USA Political Discussion Thread 2025
- Thread starter LLLurkJ2
- Start date
We were so far away from the conflict that Canada did not need help . We were helping the United Kingdom and allies at the time of those wars for 4 and 6 years respectively, helping the US was through advisers in 1942 for landing purposes after having experienced Dieppe before fighting in the same theater of war in Sicily 1943 onwards.
Together together with the US ....was when the Red Devils regiment was formed that a real bi national group was put together for our countries. Wanting to compete or have the same spearheading force as the SAS.
But the US has never had to support us during a conflict. Nowadays it would be another matter but a conflict would be fought via missiles because of the distances between Russia and Canada or China and Canada as they are the only countries with ideology that could create tension and problems.
Last edited:
The US involvement in both wars was crucial in speeding up the capitulation in 1918 as they reversed the tide .
In WW2 the US involvement stopped the Russians from invading the rest of Europe as Stalin would not have stopped at the German border and Lisbon would have a Russian bureaucracy by now. And for the Pacific theater without the USA.... Japan would still be ruling Asia all the way to Afghanistan most likely who knows
Selling things to people is not being involved in a war. The US was neutral until attacked by Japan.
Also, If you were "well aware" of all of the support the US was providing, why would you say:
By providing support you are obviously choosing a side to support, therefore you are not neutral. You're picking a side.
Is America "neutral" with regards to Ukraine?
Maybe you're having difficulty with the definition of the word?
Here's some help:
neutral /noo͞′trəl, nyoo͞′-/
adjective
Here's some help:
neutral /noo͞′trəl, nyoo͞′-/
adjective
- Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.
- Belonging to neither side in a controversy.
"on neutral ground." - Belonging to neither kind; not one thing or the other.
[
In any event Canada is not and never has been in a position where it can afford to be aggressive to other countries on its own, even if it wanted to be (who are we ever going to attack??)......the United States on the other hand is frequently in that position, sometimes for the good...many for the bad but if we were attacked they would have no choice but to defend us and their northern border and vice versa due to mutual interest.
Maybe we should all just move on and call this a draw....this really is not applicable to the purpose of the thread. Discussing Melania's choice of hat at the Inauguration is probably more pertinent.
But it would have endangered Canada itself in both cases if the Americans had not gotten involved. Thats the point Im making. And as a member of the British Commonwealth they had to be in the war whether they liked it or not.
In any event Canada is not and never has been in a position where it can afford to be aggressive to other countries on its own, even if it wanted to be (who are we ever going to attack??)......the United States on the other hand is frequently in that position, sometimes for the good...many for the bad but if we were attacked they would have no choice but to defend us and their northern border and vice versa due to mutual interest.
Maybe we should all just move on and call this a draw....this really is not applicable to the purpose of the thread. Discussing Melania's choice of hat at the Inauguration is probably more pertinent.
Last edited:
Don't tell us you were expecting Melania with a more flowery hat ? 🤔🧐😉
True good point ....we are mutually dependant countries as we share the same continent from coast to coast and 3rd coast for us which could be critical.
Must be good will Friday as I'm agreeing with people i disagree with normally....i gotta stop having hot chocolate on Friday ...it puts in a good mood .
Last edited:
Lol, I'm not going to argue with you, as even you posted - the US, bound by law, remained neutral throughout world war two, until attacked by Japan. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a legal fact of law. That was the explicitly publicly declared and official position of the United States to the entire world.
you don't need to argue, reality is reality
the U.S. was sending support to the UK before they entered the war
they picked a side despite the semantic bullshit of politics
just like an article on the useful idiots at the Red Cross who claim to be neutral, despite reality, actual actions recently
they have taken a side when you're a Jew
they've done nothing for the hostages in Gaza, didn't do what they could have during WW2 either
yet "claim" to be on everyone's side, neutral, sematic bullshit again
bound by...... sure
Last edited:
I will add, the US should stay neutral unless attacked. Allow the EU, Ukraine and Israel to fight their own conflicts. Screw them, America first! Take Israel for an example, in 1948 they settled on a patch of sand, which was….and is today, surrounded by crazy Muslims. Yes, I get the religious stuff, but use common sense! Arizona was a much better option. Ukraine, the 6th most corrupt nation in the world, Putin can have it and hopefully Trump will tie a bow around it. NATO= a bunch of countries that embrace socialism at the expense of the American taxpayer. Trump will hopefully kick ass!
BREAKING: Convicted felon, rapist and pedophile says Canada would have 'much better' health coverage as 51st state.
https://t.co/do0HwoLm4q
https://t.co/do0HwoLm4q
And who started those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? If stupid Americans would stop trying to exploit other nations and then having to go to war to protect their economic rape of those countries -- like those fucktards are trying to do to Canada now -- then no one would have to go help America with their shit wars.
It's not luck. It's a good work ethic, the ability to budget, and the the fortitude to recognize that you aren't entitled to anything -- you have to work for it, and budget for it, and make compromises to get ahead.
The problem with applying average data in such broad strokes is that the average is not reality. If you want to buy a freehold home in the lower mainland as your first home you better have the number that you're quoting from RBC. Otherwise you buckle down and purchase the home you can afford not the home you want. Start with a condo or townhouse.. move further out from the city. Homes are less expensive depending on the area you purchase in, and buying the one bedroom condo to start, instead of the freehold home is certainly more affordable. Work for what you want. Make compromises. Purchase with a friend, rent out a room, kudos if you have a basement suite. Take a good hard look at the numbers and understand that you can't have everything you want... and decide what's important to you. Put your money where it matters.
I am not "fortunate" or "lucky". Neither are my kids. I didn't inherit any money, I didn't win the lottery. I didn't give my kids money, and they didn't win the lottery. If something isn't in my budget I don't buy it. I taught my kids to be fiscally responsible.
I don't know your personal situation, but I've worked in the financial services industry giving people financial advice for about 30 years now... I have a pretty good idea how many people think and it's unfortunate that many feel entitled to more than they can afford. If you're carrying a balance on your credit card, or are carrying debt that didn't purchase an asset or move you forward in your personal goals, you're being foolish, and there are many many foolish people out there. Buckle down, cut back on the things that you don't need and eliminate any debt you carry.
Is your cell phone plane necessary? Do you really need the number of cars you own?. Do you really need to go to Starbucks or any other ridiculously overpriced beverage outlet? Take a good hard look at how people make their financial decisions and try to tell me that "for whatever reason the are struggling to get by". There are definitely people out there in need. I volunteer at the food bank, I'm quite aware of need.
Most people aren't "in need" they're "in want".
So yes,... I Still disagree with you. Yes, we have problems.. but we're still doing pretty good.
The slippery slope to project 25 just got started, the yes men are being put in place and Hegseth the drunk is in charge 🤪
