[Psudo]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I simply stated that the US received payments for the weapons it sent to the Allies - which is not nearly as altruistic as you made it out to be.

I never said anything about altruism. My exact words were "the US should get credit for it's copious export of military equipment and volunteer soldiers," which is true. It took a domestic attack before we acted, but we acted first where our own domestic territory was not at stake. For putting other nations' security above our own (ie, fighting in Europe when no one in Europe was threatening our territory) we were rewarded with less domestic harm. What other nation put a similar effort forth in theaters where they were not attacked? If anything in war is ever altruism, it would be that.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sure the Americans suffered more losses in the Pacific, but in Europe (the main combat theatre, everyone took far larger losses than the USA.

Each nation decides what the "main combat theatre" is based on where they were under attack. I doubt China agrees with your assessment of which combat theater was most important; they lost about 20 million people before they got any significant help, and the only nation that helped in force was the USA.

bootlegga bootlegga:

The US contribution AFTER it joined the conflict was unmatched, but IMHO, it loses some of its lustre because the US waited 2.25 years to join the war - which as I said earlier was nothing less than a struggle between good and evil.

Name any nation that joined WW2 before their territory was attacked and you might have a point. The USA should have joined sooner, I agree, but you're criticizing them for the horrible sin of acting the same way as everyone else.

bootlegga bootlegga:

We can engage in hypothetical arguments, but the fact is there is no guarantee that the USSR would have taken over all of Europe

First, you were the one to claim that the USSR would be larger if the US was not involved (with Stalin likely occupying most of Europe). You're denouncing your own hypothetical argument.

Second, by that same reasoning, there is no guarantee that "We would have still won the war" if the USA had not aided on the European front, as you claimed. You cannot reject hypothetical arguments on principle while maintaining your certainty that the war would have been won if, hypothetically, the US had never aided in Europe.

As before, I don't claim the USA was the difference between victory and defeat. I only claim that the USA had a positive effect on the outcome. The exact extent of the aid and whether including it crosses some threshold called "victory" is not at issue. That is the least influence I can give to hypothetical arguments.

bootlegga bootlegga:

the prevailing opinion in the US seems to be, "We pulled your ass out of the fire", not "We should have been there sooner."

I think the prevailing opinion in the US is something like "You'd have been better off if we'd pulled your ass out of the fire sooner." I think our national celebration of Churchill demonstrates our concession that we should have done more sooner. We do remember it as a time when Americans were the champions of good, but that is not mutually exclusive with regret that we did not prevent more evil. And now that we have adopted the kind of get-in-sooner mentality you criticize us for lacking then, you criticize us for it now. Why should we try to please those who judge us via selective attention and catch-22?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

One would think the numerous merchant ships(including US ships) sunk right off the Eastern Seaboard would have been enough to provoke entry.

Except that a fair number of people saw this as Germany rightfully defending itself and America paying the price for mucking around in an affair we had no business to muck around with. I know we're looking at this 70+ years later, but if you read newspaper accounts of the time you see the editorial dithering that was going on.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Admiral King gave it so little thought he had to be brow beaten into accepting a convoy system that wouldn't even require the escort services of the USN.
I have little doubt that if some nation not at war with the US unprovokedly attacked US merchant shipping ANYWHERE in the world today, they'd soon find themselves ankle deep in cruise missile shrapnel.

Yet the Somali pirates have been at it for near to ten years and we really haven't done all that much about it, have we?

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

It couldn't be that for some time after the outbreak of hostilities, the US was still selling raw materials to Germany? Nahhhh..couldn't be.

Think about that and you'll see how preposterous that notion is. Exactly how would our merchant shipping transit the Home Fleet blockade of Germany in order to make deliveries to Bremerhaven and Hamburg?

3 maybe 4 words to answer your last question. Rostock, Lubeck, Kiel and maybe Wismar.
In reponse to the Somali pirates, are you seriously comparing the Kriegsmarine to a raggedy band of pirates? Yer comparing death dealing steel tubes with torpedos and deck guns to rickety old fishing boats armed by shmucks with AKs?
Yer comparing state directed systematic attacks on shippping to a rag tag band of unemployed fishermen hitting random targets?

All in all, I don't really condemn the US for not officially jumping into the middle of the European fight right off the hop. I'm just surprised they were willing to take it like a bitch while U-boats hunted along the East Coast in US territorial waters.
Considering the casualties they took when they did join in, and the very generous amount of material aid they gave the Allies before joining in, I'd say we should cut you guys some slack, as long as your country quits insisting you won WW2 all by yourselves

[bootlegga]

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I simply stated that the US received payments for the weapons it sent to the Allies - which is not nearly as altruistic as you made it out to be.

I never said anything about altruism. My exact words were "the US should get credit for it's copious export of military equipment and volunteer soldiers," which is true. We acted first where our own domestic territory was not at stake, and for putting other nations' security above our own (ie, fighting in Europe when no one in Europe was threatening our territory) we were rewarded with less domestic harm. What other nation put a similar effort forth in theaters where they were not attacked? If anything in war is ever altruism, it would be that.

Again, your comment here alludes towards altruism on the US part, but Lend-Lease was anything but altruistic. The official name of the Lend Lease act was An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States.

Doesn't sound very altruistic to me...

The US can have all the credit it wants for Lend Lease, as long as it also acknowledges that it was not gift-giving, but a deal that was in US self-interest that garnered the US strategic bases as well as funds for said equipment.

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sure the Americans suffered more losses in the Pacific, but in Europe (the main combat theatre, everyone took far larger losses than the USA.

Each nation decides what the "main combat theatre" is based on where they were under attack. I doubt China agrees with your assessment of which combat theater was most important; they lost about 20 million people before they got any significant help, and the only nation that helped in force was the USA.

Sure China would consider Asia a priority, just as Poland would consider Europe a priority, but the fact is that the Allied decision to deal with Germany first was made at the Arcadia Conference (Roosevelt & Churchill).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington ... %281941%29

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

The US contribution AFTER it joined the conflict was unmatched, but IMHO, it loses some of its lustre because the US waited 2.25 years to join the war - which as I said earlier was nothing less than a struggle between good and evil.

Name any nation that joined WW2 before their territory was attacked and you might have a point. The USA should have joined sooner, I agree, but you're criticizing them for the horrible sin of acting the same way as everyone else.

Sure thing!

France, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa (I realize the last four were former members of the British Empire, but all were self-determining nations at the time) all declared war on Germany BEFORE Germany attacked their territory.

I agree that many European nations tried using neutrality to avoid the war (and that strategy failed for most of them), but there were at least half a dozen countries that went to war right away because it was the right thing to do, not because the Nazis attacked them.

But for shits and giggles, let's twist this around - how would Americans feel if Canada, Britain, and everyone else that was busy with Europe had not declared war with Japan after Pearl Harbor? I think we both know the answer to that hypothetical question...

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

We can engage in hypothetical arguments, but the fact is there is no guarantee that the USSR would have taken over all of Europe

First, you were the one to claim that the USSR would be larger if the US was not involved (with Stalin likely occupying most of Europe). You're denouncing your own hypothetical argument.

Second, by that same reasoning, there is no guarantee that "We would have still won the war" if the USA had not aided on the European front, as you claimed. You cannot reject hypothetical arguments on principle while maintaining your certainty that the war would have been won if, hypothetically, the US had never aided in Europe.

As before, I don't claim the USA was the difference between victory and defeat. I only claim that the USA had a positive effect on the outcome. The exact extent of the aid and whether including it crosses some threshold called "victory" is not at issue. That is the least influence I can give to hypothetical arguments.

Of course the US had a positive effect on the outcome, but I stand by my original assertion - Germany would have been defeated with or without US help.

I do think it possible that the territory occupied by Stalin would have been larger, but I don't believe it would have encompassed all of Europe as you suggested. D-Day would still have happened (albeit on a smaller scale) and the Allies would have recaptured at the very least parts of France and the Low Countries. Given that Africa would have probably taken longer, I see the major Soviet gains in the Balkans and perhaps Italy, but again it's all guess at this point.

The fact is that the West (AKA Britain and Canada) was already out-producing the Germans in almost every major weapons category shortly after Dunkirk (Hitler actually scaled back munitions production to resume production of luxury consumer goods in 1940 ). That, coupled with Hitler's invasion of the USSR, would have led to Germany's eventual defeat.

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

the prevailing opinion in the US seems to be, "We pulled your ass out of the fire", not "We should have been there sooner."

I think the prevailing opinion in the US is something like "You'd have been better off if we'd pulled your ass out of the fire sooner." We do remember it as a time when Americans were the champions of good, but that does not exclude regret that we did not prevent more evil. And now that we have adopted the kind of get-in-sooner mentality you criticize us for lacking then, you criticize us for it now. Why should we try to please those who judge us via catch-22?

Oh please, when the US has acted in the interests of people everywhere (Gulf War 1, Kosovo, Afghanistan), it has won accolades and been widely supported by its allies, but when it acts in its own self-interest (Gulf War 2) it is criticized as it well deserves.

[Psudo]

$1:

In reponse to the Somali pirates [are] a raggedy band of pirates [and] rickety old fishing boats armed by shmucks with AKs?

Uh... what? Talk about underestimation. They got "about $58 million in 2009 and $238 million in 2010." A quarter of a billion dollars is not "raggedy." GPS and RPGs on sleek speedboats are not "raggedy."

I won't comment on the comparison of them to German attacks on American ships prior to Pearl Harbor, and I share your criticism of anyone who thinks any particular country won WW2 by itself.

[Psudo]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Psudo Psudo:

We acted first where our own domestic territory was not at stake, and for putting other nations' security above our own (ie, fighting in Europe when no one in Europe was threatening our territory) we were rewarded with less domestic harm.

Again, your comment here alludes towards altruism on the US part, but Lend-Lease was anything but altruistic.

Do you really think I'm talking about Lend-Lease there? I'm talking about Normandy and after, where our soldiers' blood spilled on European soil so that Europeans could have their countries back. That's the only thing I have even alluded to being altruistic. Even then, I've argued that it approaches the definition, not that it meets it.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sure China would consider Asia a priority, just as Poland would consider Europe a priority, but the fact is that the Allied decision to deal with Germany first was made at the Arcadia Conference (Roosevelt & Churchill).

That is where we put European interest ahead of American interest, which is my point. Of all the nations involved, only the USA put the front where we were not under attack ahead of the front where we were.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Psudo Psudo:

Name any nation that joined WW2 before their territory was attacked and you might have a point.

France, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa

France, whose national territory was blatantly under threat by the expansionism of Germany that was demonstrated by the invasion of Poland two days before they declared war, and the Commonwealth, who still acted (and, often, still act) as de facto colonies of the UK whatever their de jure status. Convincing!

The spirit of my argument is that everyone stays out of war until they have skin in the game. Statements like this are true for all of nations: "[Australia's] decision to immediately enter the war was primarily made on the grounds that Australia's interests were inextricably linked to those of Britain, and that a British defeat would destroy the system of imperial defence which Australia relied upon for security against Japan." and "South Africa was constitutionally obligated to support Great Britain against Nazi Germany."

As soon as such a statement was true for the USA, they joined in, too. You're imagining a world where all the allies had this great comradery that inspired them to join the Allies for altruistic reasons except the USA, which sat in a corner admiring the ceiling until it could ignore the conflict no more. That comradery did not exist. Everyone acted in their own national self-interest. If you insist on ranking the Allies by their universally negligible altruism, the USA probably had a few microns more as evidenced by their accepting war in Europe when their national security was only threatened in the Pacific, though there was still a pretty soundly self-interested rationale for that as well.

bootlegga bootlegga:

But for shits and giggles, let's twist this around - how would Americans feel if Canada, Britain, and everyone else that was busy with Europe had not declared war with Japan after Pearl Harbor? I think we both know the answer to that hypothetical question...

I guess hypothetical arguments are back in, then. Please make up your mind about them.

We probably would have felt something like "If that's the way you're gonna be, you fight your war and we'll fight ours." VJ Day would have come a little sooner and VE Day a lot later. Whoever finished first would probably turn around and help the other. Overall, the Allies (including the USA) would have been worse off, except maybe the Soviets. There'd be a lot more regret in the USA for failing to stop the Holocaust, but there'd also be some defensive finger-pointing in this format: "If Europe didn't screw us over we would have helped them fight the Nazis, which is what should have happened." The Cold War would have been even more dangerous. US-Asian relations would be better today and US-European relations worse.

I assume you were going for "The USA would feel that Europe betrayed them." That might be sorta vaguely true, but it wouldn't have a lot of influence over common American sentiment toward Europe. The USA has this ethic of "We'll do it ourselves." Roosevelt and his administration might have felt betrayed, but common American sentiment today would range between "Hey, they did what they thought they had to do. Can't fault them for that." and, "Hey, they screwed us and they paid the price for it. Not our problem."

bootlegga bootlegga:

Of course the US had a positive effect on the outcome, but I stand by my original assertion - Germany would have been defeated with or without US help.

I think we have common ground there. My complaint is that "Germany would have been defeated," with it's implication of "eventually" and "with a stronger Soviet Union," is an awfully low standard for victory. By that reasoning, the US won the invasion of Iraq because Saddam and his government are gone, and thus the famous "Mission Accomplished" banner was totally legit. I don't buy that reasoning.

bootlegga bootlegga:

when the US has acted in the interests of people everywhere (Gulf War 1, Kosovo, Afghanistan), it has won accolades and been widely supported by its allies, but when it acts in its own self-interest (Gulf War 2) it is criticized as it well deserves.

What about Korea and Vietnam? Clearly no US territory or sovereignty was at stake, and the developed world generally sees them as US blunders. Also, how was Iraq in the US national self-interest? We had no territory or citizenry at stake.

[bootlegga]

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Psudo Psudo:

We acted first where our own domestic territory was not at stake, and for putting other nations' security above our own (ie, fighting in Europe when no one in Europe was threatening our territory) we were rewarded with less domestic harm.

Again, your comment here alludes towards altruism on the US part, but Lend-Lease was anything but altruistic.

Do you really think I'm talking about Lend-Lease there? I'm talking about Normandy and after, where our soldiers' blood spilled on European soil so that Europeans could have their countries back. That's the only thing I have even alluded to being altruistic. Even then, I've argued that it approaches the definition, not that it meets it.

Well, your original comment was about "volunteer soldiers" participating in the war and sending aid when "own domestic territory was not at stake", how can anyone think otherwise. The ONLY time your "own domestic territory was not at stake" was BEFORE America entered the war - hence it sounded like you were talking about Lend-Lease.

Now that you've cleared that up, sure the US deserves credit for fighting in Europe, as do many other nations. My point is (and always was) that the US were the last ones to join the fight. It was never about any nation's contributions after they started fighting.

And in fairness, Germany was threatening the US, through the use of its U-boats, espionage and other attempts (like a plan to bomb the Panama Canal). Honestly, if Hitler had had inter-continental capability (bombers/missiles), none of us would have been safe from attack. Look up Amerika Bomber sometime...

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sure China would consider Asia a priority, just as Poland would consider Europe a priority, but the fact is that the Allied decision to deal with Germany first was made at the Arcadia Conference (Roosevelt & Churchill).

That is where we put European interest ahead of American interest, which is my point. Of all the nations involved, only the USA put the front where we were not under attack ahead of the front where we were.

Again, Roosevelt appears to have been the driving factor behind that decision - and while I wasn't there - I'm guessing he saw the Third Reich as far more of a threat than he did Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Psudo Psudo:

Name any nation that joined WW2 before their territory was attacked and you might have a point.

France, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa

France, whose national territory was blatantly under threat by the expansionism of Germany that was demonstrated by the invasion of Poland two days before they declared war, and the Commonwealth, who still acted (and, often, still act) as de facto colonies of the UK whatever their de jure status. Convincing!

The spirit of my argument is that everyone stays out of war until they have skin in the game. Statements like this are true for all of nations: "[Australia's] decision to immediately enter the war was primarily made on the grounds that Australia's interests were inextricably linked to those of Britain, and that a British defeat would destroy the system of imperial defence which Australia relied upon for security against Japan." and "South Africa was constitutionally obligated to support Great Britain against Nazi Germany."

As soon as such a statement was true for the USA, they joined in, too. You're imagining a world where all the allies had this great comradery that inspired them to join the Allies for altruistic reasons except the USA, which sat in a corner admiring the ceiling until it could ignore the conflict no more. That comradery did not exist. Everyone acted in their own national self-interest. If you insist on ranking the Allies by their universally negligible altruism, the USA probably had a few microns more as evidenced by their accepting war in Europe when their national security was only threatened in the Pacific, though there was still a pretty soundly self-interested rationale for that as well.

Two points - South Africa almost didn't declare war on Germany and its pro-German leader had to be ousted and replaced before they did so, while Canada debated the conflict in Parliament for seven days before deciding it was the right thing to do. So the Commonwealth wasn't (and still isn't) the giant conglomeration of former colonies blindly following Britain you make it out to be. As Mackenzie King famously said, "Parliament will decide."

But the big difference is that all of these nations declared war on Germany BEFORE Germany declared on them, while the US waited until after Germany declared war on the USA. It's small thing I agree, but as Bart noted, if Hitler hadn't declared war on the US, Congress might have limited US involvement in WW2 to just Japan. After all, under US law, the President cannot declare war, only Congress can, and the Congress in 1941 was still largely isolationist. Again, it's a hypothetical, but probably not that far off the mark given US attitudes in 1941.

FYI, Canada declared war on Japan on December 7, 1941 - the same day as Pearl Harbor - even though Canada had not been attacked or threatened by Japan. So did Britain, Australia and a number of other countries.

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

when the US has acted in the interests of people everywhere (Gulf War 1, Kosovo, Afghanistan), it has won accolades and been widely supported by its allies, but when it acts in its own self-interest (Gulf War 2) it is criticized as it well deserves.

What about Korea and Vietnam? Clearly no US territory or sovereignty was at stake, and the developed world generally sees them as US blunders. Also, how was Iraq in the US national self-interest? We had no territory or citizenry at stake.

You need to open a history book sometime - Korea was supported by basically every NATO ally AND the UNITED NATIONS. The only condemnation of the US that arose from that conflict was from Soviet-bloc countries, which should come as no surprise.

And in Vietnam, a number of US allies either sent troops and/or aid. Australia and New Zealand did both, and again, from what I've been able to find, most of the criticism that was directed at the US mostly came from the Soviet-bloc, which again should come as no surprise. Canada may not have sent troops, but we did EXACTLY what your nation did from 1939-1941 - we let volunteers join the US forces (some 30,000 did so) and sold you billions of dollars of weapons, ammo and supplies for use in Vietnam. So, if the US gets credit for doing that in WW2, shouldn't Canada get the same credit for doing it during the Vietnam war?

No self-interest? Really? Guess you've never heard of the Domino Theory. The US was worried that all of Asia would become communist if one of them fell. Given that the US considered (and still does) the Pacific an American lake, there was definitely an element of self-interest. Both interventions were also to prop up US allies - so again, there was definitely national self-interest at stake in both conflicts.

Honestly, I can't figure out Iraq - but there has to be some national self-interest at stake there. Because who would go to such lengths to try and prove that Saddam still had WMD - I mean seriously, Niger Yellow Cake? Come on! The only people who couldn't see through that farce were blindly partisan.

I can only come up with two theories (other might call them WAGs) - one is that Dubya was pissed that Saddam had put a contract out on Bush Sr. in the 90s and wanted revenge, or that the invasion was a method to guarantee access to Iraqi oil reserves and its oil industry. Both seem kind of tin-foilish though, although the initial efforts to target Saddam at the beginning of the conflict kind of support the first one, and US companies have come to dominate the Iraqi oil industry over the past few years, so maybe there is something to that one too.

Like I said, I've never been able to figure out why Dubya HAD to invade Iraq in 2003 - they were zero threat to the US, but something was behind it. It sure as hell wasn't Al Qaeda, who weren't active in Iraq until after the invasion.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

1,076,245 American dead/wounded and 30,314 missing in World War 2. Considering what the American people ended up paying for towards their part in winning that war I'd contend that their relative rightness or wrongness over skipping the first two years of the conflict is no longer relevant.

Right classy of you, thank you.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

But for shits and giggles, let's twist this around - how would Americans feel if Canada, Britain, and everyone else that was busy with Europe had not declared war with Japan after Pearl Harbor?

The Japanese attacked the UK as well so that argument is moot. But let's say the Japanese had only attacked the US and left the UK alone in Hong Kong, Singapore, and etc.

The USA would not have expected any help from countries with whom we did not have a military alliance.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

But for shits and giggles, let's twist this around - how would Americans feel if Canada, Britain, and everyone else that was busy with Europe had not declared war with Japan after Pearl Harbor?

The Japanese attacked the UK as well so that argument is moot. But let's say the Japanese had only attacked the US and left the UK alone in Hong Kong, Singapore, and etc.

The USA would not have expected any help from countries with whom we did not have a military alliance.

Ah, the damned international dateline thing screwed me up on that (Attacks on UK targets occurred on Dec. 8th). Noted!

[Psudo]

bootlegga bootlegga:

your original comment was about "volunteer soldiers" participating in the war and sending aid when "own domestic territory was not at stake"

Volunteer soldiers are not Lend-Lease.

bootlegga bootlegga:

No self-interest? Really? Guess you've never heard of the Domino Theory.

I was using the same reasoning you were using to claim that France and the Commonwealth were acting altruistically. By the logic of the domino theory, all of the commonwealth nations (and France) joined the war because of domino security concerns and not altruism. That supports my theory that the USA operated on the same motivations as other nations. Their delay is based on them believing that no dominoes would fall on them until one did.

[bootlegga]

Psudo Psudo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

No self-interest? Really? Guess you've never heard of the Domino Theory.

I was using the same reasoning you were using to claim that France and the Commonwealth were acting altruistically. By the logic of the domino theory, all of the commonwealth nations (and France) joined the war because of domino security concerns and not altruism. That supports my theory that the USA operated on the same motivations as other nations. Their delay is based on them believing that no dominoes would fall on them until one did.

No, France and the UK guaranteed Poland's security, so when Germany invaded, it meant war. Poland was the proverbial line in the sand. The 'Domino Theory' had absolutely nothing to do with declarations of war on Germany.

[Psudo]

The domino theory was specifically applied to Communism, but the same logic applies to any expansionist, ideology-driven conquest. France had good reason to fear for it's security when Germany invaded Poland. Canada and Australia had good reason to fear for their national interest when the UK was endangered. The United States wrongly imagined it was geographically and economically isolated enough to be safe; as soon as that illusion was shattered, they acknowledged that their fate was already intertwined with the Allies and joined them wholeheartedly. All nations acted for national self-interest.

In summary, pick any particular standard for judging motivations and the USA behaved the same as the rest of the Allies. The world failed to act quickly enough, and then the USA failed to act quickly enough. Chronology, not altruism, is the distinction.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

France and the UK guaranteed Poland's security, so when Germany invaded, it meant war. Poland was the proverbial line in the sand. The 'Domino Theory' had absolutely nothing to do with declarations of war on Germany.

Forgive me, and I do say this respectfully, but bullsh*t.

If the so-called guarantee for Poland was worth more than the paper it was written on then where was the British and French declaration of war on Germany's co-conspirator the Soviet Union?

Why was it wrong for Germany to invade Poland but the USSR got a free pass?

[1Peg]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Ahh, bart, I was never stationed in Iraq. Why is that important?

Because no Canadians were stationed in Iraq. See, the Iraq war was something you folks decided was an American affair and you stayed home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQRaUg7cHcE

and when you're finished ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and ... nvolvement