Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   Russia threatening to invade Canada of mineral and oil rights. Canada responds with a 'oh ya? Well my pants can kick your butt'   (cbc.ca) divider line 295
    More: Scary, Dmitry Medvedev, Security Council, ice melts, direct response, Russia, patrol boat, Russian Arctic, oil rights  
•       •       •

28084 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Mar 2010 at 10:49 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



295 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-03-19 01:36:13 AM  
Pilot Kosmosa: When Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver, and Calgary were smoldering nuclear wastes, like toronto is currently, it would be over.

FTF the lulz.
 
2010-03-19 01:36:28 AM  
jingks: Pilot Kosmosa: FARK is only short for Farking Retards.

What does the K stand for?


Kayaking.
 
2010-03-19 01:37:13 AM  
Future Emperor of Pennsylvania: Don't count on any wars against China. If you think we overestimated the Soviets in the 80s, just take a good close look at the underlying problems with the Chinese economy today. They're gonna have a real mess in their country real soon.

Still... zerg rush.
 
SVX
2010-03-19 01:38:16 AM  
Blairr: SVX Whoa. WHOA. This D-bag does not speak for Canada.

As my vote cancels out his vote, we're still at 0.

CaseyJay Thats right! Passive-Aggressive, the Canadian way.


Point taken. I'd say that you all seem to have more than your fair share of Ishkurs and Jakomos up that way, but I don't want to be reminded about the numbers of Truthers, Birthers, and Palinites (probably one and the same) that infest our body politic.

So instead, I'll salute a moderate Canadian.
 
2010-03-19 01:39:11 AM  
Would you choose to be besieged by crazy Mexican drug dealers or crazy Russian mobsters? If you think most of the wealth in the US is controlled by a few people, just wait until the Russians get here.
 
2010-03-19 01:40:32 AM  
NephilimNexus- Nazi flying saucers will destroy them both.

Well the entrance to the hollow earth is right there.
 
2010-03-19 01:40:44 AM  
Snarfangel: Look, if you two can't play nice, we'll have to claim it for the U.S.

Can we still let Russia have Alaska on their way over?
 
SVX
2010-03-19 01:40:57 AM  
CB-in-Tokyo: SVX

Japan was a shattered and prostate nation in 1945.

Damn boy watch your typing before Japan becomes the new "Greek!"


LOL - well...after the beating they took in the mid 40's, I'll bet their prostates were feeling pretty shattered too.
 
2010-03-19 01:41:16 AM  
SVX: Ishkur: NEDM: You seem to have this weird misconception that the US is only party in the world to consider nuclear warfare,

You've been watching Red Dawn too much. The truth is the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s was neither prepared, nor properly equipped, nor ready for an all-out nuclear war, and it's altogether likely that most of its nuclear ordnance were either duds, shoddy payloads, awful guidance systems, poor engineering, or propaganda posturing. Post-Cold War declassified documents have confirmed this. The Soviet Union was bankrupt for thirty years with a crumbling domestic infrastructure, an aging gerontocracy, and dwindling public faith in the system. But it kept up a good international image in Olympics and space and things. Just that it was a paper tiger.

Everything in Russia was falling apart. It spent nearly 60% of its GDP trying to keep up with America, but it couldn't handle the almost limitless industrial might of the west. This isn't a victory for capitalism, mind you, but merely for a more evolved and older indigenous industrial base. The west had been industrialized for the better part of the last 200+ years, and its industrial evolution had grown naturally, organically; took generations. Russia had industrialized in the 30s; it was forced upon the people at gunpoint, and many lost their lives. As a relative newcomer to modern economies, simply couldn't compete.

That's what led to the downfall of the Soviet Union: We simply outspent them. America's economy was flexible enough to absorb the losses. Russia's collapsed. But all the war hysteria, paranoia, speculation about army sizes, aggressions, summits and staring contests, etc....was all America's fault. America started all this shiat because Pentagon thinktankers knew that in a all-out exchange, America could "win", and so pressed their advantage whenever they could. Then in in the 80s they wanted to to make that "win" more "winnable".

America almost went to war over supposed missiles in Cuba. Russia had NATO missiles in Turkey pointing at them since WWII. How do you think they felt all this time? They were at the disadvantage, being surrounded on all sides by Democracies, by an America that literally lost its shiat over a two-foot bleeping tin ball back in 1959. Remember the U2 spy plane incident? ....paranoia, mistrust, fear. The Dark Side, this is. You almost destroyed the human race over a non-existent threat. It wasn't even there. It only existed in your head. You made it up. It's like collective psychosis. The belief that communist boogeymen are everywhere.

And I'm not talking about every country that has a nuclear attack plan, JUST the countries that have a nuclear attack plan that involves Canadian airspace. By all means, if you want to have your WWIII, send the missiles around the other side instead. Don't send the missiles over the North Pole without consulting us.

Dicks.

Hooray, another left wing, Canuck troll post of fail! What IS it with you people? Are you all that jealous of your southern neighbors? Jesus, where do I begin?

The Soviet Union of the 1970's and 80's were hardly a paper tiger. Not nearly as dangerous as then thought, but they still had around 15K nuclear warheads. Even with a 90% failure rate, there were still enough left to put paid to the world. The reality was closer to an expected 30% failure rate, but for the purpose of this discussion, I'll use a bare minimum of facts, since I didn't see a single one in your "argument".

Next - the Russians collapsed because of NEWER industrial infrastructure? No, genius, they won the second world war with that "newer" plant. They lost it through the decades following of commie mismanagement. Japan was a shattered and prostate nation in 1945, and had to be rebuilt virtually from scratch. It worked out for them, or is the third largest economy not good enough for you? What about China? They industrialized even later, and they're number two.

Critical thinking is obviously NOT a required skill up there.

I'll concede the point about Pentagon planning of the 1980's. It's the o ...


Hard to tell exactly what the point of his rant even is. Talk about thread jack. May be biting at a troll but what the hell.

First, Canada is a NATO member. An attack on the US would be an attack on Canada. You dont get to turn you that card on when the Russians call you out by name and then turn it off again when they go back to threatening your neighbors and allies no matter how much you want it just to serve your own interests.

Second, Canada does not own space. Not even the space above it. No one owns space. There are likely agreements in place to let nations know when there are potential threats or problems from man made spacecraft above them but they do not own it. Think about how most satellites orbit the earth. They fly over many countries and all without their permission.

Third, as someone mentioned above, missile defense is just that. DEFENSE.
If a bunch if ICBMs were flying toward the US you can bet there would be at least a few in there for Canada seeing as you are a NATO member and the US gets a large amount of fuel and electricity from Canada. You're pissed about radioactive debris from warheads falling on Canada after being hit by a missile defense but seem to be just cool with radioactive debris falling followed by city flattening explosions? Missile defense is a back up to MAD where the only thing keeping people from using their nuclear arsenals is a guarantee of complete obliteration. What better way to prevent nuclear war than to be able to tell people "look, your missiles wont reach their targets so do yourself a favor and never launch them in the first place"?

Canada and the US have more than a few reasons to biatch at each other but only idiot would believe that working together on a strong defense isn't a good idea. Even if it is for something as unlikely as a global nuclear war.
 
2010-03-19 01:42:23 AM  
img509.imageshack.us

Russian Mounties

/Against bear baiting, bear ice skating, and umm bear... horseback riding.
 
2010-03-19 01:43:00 AM  
KajakPro: Future Emperor of Pennsylvania: Don't count on any wars against China. If you think we overestimated the Soviets in the 80s, just take a good close look at the underlying problems with the Chinese economy today. They're gonna have a real mess in their country real soon.

Still... zerg rush.


And how do you stop the original zerg rush?

palgn.com.au

An Imperial-asston of Basilisks.

/wait, we are talking about Tyranids, aren't we?
 
2010-03-19 01:45:10 AM  
Pilot Kosmosa: When Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver, and Calgary were smoldering nuclear wastes, it would be over.

In all seriousness, this should be fixed to:
When Ottawa, Toronto, and therefore everything on the west coast of Lake Ontario, including Rochester and Buffalo, Vancouver, (and Bellingham) and Calgary, including its very useful petrol stores, are smoldering Nuclear wastes, the USA would have to retaliate, since they also got attacked.

Then Soviet Canuckistan (which would deserve the name) starts selling precious resources to the Ruskies, depriving the USA of their goods... Trust me, the USA would retaliate.
 
2010-03-19 01:47:12 AM  
NEDM: KajakPro: Future Emperor of Pennsylvania: Don't count on any wars against China. If you think we overestimated the Soviets in the 80s, just take a good close look at the underlying problems with the Chinese economy today. They're gonna have a real mess in their country real soon.

Still... zerg rush.

And how do you stop the original zerg rush?



An Imperial-asston of Basilisks.

/wait, we are talking about Tyranids, aren't we?


Firebats with stim packs and medics, last I checked.
 
2010-03-19 01:51:21 AM  
SVX: Ishkur: NEDM: [blah blah blah]

Some people are so farking boring.
 
2010-03-19 01:52:03 AM  
KajakPro: NEDM: KajakPro: Future Emperor of Pennsylvania: Don't count on any wars against China. If you think we overestimated the Soviets in the 80s, just take a good close look at the underlying problems with the Chinese economy today. They're gonna have a real mess in their country real soon.

Still... zerg rush.

And how do you stop the original zerg rush?



An Imperial-asston of Basilisks.

/wait, we are talking about Tyranids, aren't we?

Firebats with stim packs and medics, last I checked.


Hm. I believe we are discussing tactics for different zerg rushes.
 
2010-03-19 01:53:22 AM  
The Canadian Navy at the end of World War II would have kicked Russia's ass, just sayin'.

"The Royal Canadian Navy expanded greatly during the Second World War and following the end of the war was the THIRD-LARGEST navy in the world, behind the United States and the United Kingdom."

From Wikipedia

/I still hate Diefenbaker.
 
2010-03-19 01:54:38 AM  
TCManger: Canada couldn't beat itself in a fight. If it were not for the US being next to it even the French would have handed them their asses long ago. In fact the French have pretty much already handed them their asses. Good luck taking on a real country. Canada is so weak they couldn't even put down their Indians in a proper fashion. How sad.

Angry white trash is always amusing. You, farkhead, have done nothing to beat ANYbody, dipshiat. Neither you nor anyone in your inbred family have contributed anything to whatever it is you're trying to take credit for. You would shiat your pants at the first sound of gunfire.
 
2010-03-19 01:56:52 AM  
Gyrfalcon: SVX: Ishkur: NEDM: [blah blah blah]

Some people are so farking boring.


blogs.technet.com

You know we all have this problem.
 
2010-03-19 01:58:06 AM  
NEDM: KajakPro: NEDM: KajakPro: Future Emperor of Pennsylvania: Don't count on any wars against China. If you think we overestimated the Soviets in the 80s, just take a good close look at the underlying problems with the Chinese economy today. They're gonna have a real mess in their country real soon.

Still... zerg rush.

And how do you stop the original zerg rush?



An Imperial-asston of Basilisks.

/wait, we are talking about Tyranids, aren't we?

Firebats with stim packs and medics, last I checked.

Hm. I believe we are discussing tactics for different zerg rushes.


Possibly. However, if there ever was a second Korean war, I would find it (blackly) hilarious if someone actually use an anti-zerg tactic like firebats.
 
2010-03-19 02:02:05 AM  
TheVeryDeadIanMartin: I still hate Diefenbaker

Damn him and his Bill of Rights and One Canada BS.

/if there were conservatives like him around, they might actually get my vote
 
2010-03-19 02:03:15 AM  
KajakPro: NEDM: KajakPro: NEDM: KajakPro: Future Emperor of Pennsylvania: Don't count on any wars against China. If you think we overestimated the Soviets in the 80s, just take a good close look at the underlying problems with the Chinese economy today. They're gonna have a real mess in their country real soon.

Still... zerg rush.

And how do you stop the original zerg rush?



An Imperial-asston of Basilisks.

/wait, we are talking about Tyranids, aren't we?

Firebats with stim packs and medics, last I checked.

Hm. I believe we are discussing tactics for different zerg rushes.

Possibly. However, if there ever was a second Korean war, I would find it (blackly) hilarious if someone actually use an anti-zerg tactic like firebats.


The NORKS have been trying to build Nydus Canals, last I checked.
 
2010-03-19 02:05:08 AM  
Future Emperor of Pennsylvania: Don't count on any wars against China. If you think we overestimated the Soviets in the 80s, just take a good close look at the underlying problems with the Chinese economy today. They're gonna have a real mess in their country real soon.

My understanding is that they have a demographic problem: they'll get old before they get rich.
 
2010-03-19 02:08:34 AM  
Fano: The NORKS have been trying to build Nydus Canals, last I checked.

As long as they don't get super upgraded Hydralisks with Dark Swarm for cover, we should be good.

/They are practically a nation of 400 unupgraded zerglings when it comes to their military.
//And no broodlings. farking broodlings.
 
2010-03-19 02:10:12 AM  
whereisian: Yup, there's you not caring.

Should I post articles from Canadian authors about how unimportant and overblown your love of hockey is after you lost the first game?


roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com

/lulz
 
SVX
2010-03-19 02:13:31 AM  
NEDM: Gyrfalcon: SVX: Ishkur: NEDM: [blah blah blah]

Some people are so farking boring.



You know we all have this problem.


I have that damned norovirus and the shiats to go with it. I'm not allowed in my bed. What's all yer excuses, eh?

/fark it, mein kampfy couch awaits
 
2010-03-19 02:15:57 AM  
SVX: mein kampfy couch

That made me laugh way more than it should have.
 
2010-03-19 02:21:06 AM  
SVX: NEDM: Gyrfalcon: SVX: Ishkur: NEDM: [blah blah blah]

Some people are so farking boring.



You know we all have this problem.

I have that damned norovirus and the shiats to go with it. I'm not allowed in my bed. What's all yer excuses, eh?

/fark it, mein kampfy couch awaits


My excuse? It's early Friday morning during Spring Break, and my car's tailpipe rusted through.

/serves me right for buying a car made in 1988
 
2010-03-19 02:22:31 AM  
one of Ripley's Bad Guys: meh - sic Finland on them.

Sorry, the Finn's aren't aggressive.
But when they tell you to get off their yards, you better have 50-to-1 odds if you are planning on arguing.
 
2010-03-19 02:29:27 AM  
crab66: whereisian: Yup, there's you not caring.

Should I post articles from Canadian authors about how unimportant and overblown your love of hockey is after you lost the first game?


/lulz


Some random journalists don't speak for all Canadians, so that's a really hollow argument. But you, personally, on the other hand, have already been exposed as a massive hypocrite in this thread for flip-flopping. So, man, just cut your losses and let it go.
 
2010-03-19 02:32:50 AM  
yawn....

Canada and Russia go to war, Canada loses and the world dissapears, because preciesely what would happen is the conflict WOULD escalate. The UK would invariably be drawn in on Canadas side and we would bring in as much of the common wealth as we could while we were at it. Reguardless of if the US gets involved, which I'm sure it would, it would invariably go nuclear and that would be the end of that.

As it stands though, Russia already has a "dooms day" device in the shape of a failsafe launch system in the event of a nuclear attack. The US drops a single nuke on Russian soil and they will respond with a full barrage of tactical ICBMs at preselected US and global targets left over from the cold war. Even if you extinguish ALL life on the surface in Russia the missiles will launch.

If I'm not mistaken the US had a similar system set up with continual airflights to maintain an off the ground presence capable of launch. Although, theres was decommisioned in the 90's.

As for all the BS about nuke loads, about 30% or so of BOTH the US and Russian nuke stockpiles are unreliable due to age. Both sides have been slowly and quietly dismantling those older weapons or recycling them to make newer active warheads. The US has or had in the last year or two hired a Canadian company to check the reliability of many of its nuclear missiles in order to ensure that when they make the reductions that Obama discussed with the Russian gov't that reduction consists of the no longer viable weapons.

In the 1970-80's Russia would not have instigated a war with the US, no Russian leader since Stalin had seriously considered insitgating a war with the US, there policy was one of bluster and hubrus. The Russian government was however terrifed that the US WOULD launch an attack at them. Many in a position of power in Russia were convinced Raegan was fully willing to use them for instance.

As one Russian military leader put it "We've already had a world wars on our soil, and lost more then 20 million civilians, why in gods name would we want to do that again?"

Interestingly enough compliments of both nations nuclear weapons we almost did accidentally go into nuclear war atleast twice, once due to NATO war games provoking the Russians and secondly due to a radar glitch which was interpreted as an incomming missile.
 
2010-03-19 02:42:14 AM  
SVX: for the purpose of this discussion, I'll use a bare minimum of facts, since I didn't see a single one in your "argument".

The Power of Nightmares. BBC documentary, very good. Look it up. Basically, the gist is that the US military-industrial complex has a need to manufacture threats where none exist to justify runaway military spending. It's not truther bullshiat, and it spends an awful lot of time studying recently declassified Cold War documents.

One of my favorite anecdotes came from the 70s, where the Pentagon released a report about possible Soviet subs spying on the US in the arctic. Only they didn't detect any. From these facts, the braintrust concluded two possible scenarios:

1) Either there weren't any Soviet subs in the arctic or
2) The Soviets had developed a new secret sub that was invisible to sonar

Guess which one the Pentagon brass filed. But the raw truth was there were no Russian subs up there, and never were. It was all paranoia and specious shadow chasing, eager to justify the next budget windfall of equipment testing, systems upgrades, and rank promotions.

NEDM: While you are backtracking on it now, your statement of "the rest of the industrialized world agrees that it is morbidly insane to think that the nuclear option is even an option at all." seems to indicate that only the eevviill United States has nukes.

To be fair, it IS the only country to drop them on cities....and it seems to me that if other countries didn't have them, the US would not be the slightest bit hesitant to use them again.

Such is the nuclear paradox: Those who don't have them must get them. Those who have them can't use them. Possession is the only deterrent.
 
2010-03-19 02:51:32 AM  
TheVeryDeadIanMartin: The Canadian Navy at the end of World War II would have kicked Russia's ass, just sayin'.

"The Royal Canadian Navy expanded greatly during the Second World War and following the end of the war was the THIRD-LARGEST navy in the world, behind the United States and the United Kingdom."

From Wikipedia

/I still hate Diefenbaker.


If the numbers are correct I expect it was due to an upsurge of North Atlantic Convoy Protection vessels. Specifically, along the lines of River Class Corvettes etc. Most were sold to emerging countries navies after the war and not replaced in equal numbers.
 
Al!
2010-03-19 02:56:48 AM  
raubtier: You're welcome for doing the hard work for you in WW1, WW2 and Afghanistan.

Do you guys seriously believe that? In World War 1 you guys were, and I apologize for bringing up painful memories, a British Dominion. We had nothing to do with you joining the war, that was all "Hail to the Queen" or whatever was said when you were asked to do something by someone wearing a crown. I understand that over 67,000 young Canadians gave life-blood for mud and rocks in Europe, and I completely sympathize, but the "hard work" you put in at The Somme and all of the other terrible battles were long before we joined the war and all attributable to the fact that you swore fealty to a crown that didn't consult you before declaring war. I might add that, for all of your "hard work", the US lost over 53,000 lives over less than half the time Canada was in the war. Just from the numbers it looks like someone else did quite a bit of "hard work" winning that war. I'm not pointing fingers or laying blame, a lot of people died on both sides for what amounted to absolutely nothing.
In World War 2, again, you were a British Dominion. Canada joined the war more than 2 years before the US, again, at the urging of the Crown. I know that over 45,000 Canadians gave their lives during the war, and I understand that it can be very painful to see your boys coming home in bags, but the US lost 291,557 during WWII. That isn't even in the same planetary system. For every Canadian that died during the war almost 7 US citizens died. Tell the Russians you did all of the hard work, I don't want to hear it.
In Afghanistan, Canadian forces have been having the enviable task of guarding Kandahar. I'm not going to pretend to know about ongoing missions or special ops, but while your 2,500 soldiers have been hanging out in Kandahar, the US sent 2,500 troops into Marjah to root out the Taliban... On top of the 47,000 we have elsewhere in the country.

PS. give us back Alaska. Now.

Give you "back" Alaska? Do you mean "Give Britain back Alaska"? Because Canada didn't even exist in name when we bought Alaska from Russia. Yes, we bought it from Russia. Russia had permanent settlements and territorial claims to Alaska as early as 1790. In fact, Britain never even had proper claim to the land. The only reason we ended up with it is the poor standing of Russia after the Crimean War. They were pressed for money and didn't like the thought of having a bitter enemy eying their territory while they couldn't defend it. They sold it to us rather than lose it to Britain in a land war.

/History lessons in Canada? Yeah, right...
 
2010-03-19 02:58:42 AM  
blackheart666: NannyStatePark: NittLion78: We're not your friends, budd-ay!

I'm not your buddy, pal!

Seriously, WW3, Russia and China VS. U.S.& Canada. I'd give it 20 years though.

More likely Russia and NATO Vs China.

China and Russia are as likely allies as China and Japan.


Seriously, what would be china`s motivation for engaging in any world wide conflict. At the moment they produce and sell huge amounts of crap to the rest of the world.Their whole economy is based on this. Starting wars with your customers doesnt make economic sense. Its all just fear mongering
 
2010-03-19 03:01:15 AM  
illuminatis: blackheart666: NannyStatePark: NittLion78: We're not your friends, budd-ay!

I'm not your buddy, pal!

Seriously, WW3, Russia and China VS. U.S.& Canada. I'd give it 20 years though.

More likely Russia and NATO Vs China.

China and Russia are as likely allies as China and Japan.

Seriously, what would be china`s motivation for engaging in any world wide conflict. At the moment they produce and sell huge amounts of crap to the rest of the world.Their whole economy is based on this. Starting wars with your customers doesnt make economic sense. Its all just fear mongering


You're assuming China would be the aggressors.
 
2010-03-19 03:02:53 AM  
wolverine.x-knights.com
 
2010-03-19 03:06:59 AM  
Al!: raubtier: You're welcome for doing the hard work for you in WW1, WW2 and Afghanistan.

Do you guys seriously believe that? In World War 1 you guys were, and I apologize for bringing up painful memories, a British Dominion. We had nothing to do with you joining the war, that was all "Hail to the Queen" or whatever was said when you were asked to do something by someone wearing a crown. I understand that over 67,000 young Canadians gave life-blood for mud and rocks in Europe, and I completely sympathize, but the "hard work" you put in at The Somme and all of the other terrible battles were long before we joined the war and all attributable to the fact that you swore fealty to a crown that didn't consult you before declaring war. I might add that, for all of your "hard work", the US lost over 53,000 lives over less than half the time Canada was in the war.


Out of a population of how many more?
We had 8 million at that point. You had 99 million. That's 12 times more. You didn't even lose the same amount of lives in half the time when you had 12 times the population. We gave 6 times as much as you, in other words.

Al!:Just from the numbers it looks like someone else did quite a bit of "hard work" winning that war. I'm not pointing fingers or laying blame, a lot of people died on both sides for what amounted to absolutely nothing.
In World War 2, again, you were a British Dominion. Canada joined the war more than 2 years before the US, again, at the urging of the Crown.


You need a history lesson, we chose to enter the war to defend our Allies, one week after Britain declared war.

I know that over 45,000 Canadians gave their lives during the war, and I understand that it can be very painful to see your boys coming home in bags, but the US lost 291,557 during WWII. That isn't even in the same planetary system. For every Canadian that died during the war almost 7 US citizens died. Tell the Russians you did all of the hard work, I don't want to hear it.

Everyone knows the Russians suffered the most.
In 1940, we had 11 million people. The USA had 132, 11 times more. We still gave more of what blood we had to shed.

Al!:In Afghanistan, Canadian forces have been having the enviable task of guarding Kandahar. I'm not going to pretend to know about ongoing missions or special ops, but while your 2,500 soldiers have been hanging out in Kandahar, the US sent 2,500 troops into Marjah to root out the Taliban... On top of the 47,000 we have elsewhere in the country.

PS. give us back Alaska. Now.

Give you "back" Alaska? Do you mean "Give Britain back Alaska"? Because Canada didn't even exist in name when we bought Alaska from Russia. Yes, we bought it from Russia. Russia had permanent settlements and territorial claims to Alaska as early as 1790. In fact, Britain never even had proper claim to the land. The only reason we ended up with it is the poor standing of Russia after the Crimean War. They were pressed for money and didn't like the thought of having a bitter enemy eying their territory while they couldn't defend it. They sold it to us rather than lose it to Britain in a land war.

/History lessons in Canada? Yeah, right...


Not going to argue about Afganistan or Alaska, that other guy is dumb.
 
2010-03-19 03:10:37 AM  
This Amp Goes To 11: Some random journalists don't speak for all Canadians,

So I speak for all the world now?


i370.photobucket.com
 
2010-03-19 03:14:37 AM  
KajakPro: Everyone knows the Russians suffered the most.
In 1940, we had 11 million people. The USA had 132, 11 times more. We still gave more of what blood we had to shed.


Also read about the effects of Dieppe and how the lessons of Dieppe caused DDAY to work, kept the Russians fighting past the Molotov-Ribbentrop line, convincing the Germans that they just needed a strong line of defense on the beachhead, we'd attack at ports, and taught us how to actually take out coastal defenses (screw synchronized timing, just shell the fark out of them).

It was a heartbreaking waste of life, but still, hopefully it served a purpose.

And the real enemy is the Russians
 
2010-03-19 03:24:24 AM  
crab66: This Amp Goes To 11: Some random journalists don't speak for all Canadians,

So I speak for all the world now?


www.quex.frih.net

...just sayin'.

/It's so fitting that Texas would be the crotch. :D
 
2010-03-19 03:27:11 AM  
End it now God. It seems that we havent learned a single thing
 
2010-03-19 03:31:23 AM  
Al!: raubtier: You're welcome for doing the hard work for you in WW1, WW2 and Afghanistan.

Do you guys seriously believe that? In World War 1 you guys were, and I apologize for bringing up painful memories, a British Dominion. We had nothing to do with you joining the war, that was all "Hail to the Queen" or whatever was said when you were asked to do something by someone wearing a crown. I understand that over 67,000 young Canadians gave life-blood for mud and rocks in Europe, and I completely sympathize, but the "hard work" you put in at The Somme and all of the other terrible battles were long before we joined the war and all attributable to the fact that you swore fealty to a crown that didn't consult you before declaring war. I might add that, for all of your "hard work", the US lost over 53,000 lives over less than half the time Canada was in the war. Just from the numbers it looks like someone else did quite a bit of "hard work" winning that war. I'm not pointing fingers or laying blame, a lot of people died on both sides for what amounted to absolutely nothing.
In World War 2, again, you were a British Dominion. Canada joined the war more than 2 years before the US, again, at the urging of the Crown. I know that over 45,000 Canadians gave their lives during the war, and I understand that it can be very painful to see your boys coming home in bags, but the US lost 291,557 during WWII. That isn't even in the same planetary system. For every Canadian that died during the war almost 7 US citizens died. Tell the Russians you did all of the hard work, I don't want to hear it.
In Afghanistan, Canadian forces have been having the enviable task of guarding Kandahar. I'm not going to pretend to know about ongoing missions or special ops, but while your 2,500 soldiers have been hanging out in Kandahar, the US sent 2,500 troops into Marjah to root out the Taliban... On top of the 47,000 we have elsewhere in the country.

PS. give us back Alaska. Now.

Give you "back" Alaska? Do you mean "Give Britain back Alaska"? Because Canada didn't even exist in name when we bought Alaska from Russia. Yes, we bought it from Russia. Russia had permanent settlements and territorial claims to Alaska as early as 1790. In fact, Britain never even had proper claim to the land. The only reason we ended up with it is the poor standing of Russia after the Crimean War. They were pressed for money and didn't like the thought of having a bitter enemy eying their territory while they couldn't defend it. They sold it to us rather than lose it to Britain in a land war.

/History lessons in Canada? Yeah, right...


Hmmmm, without resorting to link hunting for you, I take it youve never heard of the end of WWI being refered to as the "Canada's Hundred Days" then?

"During this time, the Canadian Corps fought at Amiens, Arras, the Hindenburg Line, the Canal du Nord, Bourlon Wood, Cambrai, Denain, Valenciennes and finally at Mons, on the final day of the First World War.

In terms of numbers, during those 96 days the Canadian Corps' four over-strength or 'heavy' divisions of roughly 100 000 men, engaged and defeated or put to flight elements of forty seven German divisions, which represented one quarter of the German forces fighting on the Western Front.[2] However their successes came at a heavy cost, the Canadians suffered 20% of their battle-sustained casualties of the war during the same period"

We with a force of 100,000 routed 47 German divisions, more then any other allied force on the field. There is a reason Canadians in WWI were called "Storm troopers" we showed up and the Germans shiat there pants... this was ofcourse after teaching the British how to conduct a war using much more modern tactics at Vimy. Strange new concepts like providing regular troops with a MAP and teaching them how to read it.

It was the Canadians breaking the Hindenburg line that ended the first wirld war, along with a second break by the British/Austrailians.

As for WWII, I give mad props to FDR for working with Churchill and providing materials and cover as well as a NYC base of operations for the BSC and British secret services to operate from but as for military contributions, the US contribution in terms of man power and fighting strenth when compaired to that put up by the USSR and the Commonwealth is negligable. Not to say we didnt appreciate the guns, trucks, bombs, planes etc that were supplied to us by the US. But the overblown rhetoric we hear from our neighbours to the south about how the whole world should thank them it doesnt speak German is annoying as all fark. The US took 2 beaches at Normandy, Britian took 2 beaches, and Canada took 1, Canada was however the ONLY force to meet all of its objectives during the invasion.

Still the invasion of Europe was a sideshow to the real war in the east where the vast majority of the German Armies as well as its most elite troops were engaged.
 
2010-03-19 03:32:22 AM  
KajakPro: Not going to argue about Afganistan or Alaska, that other guy is dumb.

But we can agree that Canada didn't do the US' hard work in either WW1 or WW2, right? Each country was pulling its own weight, and even then, the Soviets were the only ones who could lodge a complaint that says otherwise.

/people arguing "which country won WW2" are stupid.
//the ALLIED NATIONS won the war, idiots
 
Al!
2010-03-19 03:33:02 AM  
KajakPro: We still gave more of what blood we had to shed.

I'm not belittling Canadian military sacrifices at all. I respect your great nation and am thankful to have you as a neighbor. I will not, however, stand up to my nations sacrifices being belittled. Each life is worth more than its weight in blood. To say that 45,000 counts for more than 291,000 because you had fewer people in your nation is stupid.
 
2010-03-19 03:34:09 AM  
thafeedback.com
 
2010-03-19 03:39:19 AM  
Al!: In World War 1 you guys were, and I apologize for bringing up painful memories, a British Dominion.

Canada has not been a British Dominion since 1867. Britain declared war on August 4, 1914. Canada declared war on August 5, 1914. Two separate countries making separate decisions.

Of course, the shared heritage and culture made it pretty much an automatic slam dunk, but we still made that decision ourselves.

Al!: I understand that over 67,000 young Canadians gave life-blood for mud and rocks in Europe...I might add that, for all of your "hard work", the US lost over 53,000 lives over less than half the time Canada was in the war. Just from the numbers it looks like someone else did quite a bit of "hard work" winning that war.

I love the backhanded compliments. So patronizing.

Canada's population was only 7.8 million people in WWI!!! Assume half are women, a quarter more are children or elderly, and another 1/5 ineligible and/or more useful on the homefront (doctors, teachers, etc). How many troops did you expect us to send?!

America had over 100 million people, and sent nearly more troops than the entire population of Canada.

WWI is actually rife with amazing stories of Canadian tenacity, including the Second Battle of Ypres, where a small colonial contingent of Canadian troops faced gas warfare for the first time, and still won the battle, taking the town in two days, where the British and French could not capture in over six months (at the cost of 1.5 million lives).

What did America do? Show up in 1917, launch one offensive campaign, and then the Germans sued for peace (while the war was still being fought on French soil) because they realized that, even though the American effort did not break the attrition, the addition of another superpower, with an almost limitless industrial capacity, could drag this stalemate out another 4 years or more, which would only lead to more tragedy and bloodshed. For the good of sanity, they wanted to call the bloody war off.

Al!: In World War 2, again, you were a British Dominion. Canada joined the war more than 2 years before the US, again, at the urging of the Crown.

Canada has not been a British Dominion since 1867. Britain declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939. Canada declared war on Germany on September 10, 1939. Two separate countries making separate independent decisions. There was actually a similar (but smaller) isolationist movement in Canada to stay out of European affairs, but cultural heritage prevailed.

Canada only had a population of 11 million during WWII (the US had over 135 million), and it had its own farking beach on D-Day. Not a British Dominion Beach. A CANADIAN BEACH. Juno:

www.cbc.ca

Of the five beaches, Juno was considered the toughest to take geographically, with a seawall twice as high as the one at Omaha (the bloodiest beach landing of D-Day) and the second most heavily defended (after Omaha). To everyone's surprise, the Canadians took the beach in a matter of hours, and by the end of the day while the Americans were still struggling to secure their beachheads, the Canadians were 9 miles inland. At this point, they were told to stop and wait for everyone else to catch up.

Seriously, for such a small, podunk out of the way colonial shiatbag country, we kicked more ass than a lead boot at a donky convention. Per capita, with the amount of resources, troops, equipment and training available, Canadians were easily the most feared fighting force in both World Wars.


your history is dumb. Wiki it.
 
2010-03-19 03:42:08 AM  
I'd say that this thread is over, but we all know that it isn't. Too many ITGs invested in E-penis measuring for it to stop now...

"FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU America!" "NO! FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUU CANADA"... Jebus, it's like a pair of Siamese twins getting in a punching match; no matter who scores the knockout, they're both unconscious.
 
Al!
2010-03-19 03:42:25 AM  
wi11ow: the US contribution in terms of man power and fighting strenth when compaired to that put up by the USSR and the Commonwealth is negligable.

I'll give you the Soviet sacrifice. They gave Hell and took worse. They had entire cities razed to the ground by their own army to prevent the enemy from making use of them. You know what... I'm done with this conversation. I'm not going to sit here and argue about this battle or that battle or these troop losses or those. War is hell.
 
2010-03-19 03:44:35 AM  
Ishkur: SVX: for the purpose of this discussion, I'll use a bare minimum of facts, since I didn't see a single one in your "argument".

The Power of Nightmares. BBC documentary, very good. Look it up. Basically, the gist is that the US military-industrial complex has a need to manufacture threats where none exist to justify runaway military spending. It's not truther bullshiat, and it spends an awful lot of time studying recently declassified Cold War documents.

One of my favorite anecdotes came from the 70s, where the Pentagon released a report about possible Soviet subs spying on the US in the arctic. Only they didn't detect any. From these facts, the braintrust concluded two possible scenarios:

1) Either there weren't any Soviet subs in the arctic or
2) The Soviets had developed a new secret sub that was invisible to sonar

Guess which one the Pentagon brass filed. But the raw truth was there were no Russian subs up there, and never were. It was all paranoia and specious shadow chasing, eager to justify the next budget windfall of equipment testing, systems upgrades, and rank promotions.

NEDM: While you are backtracking on it now, your statement of "the rest of the industrialized world agrees that it is morbidly insane to think that the nuclear option is even an option at all." seems to indicate that only the eevviill United States has nukes.

To be fair, it IS the only country to drop them on cities....and it seems to me that if other countries didn't have them, the US would not be the slightest bit hesitant to use them again.

Such is the nuclear paradox: Those who don't have them must get them. Those who have them can't use them. Possession is the only deterrent.


No Russian subs in the arctic? Thats bullshiat. (new window)

"First, the salinity differences resulting from several different temperature layers cause acoustical refraction to the point that unless the operating and detecting devices are in almost the same thermolayer, detection is very difficult. Second, the Arctic waters are much "noiser" than other oceans because of the shifting and breaking of ice which can add acoustical cover against listening devices."

and

"Finally, the ice itself presents anobstacle to overhead or surface ASW efforts; a situation which canclearly be used to the advantage of submarines, on one hand, but which also complicates operations since even nuclear submarines must eventually surface to communicate, confirm a location, and fire missiles."

Followed by:
"All of the large Soviet Typhoon class SSBNs are based in the Kola region and are thought to be the first submarines designed particularly for under-ice operation. These submarines exploit their design by using a technique called "ice picking" in which theyquietly drift for months while resting immediately below the surface of the ice.15 In addition, the Soviets have also apparently addressed the problem of how to access the surface to fire their missiles."

Arctic was considered by the US and USSR to be one of the best spots for hiding ballistic missile subs. The US intelligence people knew this so it would only be rational to assume the Soviets did too.
Were they supposed to build their entire defense strategy around Russians being idiots, not using those waters and get caught with their pants down or assume that the difficult conditions of the waters were masking the subs?

BTW, from the document I linked. This is a combined US/Canadian strategy so if the US were idiots in this area there is no way to exclude your own country from that.

Second, the thought that if the Russians didn't have a vast nuclear arsenal that the US would run around the world lobbing nuclear weapons at anyone who looked at them funny is ridiculous. No citation needed there.
 
2010-03-19 03:50:39 AM  
NEDM: KajakPro: Not going to argue about Afganistan or Alaska, that other guy is dumb.

But we can agree that Canada didn't do the US' hard work in either WW1 or WW2, right? Each country was pulling its own weight, and even then, the Soviets were the only ones who could lodge a complaint that says otherwise.

/people arguing "which country won WW2" are stupid.
//the ALLIED NATIONS won the war, idiots


Exactly. The US did a hell of a lot of work, we did what we could be expected to. We did some very impressive heroics, as did everyone else in that war. We each pulled our own weight.

Al!: I will not, however, stand up to my nations sacrifices being belittled. Each life is worth more than its weight in blood. To say that 45,000 counts for more than 291,000 because you had fewer people in your nation is stupid.

I never said our contribution counts more, just that we did what we could, as did you.
 
Displayed 50 of 295 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report