Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (256920)	7/6/2008 2:12:31 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794101

Canada used mostly British weapons in WW2. We did have a few Sherman tanks and Thompson gangsta machine guns. And from WW1 to the present we have been using this beaut.

To: greenspirit who wrote (256920)	7/6/2008 9:19:30 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794101

Michael, socialism wasn't even underway until after WWII. It was being seriously discussed in Britain and even the USA, and communism was up and running in USSR. This part isn't actually true, as I pointed out. It's a nice myth, but not true: <What won the war was the motivated involvement of the most advanced production systems known to man and the guts of the American soldier to use those weapons. > What won the war was the USSR destroying Germany's military effort and a LOT more besides. The main thing the allies achieved in the invasion of Europe was stopping Russia from carrying on all the way across Germany and beyond. Thank goodness for the British Empire which expanded into North America and established civilisation there. <Australia, New Zealand, Canada and others would have been fighting Hitler's army with bow and arrows riding horseback, if it weren't for America's incredible factory production. > Indeed: <The same is true today. New Zealand couldn't defend itself with its 3 ship Navy if it weren't for America's Naval leadership, both above and under the ocean. A few pirate ships could probably take the island.> We also have some soldiers with rifles and a few aircraft [half a dozen maybe though we sold the obsolete fighters]. But it's not a matter of thanks to the USA. The only time NZ was attacked was by France conducting a terrorist attack on the Rainbow Warrior which the USA and Britain in which Britain and the USA were complicit to teach them a lesson with their stupid anti-nuclear ideas. The USA didn't defend NZ. The defence of NZ by the USA will be done if it's in the interests of the USA. If it's not in their interests, then it won't be defended. That's how these things work. But the submarines are not doing a good job. While they hide under the water, 747s are flying 10km over the top, at 1000 kph, delivering more and more Chinese to NZ. Give it a while and they'll start to demand amalgamation with China, along with Taiwan. Submarines can't defend NZ against giving the place away voluntarily. NZ now has a free trade agreement with China, which means they are increasingly owning NZ and we obey their requirements. It's better to win wars without firing a bullet, or even rattling sabres. Cheque-book warfare works wonders. General Petraeus knows that and uses that as a strategy, to good effect. The British Empire succeeded by buying it's way around the world, trading and supplying the results of the industrial revolution. The best way for the USA to defend NZ, meaning, defend USA interests, would be to establish free trade agreements with NZ. The way it's going, we'll be part of China one of these days. Mqurice