Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6552|SE London

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

Berster wrote:

How did you expell the English
Seeing as how our naval fleet was small and we had no intention of invading England at the time the only way to attack the Brits was to the north. We wanted to expell the Brits from North America.

Berster wrote:

It is considered the 2nd revolutionary war in America because Americans always have to think they are the centre of attention - when in fact the British were far more concerned with retaining territories they considered important, India, the West Indies and Canada. They really didn't care about the Americans.
Is that why they invaded America ? The boarding of American merchant ships and unwilingness to vacate forts inside America were violations of Americas sovergnty and in the same breath a lack of respect of Americas independance and her citizens.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/warof1812/
The War of 1812 was a struggle to maintain America's independence from Great Britain.
Termed the Second American Revolution by some, the War of 1812 saw the British force President James Madison out of the White House. Follow the events of the war that could have meant the end to independence.
http://nicholelouise.tripod.com/id1.html

Its called the 2nd revolutionary war here because that was the intent, to retain our independance from England and have her repsect our soverignty and not put blockades restrict our trade board our ships etc etc. The real cuase had nothing o do with annexing Canada ..look up the Chesapeke

Although the infant United States of America had fought and won it's war for independence from the British, one would never know it from the attitude of the British parliament and the instrument of its will, the British Royal Navy.
OK, firstly - you didn't expell the British from North America. The Northern forts that were contested remained under British control after the war, that's what status quo ante bellum means.

Secondly, it was impossible for you to meet your objectives of stopping the trade embargoes with France and boarding of US ships by the Royal Navy, because this had ceased 2 days before the start of the war. Do you know why your trade was being resticted? You were sending supplies to the French, who the British were at war with - the very fact the British stopped the embargoes before the war began shows they did have respect for US independence before the war started - so that wasn't achieved during the war either.

Thirdly, you failled to annex Canada and were driven back a long way south - the British suffered their most crushing defeat at New Orleans (which is quite a long way south) - which, you earlier claimed, caused them to run home with their tails beneath their legs - were it not for the fact that the Treay of Ghent had been signed before the New Orleans campaign was fought.

If the Americans had been better informed before the war began and knew of the changes in British policy the war would not have happened.

If you were better informed, this would be a more sensible discussion.

To sum up, the US had 3 goals -

1. Retake the British held Northern forts and expel their garrisons - FAIL
2. Put an end to British trade embargoes, blockades and impressment* - FAIL
3. Gain territory in Canada - FAIL

The British had 1 goal -

1. Prevent the US annexing Canada - SUCCESS

*Impressment did not end until quite late into the war, exactly the same time, in fact, as the war with Napoleon ended - so that objective was not achieved by the war, but rather by Britains diminished need for troops in Europe.


There you go, I think I've covered all the angles sufficiently simply for you to understand them.

Oh, and they didn't invade America - they launched a counter attack after the US invaded Canada. They didn't care about America. The boarding of US ships had nothing to do with you really, it was because you sent supplies to the French and we didn't like it.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-08 04:21:54)

vedds
Member
+52|6725|Christchurch New Zealand

CameronPoe wrote:

OK here we go. Stated aim of intervention of US in Vietnam: prevent spread of communism. Cost in US lives: 58,209. Outcome: Communist state in Vietnam. The US might I add resorted to using chemical weapons. How nice. Please do not use this example again. It's counter-productive and I don't like to see people humiliate themselves.
I know i will be decryed for this, but i cant help pointing out that perhaps the reason Domino Theory never eventuated was the blow that US intervention in Vietnam delivered?
vedds
Member
+52|6725|Christchurch New Zealand

CameronPoe wrote:

Vedds - I don't think you'll find any references to civilian deaths in my rant. All political or military targets - look them up. You are also confusing the 1916-1922 era Ireland with the 1970s-1990s era Northern Ireland. They were two very different IRA's. The modern provisionals are mostly a bunch of criminals hogging an ideology they are not fit to associate themselves with.
No. You mention the attempted assaination of Thatcher, and also that "this war aint over yet buddy". Sorry but it sounds like its got nothing to do with anything except the modern "troubles" and frankly if you support the bombing of a political target and the collatteral damage that is likely to result then you are supporting PIRA.  You know the whole ends and means thing? Well, once you cross that line its a slippery slope that leads only to recursive violence.

Berster7 wrote:

OK, firstly - you didn't expel the British from North America. The Northern forts that were contested remained under British control after the war, that's what status quo ante bellum means.
OK firstly asshat i said that we WANTED to expel the Brits from NAmerica NOT that we did. Secondly the Brits who were around the Great Lakes did leave after the war.

You have an inherent retarded flaw in your argument. You claim that the Brits only wanted to defend Canada. Last time i checked New Orleans Washington DC and Baltimore are NOT in Canada. Are you stupid enough to think that if the invasion had succeeded that the Brits wouldn't go back their former imperial role ? A counter attack in New Orleans and Baltimore? Of course theres no argument for a counter attack in New Orleans and if you look at a map Baltimore and DC are well inside the US border it was an invasion jackass and it failed.

This is the reason for war douche

The United States declared War on Great Britain on June 12, 1812. The war was declared as a result of long simmering disputes with Great Britian. The central dispute surrounded the impressment of American soldiers by the British. The British had previously attacked the USS Chesapeake and nearly caused a war two year earlier. In addition, disputes continued with Great Britain over the Northwest Territories and the border with Canada. Finally, the attempts of Great Britain to impose a blockade on France during the Napoleonic Wars was a constant source of conflict with the United States.
From the end of the American Revolution in 1783, the United States had been irritated by the failure of the British to withdraw from American territory along the Great Lakes; their backing of the Indians on America's frontiers; and their unwillingness to sign commercial agreements favorable to the United States.
And like i told you look up the Chesapeake which almost caused the war to start in 1807. So if you can get it through your head and comprehend a basic fact. The war on the American side was NOT about annexing Canada.

Berster7 wrote:

The boarding of US ships had nothing to do with you really, it was because you sent supplies to the French and we didn't like it.
Apparently you don't know what impressment means. Ill clear it up for you they forced Americans to serve in the British Navy. It had nothing to do with us supplying the French.

Wikipedia wrote:

The Royal Navy did not recognize naturalized American citizenship, treating anyone born a British subject as "British" — as a result, the Royal Navy impressed over 6,000 sailors during the early 1800s who were claimed as American citizens as well as British subjects. This was one of several factors leading to the War of 1812 in North America.
In 1814 English involvement in the Napoleonic wars dwindled and they sent thousands of British regulars to America. After their defeats in Baltimore and the Chesapeake Bay he Brits gave up their American invasion and agreed to recognize and respect our Independence. Thats why we won because thats what our goal was. I'm familiar with an unwillingness to accept a defeat of your country but its a fact the fact that you didn't know its called the 2nd American revolution is proof of your lack of knowledge on the subject.
jonnykill
The Microwave Man
+235|6650
1994. Some time ago. So in the number of attacks ratio is 1-10,000 since then. Isreal is also destroying and or giving back the settlements and have been doing so for the past year, forcably removing it's own people. If you ask me this so called Zioinst war is failing. I mean they even drop leaflets saying when they will start bombing an area. How nice of them pilots huh?
MajorHoulahan_MASH
Member
+31|6693

CameronPoe wrote:

The advent of the nuclear bomb, absolute military superiority and actions such as trade embargos generally no longer make it necessary to go dabbling in the politics and affairs of other countries. The primary reason USA does dabble is economic imperialism. I mean why choose to 'liberate' Iraq and not Sudan or Zimbabwe? Oh that's right - Sudan and Zimbabwe have nothing of value to the US. The US vehemently pursued the right to attack Iraq but when it comes to the plight of say, the Burmese, then it's a case of 'what's in it for us?'.
About the "liberation of Iraq" , maybe this is what some generals were thinking:

" Heck, if Saddam can occupy Koewait , to get their oil, and we can liberate Koewait, while we are there...
Wait....
What Saddam can, WE CAN DO BETTER, LETS LIBERATE IRAQ TOO, much more oil than in Koewait , hehe...

"No, said Bush senoir to Schwarzkopf, we stop here, Koewait is free, lets go home."

In comes Bush junior: " Dad, how could you NOT go to Bagdad that day, think of all the oil and power!!!!"'
so he did what his dad did not do, since  evrything changed after "War on Terrorists" was declared after the WTC in NYC was hit ...

Question, did the US go to IRAK  - regardless of the consequences -  ? Or did just not asses possible consequences thoroughly ?

Last edited by MajorHoulahan_MASH (2006-09-05 19:02:57)

MajorHoulahan_MASH
Member
+31|6693

CyrusTheVirus wrote:

I'll tell you why we 'inforce inself into almost every situation?', as the OP most eloquently put it: BECAUSE WE CAN. There isn't one tiny little fucking thing you can do about it. Go smoke a peace pipe for all I care - it'll have about as much influence on us as whining about it all day long. Long live America.
If only the native indians in North America would have had the firepower and agression, and the greater numbers, and the white colonists form Europe only had the spears  about 300 years ago...

I bet the Indians would not have driven all immigrants back into the sea, because - the majority-  were peaceful natured, minding-their-own-business, as you say.
Well, the USA found out it does not always work out that way (Vietnam).

Just BECAUSE YOU CAN is no excuse for war, and certainly not "civilized".
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6655|United States of America
World Police Team---ASSEMBLE! We should've stayed isolationist and taken flak from Europe for not doing anything because the first time you go anywhere, you're forced to fix every problem.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

DesertFox423 wrote:

World Police Team---ASSEMBLE! We should've stayed isolationist and taken flak from Europe for not doing anything because the first time you go anywhere, you're forced to fix every problem.
Yup, and if we had stayed isolationists, at least we would only have to listen to Euorpe bitching at us in one language now..............German
MajorHoulahan_MASH
Member
+31|6693

DesertFox423 wrote:

World Police Team---ASSEMBLE! We should've stayed isolationist and taken flak from Europe for not doing anything because the first time you go anywhere, you're forced to fix every problem.
I see your point, IF the USA decides  to go for it, they really GO for it.

European countries (The EU)  debate in length  IF they SHOULD go for it - often loosing valable time - and after that they start looking at each other first before actually going for it.... IF they go for it at all

Although there is a large spectrum of possiblities in between being totally isolationist, or being involved everywhere in everything around the world.

Last edited by MajorHoulahan_MASH (2006-09-05 20:11:51)

rawls
Banned
+11|6785|California, USA

lowing wrote:

DesertFox423 wrote:

World Police Team---ASSEMBLE! We should've stayed isolationist and taken flak from Europe for not doing anything because the first time you go anywhere, you're forced to fix every problem.
Yup, and if we had stayed isolationists, at least we would only have to listen to Euorpe bitching at us in one language now..............German
zing!
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6732

CameronPoe wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

I don't recall the US ever being involved in any conflict it wasn't asked to (kuwait/saudi arabia) or challenged to (japan)
Vietnam, Iraq II, Grenada, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, El Salvador, Guatemala, Cuba (Bay of Pigs) - to name a few....
How do you know they were not asked?  Were you in any of the meetings?  I know I wasn't, so I do not make stupid statements like this.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6513|Texas - Bigger than France

CameronPoe wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

I don't recall the US ever being involved in any conflict it wasn't asked to (kuwait/saudi arabia) or challenged to (japan)
Vietnam, Iraq II, Grenada, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, El Salvador, Guatemala, Cuba (Bay of Pigs) - to name a few....
Are we rewriting history again?

Do you want to prove your statement?  I'd like to see in each of these examples you provided as where the US was not asked or not provoked.

(Note - I do not necessarily disagree with you - just most of them).  We are familliar with Iraq - so leave that one out (I'm not going to argue or I might agree...but the debate may never end).

Last edited by Pug (2006-09-08 08:34:06)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard