• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elizabeth Warren launches exploratory committee ahead of likely 2020 presidential run

TU Curmudgeon said:
And all of us Canadians are eternally grateful to the United States of America for sending its troops to defend freedom from the German attacks in 1914, 1915, 1916, (most of) 1917, 1939, 1940, and (most of) 1941 while Canada didn't do anything except make money off of WWI and WWII.
Click to expand...

The Americans spent more money, used more infrastructure, lost more lives, saved more people, etc than Canada could even dream about doing... you are welcome.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
And all of us Canadians are eternally grateful to the United States of America for sending its troops to defend freedom from the German attacks in 1914, 1915, 1916, (most of) 1917, 1939, 1940, and (most of) 1941 while Canada didn't do anything except make money off of WWI and WWII.
Click to expand...


I'm Canadian, and because of the US's protection, so to speak, Canada has only had to maintain the minimal expenditures on their armed forces. I also served in the Canadian Artillery from 87 to 91, and the running joke at the time was that there were more NYC police officers than the entire Canadian armed forces, I think that is still true to this day..

Just like the rest of NATO, the US has been subsidizing their safety for decades, Canada included.

Tim-
 
Bodhisattva said:
The Americans spent more money, used more infrastructure, lost more lives, saved more people, etc than Canada could even dream about doing... you are welcome.
Click to expand...

During WWII the population of the US was around 131,028,000 and the population of Canada was around 11,267,000. That means that the population of the US was around 11.63 times as large as the Canadian population.

During WWII Canada lost around 42,000 killed.

42000*11.63 is 488,460

During WWII the US lost around 407,300 killed.

Proportionately Canada had more troops killed than the US did during WWII.

In the European theatre of WWII, the US lost around 276,655 and Canada lost at least 40,000

40,000*11.63=465,200

Proportionately Canada lost more in the European theatre of WWII than the US lost.

On D-Day, the beaches that came the closest to being unsuccessful were the American beaches and the beaches that were the most successful were the Canadian beaches.

If someone has $1,000,000 and gives $100 to charity would you consider that to be a "greater sacrifice" than someone who has $10,000 giving $10?

Based on your post, I would suspect that you would, but please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
 
Hicup said:
I'm Canadian, and because of the US's protection, so to speak, Canada has only had to maintain the minimal expenditures on their armed forces. I also served in the Canadian Artillery from 87 to 91, and the running joke at the time was that there were more NYC police officers than the entire Canadian armed forces, I think that is still true to this day..

Just like the rest of NATO, the US has been subsidizing their safety for decades, Canada included.

Tim-
Click to expand...

If you want to dig out the numbers, you will find that, on a per capita basis, there are eight more NATO countries that spend more on European defence than the US does.

To conflate the ENTIRE US defence budget with "the defence of Europe" is (quite frankly) either ignorant or deliberately dishonest (and possibly both).
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
During WWII the population of the US was around 131,028,000 and the population of Canada was around 11,267,000. That means that the population of the US was around 11.63 times as large as the Canadian population.

During WWII Canada lost around 42,000 killed.

42000*11.63 is 488,460

During WWII the US lost around 407,300 killed.

Proportionately Canada had more troops killed than the US did during WWII.

In the European theatre of WWII, the US lost around 276,655 and Canada lost at least 40,000

40,000*11.63=465,200

Proportionately Canada lost more in the European theatre of WWII than the US lost.

On D-Day, the beaches that came the closest to being unsuccessful were the American beaches and the beaches that were the most successful were the Canadian beaches.

If someone has $1,000,000 and gives $100 to charity would you consider that to be a "greater sacrifice" than someone who has $10,000 giving $10?

Based on your post, I would suspect that you would, but please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...


Based on your post I would suspect that you think that less people killed means that my response stating that more people killed is incorrect when talking about total casualities...


AND ...You said WWI and WWII... but you left out a pretty crucial element here in your Straw Man response... the Pacific Theater.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If you want to dig out the numbers, you will find that, on a per capita basis, there are eight more NATO countries that spend more on European defence than the US does.

To conflate the ENTIRE US defence budget with "the defence of Europe" is (quite frankly) either ignorant or deliberately dishonest (and possibly both).
Click to expand...

You and your per capita... :lol:

What would be better... the USA sending up 20 fighters to stop the Russians or the Canadians sending up 10... even though "per capita" you guys supplied more fighters to NATO?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If you want to dig out the numbers, you will find that, on a per capita basis, there are eight more NATO countries that spend more on European defence than the US does.

To conflate the ENTIRE US defence budget with "the defence of Europe" is (quite frankly) either ignorant or deliberately dishonest (and possibly both).
Click to expand...

It just hit me... European nations spend more on the defense of Europe than a North American country does... :lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
Based on your post I would suspect that you think that less people killed means that my response stating that more people killed is incorrect when talking about total casualities...
Click to expand...

I was talking about RELATIVE contribution.

Of course, that doesn't let the US come off as well as you would like it to appear, but that's OK.

Bodhisattva said:
AND ...You said WWI and WWII... but you left out a pretty crucial element here in your Straw Man response... the Pacific Theater.
Click to expand...

You did notice that I said "During WWII the US lost around 407,300 killed.". Did you happen to notice that that was the TOTAL for both the European and Pacific Theatres?

The US government was pretty straight forward about what contributions it wanted from the other members of the United Nations in the Pacific Theatre and that was "as little as we can get away with allowing them to have".

PS - The American losses in the Pacific Theatre can be determined by subtracting 276,655 from 407,300 - not a single death do I disparage.

PPS - If you were actually interested, I'd suggest that you read "Canada and the War in the Far East", but you wouldn't be interested so I won't. Naturally, not a single Canadian life lost in the Pacific (or anywhere else for that matter) counts for a pinch of snot as far as you are concerned because ONLY the United States of America had anything at all to do with the defeat of Nazi Germany.

PPPS - Please look up "Strawman Argument" so that you can use the term correctly the next time. (HINT - The term does NOT mean "something that I do not want to hear".)
 
Bodhisattva said:
You and your per capita... :lol:
Click to expand...

Yep. A small donation from a poor man is a "greater" one than a slightly larger one from a rich man.

What would be better... the USA sending up 20 fighters to stop the Russians or the Canadians sending up 10... even though "per capita" you guys supplied more fighters to NATO?[/QUOTE]

The Russians have a combination of 64 "Fighter" and "Attack" squadrons. The USAF has six "Fighter" and "Attack" squadrons in Europe.

The US couldn't match the Russians even if ALL of its aircraft in Europe went up at the same time.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It just hit me... European nations spend more on the defense of Europe than a North American country does... :lol:
Click to expand...

"European members of NATO spend more to defend NATO countries against the attacks that NATO is intended to defend against than non-European members of NATO spend to defend NATO countries against the attacks that NATO is intended to defend against." is actually the correct way to say what you were attempting to say.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I was talking about RELATIVE contribution.

Of course, that doesn't let the US come off as well as you would like it to appear, but that's OK.
Click to expand...

Of course... you are the one with a chip on his soldier... not me...

You did notice that I said "During WWII the US lost around 407,300 killed.". Did you happen to notice that that was the TOTAL for both the European and Pacific Theatres?
Click to expand...

My point was about more things than the lives lost... that is the one thing out of 4 things that I mentioned...

The US government was pretty straight forward about what contributions it wanted from the other members of the United Nations in the Pacific Theatre and that was "as little as we can get away with allowing them to have".
Click to expand...

Irrelevant...

PS - The American losses in the Pacific Theatre can be determined by subtracting 276,655 from 407,300 - not a single death do I disparage.
Click to expand...

Cool...

PPS - If you were actually interested, I'd suggest that you read "Canada and the War in the Far East", but you wouldn't be interested so I won't. Naturally, not a single Canadian life lost in the Pacific (or anywhere else for that matter) counts for a pinch of snot as far as you are concerned because ONLY the United States of America had anything at all to do with the defeat of Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

of course you are wrong on so many levels... but that chip that you take personally you project onto me and act as if I am not objective... because you are not. :shrug:

I think that the British did more than anybody to help defeat the Nazis, with the Russians coming a close second. The Americans did more in the over all war BY FAR and the Canadians helped in Europe but even by per capita, far less than the Americans. Far FAR less...

Yep. A small donation from a poor man is a "greater" one than a slightly larger one from a rich man.
Click to expand...

Wrong... because it depends on the outcome that is desired. A small donation of ten bucks from a teenager with a hundred bucks to a homeless shelter is cute and all but not as important as a $100,000 donation from a multi-billionaire.

The Russians have a combination of 64 "Fighter" and "Attack" squadrons. The USAF has six "Fighter" and "Attack" squadrons in Europe.

The US couldn't match the Russians even if ALL of its aircraft in Europe went up at the same time.
Click to expand...

Straw Man... again. we were talking about per capita contributions not what the Russians or Americans have.

PPPS - Please look up "Strawman Argument" so that you can use the term correctly the next time. (HINT - The term does NOT mean "something that I do not want to hear".)
Click to expand...

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.

https://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/

That is what you did. You misrepresented my argument and then focused in on that and thought you defeated it... when you did not.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
"European members of NATO spend more to defend NATO countries against the attacks that NATO is intended to defend against than non-European members of NATO spend to defend NATO countries against the attacks that NATO is intended to defend against." is actually the correct way to say what you were attempting to say.
Click to expand...

What I said is actually also correct... my my though, don't you think a lot of yourself. :lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
We like our Little Canadian side-kicks... they are cute enough and just so darn polite that we feel honor bound to protect them so they can frolick about.
Click to expand...

Nah.

You tried taking us over a couple of hundred years ago. Failed miserably, and now you're too big of ******s to try it again. We're armed and dangerous my friend. Armed and Dangerous.

Funny-Canada-Meme-4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Anyone living above the 49 parallel can’t be all that bright, 9 months of winter and 3 months of really poor sledding.
 
JustHanging said:
Nah.

You tried taking us over a couple of hundred years ago. Failed miserably, and now you're too big of ******s to try it again. We're armed and dangerous my friend. Armed and Dangerous.

Funny-Canada-Meme-4.jpg
Click to expand...

I can't decide which tastes better, Bald Eagle or Snowy Owl.

Mind you either of them tastes better than Canada Goose or Loon, and both of them have less disgusting personal habits that Canada Goose.
 
Thingfish said:
Anyone living above the 49 parallel can’t be all that bright, 9 months of winter and 3 months of really poor sledding.
Click to expand...

That's true. Why everyone knows that an IQ of 100 (Canadian) is only an IQ of 75 (American).

Why Canadians are so dumb that they actually elected a government that was headed by someone who:

  1. actually lowered taxes for everyone;
  2. reduced the deficit and turned it into a surplus;
  3. paid down the national debt;
  4. increased government services and "public works" grants; AND
  5. still managed to retain the traditional levels of governmental graft and corruption;

when he was the Head of Government.
 
Last edited:
Thingfish said:
Anyone living above the 49 parallel can’t be all that bright, 9 months of winter and 3 months of really poor sledding.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's why Alaska is so red.
 
JustHanging said:
Nah.

You tried taking us over a couple of hundred years ago. Failed miserably, and now you're too big of ******s to try it again. We're armed and dangerous my friend. Armed and Dangerous.

Funny-Canada-Meme-4.jpg
Click to expand...

The LAPD could take over Canada...
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
See how sneaky us Canucks are.

Now be a good boy or I'll get William Shatner to sing "The Star Spangled Banner" at you.
Click to expand...

Can you also take Alan Thicke back?
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Canada, it's way better than America, it's what happens when people don't vote against their own interests to stick it to the minorities and liberals.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, we're making swift progress to becoming a two party FPTP country where big monied interest domineer everything, giving you a choice between a right wing party that panders to identity politics and a rabidly right wing party; just like the States!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom