kengs333

By your logic there is not basis for denying a father and a son to marry, seeing that both would be consenting to the marriage and the possible sexual relationship between the two would produce any genetically deformed offspring. I'm thinking that this issue could receive greater attention once same-sex couples raising children becomes a significant social/political force.

So what? All the united states had to do was alot some of its naval resources to combatting the U-Boats. They didn't have to get involved the way they did.

The Somme was fought in June 1916, most of the American units first saw combat TWO years later; that's two years to learn from mistakes like that made at the Somme, and to incorporate other knowledge about battlefield tactics. That just common sense. Of course they don't mean anything because if they did--which they should--you wouldn't have an argument. From a country of 8 million, were have 600,000+ men in uniform, of whom 66,000 died. Given that Canada's population was 1/10 that of the United States, that's the equivalent of 6.6 million men in uniform, with 660,000 dying. Well, Canadian soldiers were in action by March 1915 (earlier if you count the PPCLI) and fought in a number of battles prior to the arrival of the flu. So, yes, a much greater proportion of the casualties were sustained in combat rather than to disease.

I don't think that Japan would have gotten involved as they still would probably have gone to war with the United States, which now would be able to focus all of its resources in the Pacific.

The who is "the idiot proven here"?

People who advocate "man-boy love" consider 12 years-old to be an acceptable age. Do you agree? In that "Teacher's Pet" report, the one girl was 12 years-old when she had sex with her teacher; she later attempted to commit suicide, and has been living with the psychological scars ever since.

No, I'm saying that they applied tactics from legitimate civil rights movements because they knew that society was predisposed to accepting those kinds of arguments and if pushed and coerced long enogh would eventually relent, which is what is now happening. This is also what the feminists did in the 1960s; they hijacked the issue of women's rights and coerced and intimidated until they got what they wanted, and the rest of society got a nice dose of moral decay in return.

As opposed to some guy greasing his wiener and penetrating some other guy's a-hole? It seems strange that you would consider the latter "normal" but two siblings having consentual intercourse not so. You're really in no position to be making moralizing statements about deviant sexual behaviour; that's something one loses when they condone certain forms of it. All deviant sexual behaviour is immoral and a sin, plain and simple.

Habsburgs. The Spanish Habsburgs, to be more specific.

Did I say "stupidity and cowardice"? I stated that the Americans entered the war late in the game and that they would not employ lessons learned by the other combatants, thus taking unnecessary casualties in some peoples' opinions. If you want to mock the fact that Canadian troops were considered "elite," then go right ahead; the fact that their contemporaries on both sides of the trenches thought so is really all that's important. When you look at Canada's contribution; Canada's population at the time was abou 8 million, and in total about 600,000 men entered the CEF alone; approximately 250,000 of these served on the front lines. So in proportion how does that compare to the American contribution? And we have to keep in mind that the Canadian contribution was voluntary up until the beginning of 1918. Moreover, how many men went to serve in the Imperial Forces, the Royal Flying Corps, etc? Canada was in the war from the beginning, the United States was not; that's simply the way it was. Less than half of American casualties were due to combat. Let's not forget the influenza outbreak that was first recognized at an army camp in the United States.

I've never "then denying it"...

Would you care to be more specific in your personal attack? I'm inclined to think that your being self-depricating again.

WWI probably would have dragged on for another year or two, but Germany was isolated and problem on the homefront was near crisis. WWII would have been won--by the Russians.

Yeah, that's great, five months before the war ended... Actually, the Canadian's participation in the spearhead attack during the last two months of the war did contribute significantly to the war's ending in 1918, not 1919. I never said it was a "single handed" effort; but the Canadian contribution is undeniable, and quite disproportionate to the size of the force that was fielded.

It's immoral because that which is not moral is not moral, ie. immoral. This isn't about legality. Homosexuality was illegal, now it's not. Why? The law changed. Who changed it and why? Short answer: because the gay rights movement forced and intimidated society into believing it to be "normal". You have been brainwashed into believing it is normal because they adopted arguments from the civil rights and women's rights movements that predisposes people into having to accept their arguments as well. What's next? Well, at the moment the movement to decriminalize certain drugs, maybe pedophelia ("man-boy-love") and polygamy. Prostitution. Who knows what else. Sixty years ago the idea that gays would be where they are now would have shocked many; just wait sixty years to see what kind of behaviour we abhore becomes a "right" and is normalized. Just because behaviour is "consensual" doesn't mean that it is moral.

I have absolutely no idea where you got this from. Where exactly was I referring to the Cole?

Is this supposed to be an example of what I was talking about? Sure seems like it to me.

Right, I already explained why so many were killed--needlessly. They wouldn't "listen". The Canadians fought in a number of major battles; they held the line at Second Ypres, fought at Courcelette, Hill 70, took Vimy Ridge, succeded where others failed at Paschendaele, spearheaded the victory in late 1918. The Canadians were generally considered the "elite" of the allied presence on the western front; the Germans certainly thought so--something they certainly didn't feel about the Americans, as oft stated in German memoirs and other documents. The Canadians innovated the use of artillery and machine guns, were expert tranch raiders and snipers. All of these things that they learned, the Americans ignored out of typical pompous arrogance. And paid for it in the end. I wouldn't take pride in that. Well, what do you expect from a people that celebrates grand failures like "The Lost Battalion".

So what? It's still immoral. Well, in terms of incest, it can be argued that, and it evidently does happen where, two consenting close relatives--brother/sister, mother/son, etc.--do engage in consentual relationships as well. As for pedophelia, homosexuals like to blur the issue with concepts like "man-boy love" where they claim that the 13 year-old is somehow capable of making their own decisions as to whether or not to engage in relations ships with much older men. As the "gay rights" movement has shown, a sophisticated argument can be made to legitimize a form of deviant sexual behaviour, and if enough people advocate and intimidate loudly enough, they can force the issue and change peoples' minds. That's the sad reality of the fact in our modern society, the result of being indoctrinated to go with the latest fads rather than what is right and wrong morally.

The potential manpower that the Americans could bring to the table was a factor in Germany's decision to surrender; militarily, the Americans contributed not all that much. Who knows what would have become of the war had the Americans entered in 1914, but then again, the Americans still viewed the British as a sort of enemy. Which is why the American military maintained plans for a possible invasion of Canada until the 1930s.

It's the American thing to do. No matter how clearly that it's made to Americans that their government and media lies to them, many Americans are instilled with the old notion of "my country right or wrong". This leads to a gulability and blind faith/patriotism that overrides all sense of reality. Which is why every four years we see the same grand theatre surrounding the presidential elections, which invariably degenerates into the same old four-year tragi-comedy.

If you look at the casualty figures for the First World War, the Americans suffered a disproportionately high number considering the short duration they were in the war, because they wouldn't "listen" to advice from the British, French, etc. who learned through bitter experience how to minimize casualties. (Let me guess, some anti-American muslim professor has made this point, too; so I must a devotee of his also...) Do you honestly think that a few score volunteers the Eagle Squadron [singular] or the Flying Tigers, for that matter, is really all that significant? Americans certainly like to glorify and overblow their history, don't they?

Hold on, here. This was an issue long before some muslim prof. decided to take an interest in it, and just because someone like him does so doesn't mean that every person who expresses a similar opinion about the matter is somehow one of his devotees. I've personally never read or heard anything that he's had to say, so I don't "believe types like [him]"--what happened is an indisputable fact of history. The Americans didn't enter the war in 1939 and that's all there is too it. Making an issue out my typing "American" instead of "America" is stupid--stating "Siddiqqui... frequently makes the same mistake" and implying there's some kind of connection, is even more so.

What do you mean "anymore"? That's why they didn't enter the war in 1939, and that's why they went to war in 2003. And that's just the tip of the ice berg when it comes to "not listening". It's the "not listening" that has made the rest of the world view the Americans the way they do; the Americans are not the victims in this respect.

Exactly, it refers to the nature of strategic bombing at the time. Yes, the allies could have bombed the rail lines; yes, they could have bombed the camp to smithereens; but it would not have accomplished what people now say could have been accomplished. It's always easy to talk about what could and should have been done in hindsight... Millions of people fought and died to end that war, and all people can do is criticize the fact that Auschwitz wasn't bombed as a symbolic gesture. Sorry, but isn't mobilizing a whole country's manpower and industrial resources not enough of a gesture of the commitment the Allies had towards liberating Europe???