipping had to be re-routed around the north of Ireland and through the Irish Sea.
Even this route was seriously threatened and the Canadian ships in British waters strove to fend off submarine attacks while rescuing survivors of torpedoed merchant ships. At the end of 1940, in an agreement between Great Britain and the United States, 50 old American destroyers were transferred to the Royal Navy. Canada acquired six of them. This made it possible to augment the Canadian contribution in British waters and, by February 1941, there were ten RCN destroyers working with the Home Fleet.

Last edited by TechWizard; 08-22-2008 at 10:36 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-22-2008, 11:23 PM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap
And WWII??? That's a joke. We were doing just fine fighting the Nazis long before the US finally decided to join the party.
Um, no. Before the US entered the war, the allies were losing and in dire straits.
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-23-2008, 12:08 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
Back that up with proof or shut up, liar.
Proof of your own actions? I'd think you have that.

http://www.v7n.com/forums/921454-post6.html

I could make a very long post full of your lies. In fact, in the last few minutes, I seem to recall you lying to another member claiming that the break away provinces of Georgia wanted to remain "a part of Russia".

Oh, and then minutes before that you claimed that Canada was somehow defeating the Nazis - "doing just fine" - before the US entered WW2.

I think it would be more difficult to find a post of yours that doesn't include a lie than to find one that does.
 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-23-2008, 12:31 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post

The UN and most of the civilized countries in the world say it was an illegal war.
People involved with the US have offered such opinions, but I don't recall the US itself saying so. Do you have any proof of this statement or is it just another of your countless lies?

And this "most civilized countries" - which countries? When you say "most", this would mean a majority of civilized countries. Most countries are civilized. I don't know of a single nation that doesn't have civilization. So, since there are 192 countries on earth, I'll expect to see at least 97 countries where they have declared the Iraq war to be illegal.

But then, this is just another one of your lies, isn't it?
 
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-23-2008, 08:26 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,770
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John The Liar
People involved with the US have offered such opinions, but I don't recall the US itself saying so. Do you have any proof of this statement or is it just another of your countless lies?
So it's a lie if the US doesn't say it? That explains your warped sense of reality. I'll try to remember this in the future when dealing with you. It's retarded, but I'll do my best to keep it in mind when trying to explain things to you.

Like always, you try to twist words when they don't suit your purpose, like a common liar, John.
I didn't say that the provinces of Georgia wanted to remain part of Russia.
I said that many of the people do. If you had half a clue, you'd know that.
But, mentioning that wouldn't serve your dishonest purpose here, would it.

And, if you want to continue to be childish and point out spelling mistakes (because you have no other leg to stand on, obviously) then let's go head to head on that one. Yours litter the forum.

Again, talking to you is like talking to a five year old. Grow up John and get a life.

Now, on to WWII...
Canada and the Allies were doing fine before the US entered the fight in Europe. Hitler was losing before the US decided to join the allies and fight. Let's take a look at the reason why, shall we? Hitler had suffered terrible losses to Russia for his attempts to take Moscow. Oh, wait a minute... I think we just discovered the reason our "heroes" the USA finally entered the war in Europe. Could it be that the US wanted Berlin more than it cared about the 6 million Jews who died at Hitler's hands? They didn't seem to care up until the point that Russia and the Allied forces were winning and the war was all but over.
Saviours of the world! Yeah. Where the hell were you in 1939? 1940? 1941? 1942?
It's insulting to the other nations that did their part in WWII for you to suggest that they did nothing or were ineffectual without the US.
Russia, more than anyone else, suffered the largest losses in WWII but you want to portray the US as the lone hero of the story. How very noble of you.
 
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-23-2008, 08:45 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
So it's a lie if the US doesn't say it?
Where did I say that?
Quote:
I didn't say that the provinces of Georgia wanted to remain part of Russia.
I said that many of the people do.
99% of South Ossetian voters supported independence and the turnout for the vote was 95%.

So what percentage of citizens want to "remain a part of Russia"? LOL

Quote:
Hitler had suffered terrible losses to Russia for his attempts to take Moscow.
Most historians consider the Soviets to have suffered the greatest losses there, and the battle for Moscow wasn't even over when the US entered the war.
Quote:
It's insulting to the other nations that did their part in WWII for you to suggest that they did nothing or were ineffectual without the US.
Who said they did nothing? And to say a nation's army is ineffectual is often the honest thing to say. The Polish army was precisely that - ineffectual - against the Germans.
 
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-23-2008, 08:46 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Please answer the questions:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post

The UN and most of the civilized countries in the world say it was an illegal war.
People involved with the *UN have offered such opinions, but I don't recall the UN itself saying so. Do you have any proof of this statement or is it just another of your countless lies?

And this "most civilized countries" - which countries? When you say "most", this would mean a majority of civilized countries. Most countries are civilized. I don't know of a single nation that doesn't have civilization. So, since there are 192 countries on earth, I'll expect to see at least 97 countries where they have declared the Iraq war to be illegal.

But then, this is just another one of your lies, isn't it?
 
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-23-2008, 09:53 AM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
I don't guess the attack on Pearl Harbor had any effect on why we entered WWII, you're right Zap, it was all because we were interested in Berlin.

Quote:
Saviours of the world! Yeah. Where the hell were you in 1939? 1940? 1941? 1942?
It's insulting to the other nations that did their part in WWII for you to suggest that they did nothing or were ineffectual without the US.
Russia, more than anyone else, suffered the largest losses in WWII but you want to portray the US as the lone hero of the story. How very noble of you.
Quote:
On December 8,1941, Franklin Roosevelt declared war on Japan, one day after they bombed our bases in Hawaii. Three days later, on December 11, Hitler declared war on the United States on behalf of Germany.
Let us not give any account to the support of money and equipment, including military ships and more that the U.S. provided in the years prior to that while not officially at war. And U.S. pilots that were based with the Royal Air Force starting from 1939.
 
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-23-2008, 08:40 PM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamerslink View Post
I don't guess the attack on Pearl Harbor had any effect on why we entered WWII, you're right Zap, it was all because we were interested in Berlin.
LOL!

Too funny. Up until now all generally every historian considered that we entered WW2 because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. But wait, stop the presses! Zap, our uneducated friend from the north has stumbled upon the true reason!

LOL!
 
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-24-2008, 05:58 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,770
iTrader: 5 / 100%
You did finally enter the war because of Pearl Harbour and you did lots of fighting in the Pacific for a year following that.
That is not in dispute.
How did that help the countries of Europe or the six million Jews sent to the gas chambers?
And, again, why not enter WWII in 1939?
 
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-24-2008, 06:44 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
How did that help the countries of Europe or the six million Jews sent to the gas chambers?
Wait, wait, 6 million Jews died? You're admitting this now? Weren't you insisting just a minute ago that Canada was doing "just fine" fighting Hitler? What, so Canada's definition of "just fine" means allowing 6 million Jews to be gassed?

Make up your feeble mind, Zap. Either you weren't handling the situation and 6 million Jews died or Canada was doing "just fine" handling Hitler and intentionally allowed 6 million Jews to die.
Quote:
And, again, why not enter WWII in 1939?
Because of anti-war idiots.
 
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-24-2008, 07:12 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Third and last time I'm going to ask you to back up your statement, as per forum rules.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post

The UN and most of the civilized countries in the world say it was an illegal war.
People involved with the *UN have offered such opinions, but I don't recall the UN itself saying so. Do you have any proof of this statement or is it just another of your countless lies?

And this "most civilized countries" - which countries? When you say "most", this would mean a majority of civilized countries. Most countries are civilized. I don't know of a single nation that doesn't have civilization. So, since there are 192 countries on earth, I'll expect to see at least 97 countries where they have declared the Iraq war to be illegal.

But then, this is just another one of your lies, isn't it?
 
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-24-2008, 02:48 PM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,770
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
Third and last time I'm going to ask you to back up your statement, as per forum rules.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Quote:
Iraq war illegal, says Annan
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.
Kofi Annan has said so himself. You know who he is, right?
The war violates UN charter and is, therefore, illegal according to the UN.
Kofi Annan has affirmed that stance on record.

Here's a list of countries that are members of the UN and have, therefore, accepted it's charter.

I don't suppose you have a link to a resolution that authorizes the invasion of Iraq on March 20th, 2003 from a majority of those 192 member states that would make an exception to the UN charter that they previously accepted so that the Iraq invasion could be considered legal, do you?


No? Didn't think so.
 
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-24-2008, 04:22 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Have you happened to read UNSCR 687 or UNSCR 1441? Or any of the multitude of others in between?

Quote:
Regardless of the accuracy or lack thereof concerning the WMD finds, this is an article on UNSCR 1441, the enforcement of which is not reliant on the discovery of WMDs. Even Hans Blix said before the invasion that, according to Iraq's own paperwork, the Hussein regime was in violation of the ceasefire terms in over a dozen different ways. Since all the ceasefire terms held equal weight and validity under UNSCR 687, with no single category being listed as having priority, it does not ultimately matter which term he broke. The fact is, you can take your pick. Calbeck 16 March 2007
 
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-24-2008, 04:41 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
UNSCR 1441 clearly states that no further use of sanctions on grounds that Iraq would be given no further chances for compliance. In light of France, Russia, and China( all with security council veto power) having a vested interest in ensuring the U.N.'s resolutions on Iraq do not get enforced. And the fact that the U.N. was unwilling to enforce it's own resolutions, then it was up to willing members of the U.N. to follow through and enforce the existing UNSCR's against Iraq.
 
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-24-2008, 04:50 PM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,770
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamerslink View Post
UNSCR 1441 clearly states that no further use of sanctions on grounds that Iraq would be given no further chances for compliance. In light of France, Russia, and China( all with security council veto power) having a vested interest in ensuring the U.N.'s resolutions on Iraq do not get enforced. And the fact that the U.N. was unwilling to enforce it's own resolutions, then it was up to willing members of the U.N. to follow through and enforce the existing UNSCR's against Iraq.
From the same link I posted, that you apparently didn't read...

Quote:
"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.


When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
If you want the illegal invasion of Iraq to be considered something other than illegal, then perhaps you should take that issue up with Kofi Annan and the UN.
 
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-24-2008, 05:03 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Which of the U.N. charters did it violate?

Pre-existing UNSCR's clearly stated the consequences of non-compliance. If the U.N. later decided it didn't want those enforced, I guess they shouldn't have voted for them unanimously in the first place.
 
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-24-2008, 05:11 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Kofi also made the statement that another resolution should have been made after 1441, that was impossible. Before one could even be drafted or announced France had already stated a veto on anything that held language of military action. And since UNSCR 660 and 687 already gave unanimous permission, what was the need?
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Greetings From Georgia Tariel Zivzivadze Graphic Design Forum 9 02-20-2004 01:36 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC