Canada vs United States
Comments
-
Ah, i see. Thank you for the information. I understand (too well) that subjects like these can become quite aggressive and hate-filled. I will continue to respect the regulations set in this forum.
Sorry I just actually corrected a huge mistake in my post hah. I meant to say there is no reason you can't express your opinions. As long as things are kept to a civil level. -
We should totally get a +1 system going. It doesn't even have to be like... A karma system. Just a plus one so people can be like hey. That was a nice post.[GM]Saidin wrote: »Sorry I just actually corrected a huge mistake in my post hah. I meant to say there is no reason you can't express your opinions. As long as things are kept to a civil level. -
Ah, but if im aware, US joined the war of WWI because an ocean liner containing american citizens was sunk by german U-Boats. I know that America joined WWII because of pearl harbor. BUT it could've been abated slightly in size had America not joined WWI because of the RIDICULOUS demands that the Triple Entente made because Muscle America was behind them. And force the Triple Alliance (germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman empire) to sit on the sides and watched the Treaty of Versailles demand Ridiculous terms for Germany (mainly) and others to pay. And that lead to a economic collapse in Germany, and the Nazi party wouldn't been as powerful.
Plus Woodrow Wilson; President of America suggested the League of Nations, earliest form of the UN. Fantastic idea! However, all it could do is place Economic sanctions, which is awful for any country, but the catch is. America DIDNT join, and that meant that the country in saction could still trade with the economic powerhous America, no loss there.
After all we are neighbors.
k i'll do this quick, with no research on this, all off the top of my head.. after that its good night and peace...
Reasons USA got involved in WW1:
Sinking of the Lusitania,
constant harassment of German U-boats
the lie that Germany would stop using U-boats to use unrestricted submarine warfare
back to constant harassment of German U-boats
but the most important reason of all:
the Zimmermann Telegram
the Versailles treaty was in no way influenced by the US, it was more of a "France seeking retribution for screwing up their country...; and taking it out on the Germans" Many portions of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points were not implemented in the final treaty, and that the League of Nations...off-topic...
WW2:
EVEN IFFFFF we weren't bombed by the Japanese, we would have done a similar thing to get involved with WW2, because again, we did not want to see our allies lose (lol it was just GB at that point)
and we didn't choose to go to war, we reacted and made the effort to make war with the Japanese.
WW2 for America was against Japan, not with Germany, in terms of objectives, look at the macro-managment of it and see that we put more forces into fighting the Japanese.
We just got lucky that D-Day, and the invasion of Italy because USSR was get the living sh*t beat out of them... so we send like 3 armies tops to help the European front...
back to WW1
The Alliance and the Entente, again were a system of secret alliances and military buildups that just escalated out of hand, with help with Gavrilo Princip and his beliefs on revolution in the baltics, which led to the assassination of archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, which led to the July Crisis, which led to BLAH BLAH BLAH
GOOD NIGHT
i love you... no h0mo
and i quote:[GM]Saidin wrote: »"you **** *** ***** **** ** and *** *** your *** ** ** go to *** ** **"
It is possible to have a decent debate. But if both parties don't want to participate we have to shut the whole operation down.
and i do not want to participate no more... :rolleyes: -
[GM]Saidin wrote: »And the United States wouldn't be the United States without England. Or Ireland. Or every other nation that came before it depositing people to take over land originally populated by the natives. Yes, the United States revolted and eventually won freedom of land and the right to govern themselves. But the population of people still "immigrated".
People were coming across the Ocean to go to both what would end up being both Canada and the USA.
If you want to use the thesis and talk about economic structure and Canada's dependence on the states then that is perfectly fine. There is a lot to be said for what the USA does for Canada and vice versa. Plenty for masters thesis from both angles. But then you're facts about Napoleon and various other "revolutionary histories" are irrelevant. Because neither countries were that far along in development to talk about the Louisiana Purchase as being a fact to support your case.
I'm not sure I understand the logic in this original thesis. Other than to troll the pride of one nation and pit it against the pride of another nation.
You don't understand?
If Napoleon never sold United States Louisiana, France would dominate the whole western hemisphere.
Without the United States, there would be no Canada. -
yes we did negotiate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
yea its Wikipedia... but I've checked out the sources, and they fall in line...
Wikipedia PHUCK YEARR :cool:
Obliterating sauces all over the innertoobz :cool:
PS: stuff like this is what you are missing now thanks to the Wiki-pedestrians -
Excludable wrote: »You don't understand?
If Napoleon never sold United States Louisiana, France would dominate the whole western hemisphere.
Without the United States, there would be no Canada.
Excludable... you don't get it... Canada was a BRITISH possession, it had nothing to do with the Louisiana Purchase, which was a French-American Transaction...
Canada would have still remained Canada even if there was a New New France in the west. (used to be that Canada would make up New France, but French and Indian War stopped that)Wikipedia PHUCK YEARR :cool:
Obliterating sauces all over the innertoobz :cool:
PS: stuff like this is what you are missing now thanks to the Wiki-pedestrians
k go to hell for not getting the rest of the post... this thread is an argument about Canada and USA, and I'm just pointing out historical facts...
that link of financial conspiracies does not belong....
you just wanted to say sht that was completely off-topic...
its just an opinion out there.... not historical fact, that's why its called
CONSPIRACIES, like other assassins for JFK shootings, or proof of ET at Area51. No historical fact, but smeared with people's opinions with hastily backed up research...go away, that post concerned a documented war with more sources than witnesses to jesus christ being born
why would you spend 2 & 1/2 years scanning text when you can just provide citation... that kid failed... big time
and "management"? its not a conspiracy or anything, but there are a lot... like a lot of editors out there that are a little more professional than that kid... and could probably prove to him that linking all sources to one website isn't the best idea.... -
Excludable wrote: »You don't understand?
If Napoleon never sold United States Louisiana, France would dominate the whole western hemisphere.
Without the United States, there would be no Canada.
But that's a pretty bold statement.
The word Canada is based on a Native word for village, or gathering or settlement (which most Canadians are taught). But it was Jacques Cartier who founded the first settlements in Canada. And he was French.
Who's to say that if France dominated the western hemisphere they wouldn't have founded Canada. It might have been in a different form than it is today, but Upper and Lower Canada existed because of the French regardless of the events that transpired with Napoleon and Louisiana. -
Excludable wrote: »I know what you mean Bloody,
but my thesis is,
Canada wouldn't be Canada, without the United States.
maybe u can never say that a country wouldnt exist if u changed something because u just cant be sure, if the UK would not have colonized america MAYBE there wouldnt be any USA but u also cant say that someone wouldnt have founded a USA but with a different name and laws -
[GM]Saidin wrote: »But that's a pretty bold statement.
The word Canada is based on a Native word for village, or gathering or settlement (which most Canadians are taught). But it was Jacques Cartier who founded the first settlements in Canada. And he was French.
Who's to say that if France dominated the western hemisphere they wouldn't have founded Canada. It might have been in a different form than it is today, but Upper and Lower Canada existed because of the French regardless of the events that transpired with Napoleon and Louisiana.
i agree because has i explained in my other post, we can not be sure enough to say that a nation would not be formed if one little fact is altered as of such fact we cant say that there would be no canada without the usa.... thats the same as saying that there would be no europe if there had been no romans. all we can do is make an assumption there for this discussion cant go furder than when we all agree that we cant say Canada would not exist without USA....
sry for the english or repetitions cuz im PT and i speak good english but i spell really bad
-
Yes.. I'm not saying that America is THE democracy, but we have a system closer to that perfection than most countries...
what? no no no the USA's system is full of flaws like every other system, THE and THE only political system that goes near perfection is communism and in THEORY its the best ever made, the problem is that it was only well applyed during lenin's life time.... there is no other system that can be applyed as well has communism AS LONG as politics lose their greed and make this fare for all... but still my opinion is that NO system WORKS because all systems are based in the use of money, only and only when the money system is abolished and switched by something better we will have a funcioning system -
umm nope, it was cos you boys didnt like paying taxes, hence the Tea Boat Party, which is why we split.
we are paying taxes now a days.. and the boston tea party was an boycott on tea because only the richer people could buy it. we dressed up as native americans because back then we thought of them being kinda, "reckless"
back then when the pioneers came to america, they had little to nothing... we had to build from nothin. and when the tea act came along, only the richest people could afford it because it was too expensive. and the brits put taxes on everything that was essential for us.
ohhh and, no matter where u live... ur gonna say that place is the best. so all of this leads to nothin. -
-
I have to disagree with Exclude.
As much as I like America and everything the American governnment is all about money.
Why would they invade Iraq?
They talk about this alqaeda group to scare people so that people will support their cause.
The only reason they went to Iraq is for yes and this is true. Oil.
Iraq has a huge abundance of oil so do the other Middle eastern countries.
America needed an excuse for why they were in Iraq.
Also let's say it's not for oil. Why would America have to butt into another countries government system? I'm pretty sure no one can invade America and say oh we want to change you from a democracyto a socialism.
ALSO. You think America and the UN were helpin in Africa?
No they weren't there was diamonds and america needed a reason to go and "help".
Also the nuke on Hiroshima was not needed AT ALL. Instead of killing the enemy they killed innocent civilians.
I can think of many many many ways of how they could have dealt with the problem.
So that's just my two cents. -
WaffleMunzta wrote: »we are paying taxes now a days.. and the boston tea party was an boycott on tea because only the richer people could buy it. we dressed up as native americans because back then we thought of them being kinda, "reckless"
completely wrong... we had the boston tea party in response to the british forming the tax on tea products... not because we couldn't pay it. We had the revolution in order to have self-representation... nothing to do with economics of it...what? no no no the USA's system is full of flaws like every other system, THE and THE only political system that goes near perfection is communism and in THEORY its the best ever made, the problem is that it was only well applyed during lenin's life time.... there is no other system that can be applyed as well has communism AS LONG as politics lose their greed and make this fare for all... but still my opinion is that NO system WORKS because all systems are based in the use of money, only and only when the money system is abolished and switched by something better we will have a funcioning system
communism... do you hear yourself? its not even a political idea, its an economic one...
and obv it only works in theory because no human can cope with equality.. its just in our blood...
"No system works because all systems are based in the use of money"?
dude... the only systems based on money are corporatocracies, kleptocracies (just in financial corruption), others.... but the most famous example would be plutocracy.
u actually agreed my statement, which i will quote again...Yes.. I'm not saying that America is THE democracy, but we have a system closer to that perfection than most countries... -
Excludable... you don't get it... Canada was a BRITISH possession, it had nothing to do with the Louisiana Purchase, which was a French-American Transaction...
Canada would have still remained Canada even if there was a New New France in the west. (used to be that Canada would make up New France, but French and Indian War stopped that)I doubt it.
Britian was not strong anymore in the west hemisphere.
France would. -
BeverLyHiLL wrote: »I have to disagree with Exclude.
As much as I like America and everything the American governnment is all about money.
Why would they invade Iraq?
They talk about this alqaeda group to scare people so that people will support their cause.
The only reason they went to Iraq is for yes and this is true. Oil.
Iraq has a huge abundance of oil so do the other Middle eastern countries.
America needed an excuse for why they were in Iraq.
Also let's say it's not for oil. Why would America have to butt into another countries government system? I'm pretty sure no one can invade America and say oh we want to change you from a democracyto a socialism.
ALSO. You think America and the UN were helpin in Africa?
No they weren't there was diamonds and america needed a reason to go and "help".
Also the nuke on Hiroshima was not needed AT ALL. Instead of killing the enemy they killed innocent civilians.
I can think of many many many ways of how they could have dealt with the problem.
So that's just my two cents.
I agree, Iraq wasn't a smart move.
But, for the sake of the future, the Iraqi oil reserves will play a crucial part.
And the nuke, some may argue either side.
Statistically, more people would have died without the nuke. -
Then, I assume you must agree with my thesis.[GM]Saidin wrote: »But that's a pretty bold statement.
The word Canada is based on a Native word for village, or gathering or settlement (which most Canadians are taught). But it was Jacques Cartier who founded the first settlements in Canada. And he was French.
Who's to say that if France dominated the western hemisphere they wouldn't have founded Canada. It might have been in a different form than it is today, but Upper and Lower Canada existed because of the French regardless of the events that transpired with Napoleon and Louisiana.
Canada would be different without the United States.
And before people say "United States is different without Canada"..
what has Canada done?
Argue me. -
Excludable wrote: »Excludable... you don't get it... Canada was a BRITISH possession, it had nothing to do with the Louisiana Purchase, which was a French-American Transaction...
Canada would have still remained Canada even if there was a New New France in the west. (used to be that Canada would make up New France, but French and Indian War stopped that)I doubt it.
Britian was not strong anymore in the west hemisphere.
France would.
what are you talking about? this isn't Naplolean's War here... its just Canada, by itself, vs. USA...
Britain remained one of the strongest powers until it lost its vast empire like after WW2...
now comeback with a French empire to rival that... -
Excludable wrote: »
Have you looked at my first post?Excludable... you don't get it... Canada was a BRITISH possession, it had nothing to do with the Louisiana Purchase, which was a French-American Transaction...
Canada would have still remained Canada even if there was a New New France in the west. (used to be that Canada would make up New France, but French and Indian War stopped that)
what are you talking about? this isn't Naplolean's War here... its just Canada, by itself, vs. USA...
Britain remained one of the strongest powers until it lost its vast empire like after WW2...
now comeback with a French empire to rival that...
It was in the same time period at the Napoleonic Wars.
Britain's empire was crumbling at the same time France was growing.
Losing America, revolts in India and Africa, etc. -
I am a bit surprised of all this entirely. This is a bit silly to argue, the world wouldn't be the same if either country had been different.
Canada has done a ton of things, they may not have DIRECTLY influenced their country specifically, as far as I know.
Not that I entirely think American history is truly accurate. Many still deny that we ever actually fought wars.
But, its a bit ignorant to assume that either wouldn't have changed if the other wasn't the normal it is today.
America and Canada have done their fair share, if neither were important to each other, then why did we maintain relations? Why do we stick up for each other and try and help each other? I doubt its because we're neighbors since everyone else overseas is basically not happy with each other. -
completely wrong... we had the boston tea party in response to the british forming the tax on tea products... not because we couldn't pay it. We had the revolution in order to have self-representation... nothing to do with economics of it...
communism... do you hear yourself? its not even a political idea, its an economic one...
and obv it only works in theory because no human can cope with equality.. its just in our blood...
"No system works because all systems are based in the use of money"?
dude... the only systems based on money are corporatocracies, kleptocracies (just in financial corruption), others.... but the most famous example would be plutocracy.
u actually agreed my statement, which i will quote again...
dude USA is a democratic republic very far away from perfection.... NO system (and by system i mean "way to govern a nation", lets say it like that its simpler) is a funcional one again because they were all founded on the bases of money, and u can not disagree because as u can see countrys invade others for money, politics are given money for doing exactly the contrary of what they promised to do etc.... and i know americans dont like communism, personaly im not democrat, republican, socialist, anarchyst or communist, but u most agree that communism works pretty well in theory its just a shame that people are selfish and cant live in equality with their "neighboors" due to racist and xenophobic reasons
![[MOD]Rex](https://z8games.akamaized.net/cfna/forum/customavatars/68/navatar_3617368.gif){kind=avatar}
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 15 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 2.5K CrossFire
- 715 CrossFire Announcements
- 714 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 323 Community
- 12 Modes
- 393 Suggestions
- 16 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 73 CF Competitive Forum
- 1 CFCL
- 16 Looking for a Team?
- 524 CrossFire Support
- 7 Suggestion
- 15 CrossFire Guides
- 37 CrossFire Off Topic