doublegunshop.com - home Forums BUSH VS OBAMA

Ted, don't misunderstand me. I am eternally grateful for you guys showing up. Don't like the odds had you not been involved. I just like to make sure readers understand others were involved. Especially in WWI. Salvation for the Allies in WWII is an entirely different scenario than the original statement.

And King, the boosterism sticks in my craw because it seems to be come from a place of insecurity. And it is subjective. Who had the best soldiers? Whose generals were most brilliant. Who is the greatest quarterback of all time? What would Bobby Orr been like with two good knees? These are unanswerable questions.

No, it's because they were wars that involved much of the world BUT the US until the US joined in. And millions and millions of people were in harms way in all theatres, whether as armed forces or civilian bystanders.

Yeah,

Evidenced by their overwhelming success at Dieppe.

Boosterism sticks in my craw,too. There's more of the American brand here. Once or twice is acceptable but a regular diet deserves a balancing, another perspective of history of the times. If you're going to brag, get it right.

British historian Sir Basil Liddell Hart described Canadians and their impact on the war: "It is a simple statement of fact that the Canadian Corps was the outstanding formation on the Western Front on either side; no nation could match it."

German chief of staff Ludendorf described Canadians as ". . .lions led by donkeys (the British)." As for best-soldier, best-general questions of the times, they have been adjudicated by historians; not unanswered.

If boosterism deserves balancing, maybe it's with a steady diet of patronizing. Proclaiming the US is the world's defender of democracy probably doesn't stick in craws, if the perspective is understood.

Dieppe was the Second World War, but consider this:

Canadians were chosen as assault troops for a frontal attack on Dieppe August 19, 1942, with the loss of 5,000 in one morning to keep, in part, a promise to Stalin to relieve pressure on his monumental battles on the Eastern Front (while the Americans were nowhere around).

The price was unbelieveably high, as were the 60,000 Canadians killed in the First World War which earned Canada, a child of the British Empire in 1914, a signatory at Versailles on its own behalf in 1919. Dieppe lessons served Canadians to the farthest penetration of all Allied troops on D-Day: seven miles.

Iran calls the US military 'the GREAT satan', a clear line in the sand, but an unprecedented sign of respect, distinguishing it from countless mortal enemies of the radical islamics over thousands of years.

But, even for Canadians, all war is bad. It's a waste of life and treasures. There are no historical footnotes that can change that fact. Eh?

Running an empire has responsibilities, and countries within its orbit share those responsibilities, as Canada has when democracy is threatened by fascism, communism, and jihadists. Canada doesn't answer to anyone in that respect.

I have noticed this. When the roof is on fire, in the middle east, Canadians mow the lawn. When a clear threat is deemed inconvenient, redefinition to 'immigrant' is clouded with job creation and educational outcome. I forget, what was the topic?

All war is bad, in that we can't find better ways to ameliorate different interests without killing--- civilians surpassingly more than combatants--- and keep killing to serve those interests.

No one here believes in peace at any price although history seems to show greater reasoning, jawing instead of killing, has had a mitigating effect on starting wars. Even the Great Satan criers are fighting on "our" side in the Middle East.

And---a member the other day was saying Putin "saved" Obama's bacon in the region. Globalization, everyone taking in each other's wash one way or another, and no-win nuclear are becoming game-changers.

ISIS is manageable.