That is why I only endorsed military-political targets - not civilian ones.EVieira wrote:
Cameron, one's right to choose his own leaders and govern his country something I will never downplay. But I will never sympathise or support a group because its cause is right, if it uses terrorist tactics even if only in part. I can imagine what the innocent victims of such acts feel, and to me they are unthinkable. Their cause might be just, but the end does not justify the means.CameronPoe wrote:
Vieira - I find it odd that you can't empathise with how people feel about the occupation of their country -especially given that Brazil was under the control of the Portuguese empire. Maybe you're of pure Portuguese lineage, I don't know.
Thats a funny take.. another one would be after the Brits got thier asses kicked again in the Battle of New Orleans and in the Great Lakes they cut their losses tucked thier tail between thier legs asked for a treaty and never fucked with America ever again. Of course all this talk is mute becaase even though were friends now its with the understanding that we can kick the shit out of you now.Berster wrote:
But the British couln't really be bothered, so they just burnt down the American capital and pissed off home.
Coming from an obvious persective of ignorance on the subject. They confronted our army with conventional open warfare and when they were encountered casualties and having no clue where it was coming from they surrendered. We have a strategical longer reach than they did on many occasions and faced with either certain death or surrender they chose the latter. This "real" thing you refer to is nothing but cowardly acts comited by the real "pansies" attacking civilians and IED's that servre no purpose in winning any type of victory.CameronPoe wrote:
The conventional Iraqi army were a bunch of pansies. They were worse than the fucking French FFS. They couldn't wait to dump their tanks and run into the arms of the waiting US soldiers. If you're gonna big-up your military choose a different conflict please. The insurgents you are now dealing with are the real thing. You won't see many of them waving the white flag. Conventional warfare is dead my friend. US military intelligence needs to get with the program.
Calling the Republican Guard "pansies" is ignorant trash.. one of the most dedicated soldiers in the world far more so than anything Ireland has ever composed.
I have a quick fix for this one. The USA will drop out of the UN and we will stop giving hand outs to other countries (that goes for the european ones too). we will pull all of our troops back home. Then we will just close our ears to the rest of the worlds cries for help. Now we will see how long all of these peeps that are on those high horse preaching about us will take it when the next tyrannt comes to their area and does whatever they want. And just as a side note, I guess next time there is a civil war in europe (Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.) we will let the all know and righteous countries over there handle it. Then we will see who wants our help.
Not a very funny take. We had just freed up more than 90% of the British armed forces by beating Napoleon and were about to send them to America and then decided it wasn't worth the effort, after the naval reinforcements arrived the UK beat the US navy in every subsequent engagement. The Americans were no threat to us and gained NOTHING from the war which ended with an Status quo ante bellum treaty, so the US gained no territory. The violations of sovereignty (cited as the other US objective for the war) had stopped 2 days before the war began. Leaving the only US objective of invading Canada possible to achieve through war, which they failled to do.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Thats a funny take.. another one would be after the Brits got thier asses kicked again in the Battle of New Orleans and in the Great Lakes they cut their losses tucked thier tail between thier legs asked for a treaty and never fucked with America ever again. Of course all this talk is mute becaase even though were friends now its with the understanding that we can kick the shit out of you now.Berster wrote:
But the British couln't really be bothered, so they just burnt down the American capital and pissed off home.
So the US lost.
*edit* the war was actually over by the time the Battle of New Orleans took place, so it had nothing to do with the British withdrawal -" diplomats in Ghent, Belgium signed the Treaty of Ghent on December 24, 1814, ending the war. News of the treaty had not reached New Orleans." Battle of New Orleans was between December 1814 and January 1815.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-07 09:05:34)
All the help of the US is praised by my point of view. Otherwise i would have spoken German. Not that i would have noticed, but i hate those Germans! Especially with soccer! (my father tought me that)
The thing the US is doing wrong, is that most of the time the Americans know a way to handle this or to handle that. But what they forget is that in other countries there are other habits, culture and ways of thinking.
What i want to say is that let the thinking to the intelligent, honest people from that region and try to keep the area safe for civilians. That's their task like every other NATO-soldier!
The thing the US is doing wrong, is that most of the time the Americans know a way to handle this or to handle that. But what they forget is that in other countries there are other habits, culture and ways of thinking.
What i want to say is that let the thinking to the intelligent, honest people from that region and try to keep the area safe for civilians. That's their task like every other NATO-soldier!
Thats where we differ. I won't ever endorse any target of a group that uses terrorist tactics. I cannot close my eyes to other atrocities they have committed. Those people should take a look at Gandhi and how he truly put the English to their knees, not trying to blow up Thacher or any other English politician.CameronPoe wrote:
That is why I only endorsed military-political targets - not civilian ones.EVieira wrote:
Cameron, one's right to choose his own leaders and govern his country something I will never downplay. But I will never sympathize or support a group because its cause is right, if it uses terrorist tactics even if only in part. I can imagine what the innocent victims of such acts feel, and to me they are unthinkable. Their cause might be just, but the end does not justify the means.CameronPoe wrote:
Vieira - I find it odd that you can't empathise with how people feel about the occupation of their country -especially given that Brazil was under the control of the Portuguese empire. Maybe you're of pure Portuguese lineage, I don't know.
PS.: I also don't see what genetics has to do with my views, or this discussion.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Firstly youre retarded and cant comprehend English. Heres your source you quoted
What that says is that after the war ended that England ceased the soverignty violations which were the cause of the war that we stated 2 says before the war started. If you could comprehend English its saying our intent on the war was accomplishedWikipedia wrote:
the British ceased the sovereignty violations, to which the United States had objected, two days prior to the start of the war.
Wikipedia wrote:
The United States had grievances against Great Britain for sovereignty violations in three areas:
1. Britain's refusal to surrender western forts promised to the United States in the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended the American War of Independence, together with allegations that Britain was arming North American Indians fighting against Americans on the western frontier;
2. The boarding of American ships by the Royal Navy on the high seas to search for alleged deserters, and the forced impressment of American and naturalized American citizens as British seamen; and
3. The trade embargos by France and Britain during the Napoleonic Wars, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of American merchant ships.
Actually when the Brits involvement in the Napoleonic wars in 1814 declined they concentrated thier efforts in America and were subsequently defeated in Lake Champlian Baltimore and New Orleans. The Royal Navy was embarassed in New Orleans losing 1 to 1 naval battles with a rag tag American Navy.Berster wrote:
We had just freed up more than 90% of the British armed forces by beating Napoleon and were about to send them to America and then decided it wasn't worth the effort, after the naval reinforcements arrived the UK beat the US navy in every subsequent engagement
The goal of the war of 1812 was to secure Americas freedom and soverignty which England wasnt respecting. Consequently after the war they never violated our soverignty ever again therefore we won. Its a flawed arguement saying we lost the war becuase we didnt take over Canada because that was not our intentions in the outset. An easy litmus for whom won is who sought a treaty and the Brits did..Wikipedia wrote:
The Battle of New Orleans was hailed as a great victory in the United States, making Andrew Jackson a national hero, eventually propelling him to the presidency.
The Royal Navy, however, was acutely conscious that the United States Navy had won a majority of the single-ship duels during the War. Also, American privateers and commerce raiders had captured large numbers of British merchant ships, sending insurance rates up and embarrassing the Admiralty.
Uh wrong. If you could understand english grammer, you would know that the phrase in commas was a prepositional phrase, and can be removed while preserving the predicate.
The sentence reads "The British ceased the sovereignty violations two days prior to the start of the war." with the prepositional phrase "to which the United States had objected" to provide context regarding the sovereignty violations.
Way to fail at high school grammar.
Edit: The goal of the war was to take canada. This goal is pushed to the backstage because our invasion was repelled in a matter of days.
The sentence reads "The British ceased the sovereignty violations two days prior to the start of the war." with the prepositional phrase "to which the United States had objected" to provide context regarding the sovereignty violations.
Way to fail at high school grammar.
Edit: The goal of the war was to take canada. This goal is pushed to the backstage because our invasion was repelled in a matter of days.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-08-07 10:00:33)
Oh please stfu you idiot
Here is the entire passage so you can take that foot out of your mouth
The goal of the war was not to annex Canada it was to preserve our soverignty. The war started becuase the Brits attacked our merchant ships. Somewherw along the road manifest desinty could have included Canada but we invaded Canada becuase thats where the Brits were
Here is the entire passage so you can take that foot out of your mouth
See if you can figure it out moron. The passage is talking about after the war was over "Britian ceased soverignty violations" is after the war was over "to which the United States had objected, two days prior to the start of the war." is in refrnce to the cause of the war. Now go away retard untill you know what youre talking about.The United States, which declared war and attacked British colonies and shipping first, ended the war without gaining any territory, its invasion of British North America having been defeated by British, Canadian and aboriginal forces; however, the British ceased the sovereignty violations, to which the United States had objected, two days prior to the start of the war.
Way to fail at correcting someone and not being able to comprehend Englishjonsimon wrote:
Way to fail at high school grammar.
The goal of the war was not to annex Canada it was to preserve our soverignty. The war started becuase the Brits attacked our merchant ships. Somewherw along the road manifest desinty could have included Canada but we invaded Canada becuase thats where the Brits were
Last edited by ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ (2006-08-07 10:12:53)
You really are an idiot if you don't understand the phrase quoted. Who's retarded and doesn't understand grammar?ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Firstly youre retarded and cant comprehend English. Heres your source you quotedWhat that says is that after the war ended that England ceased the soverignty violations which were the cause of the war that we stated 2 says before the war started. If you could comprehend English its saying our intent on the war was accomplishedWikipedia wrote:
the British ceased the sovereignty violations, to which the United States had objected, two days prior to the start of the war.Wikipedia wrote:
The United States had grievances against Great Britain for sovereignty violations in three areas:
1. Britain's refusal to surrender western forts promised to the United States in the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended the American War of Independence, together with allegations that Britain was arming North American Indians fighting against Americans on the western frontier;
2. The boarding of American ships by the Royal Navy on the high seas to search for alleged deserters, and the forced impressment of American and naturalized American citizens as British seamen; and
3. The trade embargos by France and Britain during the Napoleonic Wars, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of American merchant ships.Actually when the Brits involvement in the Napoleonic wars in 1814 declined they concentrated thier efforts in America and were subsequently defeated in Lake Champlian Baltimore and New Orleans. The Royal Navy was embarassed in New Orleans losing 1 to 1 naval battles with a rag tag American Navy.Berster wrote:
We had just freed up more than 90% of the British armed forces by beating Napoleon and were about to send them to America and then decided it wasn't worth the effort, after the naval reinforcements arrived the UK beat the US navy in every subsequent engagementThe goal of the war of 1812 was to secure Americas freedom and soverignty which England wasnt respecting. Consequently after the war they never violated our soverignty ever again therefore we won. Its a flawed arguement saying we lost the war becuase we didnt take over Canada because that was not our intentions in the outset. An easy litmus for whom won is who sought a treaty and the Brits did..Wikipedia wrote:
The Battle of New Orleans was hailed as a great victory in the United States, making Andrew Jackson a national hero, eventually propelling him to the presidency.
The Royal Navy, however, was acutely conscious that the United States Navy had won a majority of the single-ship duels during the War. Also, American privateers and commerce raiders had captured large numbers of British merchant ships, sending insurance rates up and embarrassing the Admiralty.
As to the naval battles, yes we did lose in 1 to 1 ship battles, but try checking multiple sources - not just wikipedia. Because, it became British naval policy with the American Navy vastly outnumbered, to not engage 1 to 1 - from that point on the Americans didn't win their naval battles (on the Sea anyway, there was an 'incident' at Lake Champlain, where the US navy was not outnumbered).
I think you will also find that the British army in the US throughout the war was approximately 10'000 strong - from a standing army of almost 500'000.
What was your goal from the outset then? To stop the British from violating your sovreignty, something they'd agreed to 2 days before the war began. Obviously your grasp of history is no better than your grasp of grammar.
To avoid any ambiguity - British Foreign Minister annouced the end of violations of America's sovreignty of the 16th of June 1812 and war was declared on the 18th of June 1812.
Sounds like they lost to me, whereas Britains only objective of the war was to drive the US out of Canada, which they suceeded in doing.Wikipedia wrote:
In signing the treaty, the Americans ended up abandoning both of their primary goals in starting the war
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-07 10:24:56)
You're quite ignorant yourself. What do you want me to say? The US army were fantastic in Iraq? Bomb the shit out of them before you even begin to contemplate joining them in ground combat (an intelligent tactic don't get me wrong but hardly brave). The conventional Iraqi army were woefully inferior to the US army. It was the equivalent of a tall bully holding a smaller kid at arms length and repeatedly kicking him in the nads. Like I said - pick a better conflict for examples of US military 'brilliance' (best forget about Vietnam as an example).ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Coming from an obvious persective of ignorance on the subject. They confronted our army with conventional open warfare and when they were encountered casualties and having no clue where it was coming from they surrendered. We have a strategical longer reach than they did on many occasions and faced with either certain death or surrender they chose the latter. This "real" thing you refer to is nothing but cowardly acts comited by the real "pansies" attacking civilians and IED's that servre no purpose in winning any type of victory.CameronPoe wrote:
The conventional Iraqi army were a bunch of pansies. They were worse than the fucking French FFS. They couldn't wait to dump their tanks and run into the arms of the waiting US soldiers. If you're gonna big-up your military choose a different conflict please. The insurgents you are now dealing with are the real thing. You won't see many of them waving the white flag. Conventional warfare is dead my friend. US military intelligence needs to get with the program.
Calling the Republican Guard "pansies" is ignorant trash.. one of the most dedicated soldiers in the world far more so than anything Ireland has ever composed.
'Cowardly': For 'Cowardly' I read 'Intelligent' - whine all you want but they can keep grinding you down slowly from behind the shadows and all you can do is moan.
It does make me laugh the way you've totally misinterpreted that whole statement - check some other sources where it's worded differently if you're too ignorant to understand that phrase. Maybe a childrens history book would be more appropriate for you.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Oh please stfu you idiot
Here is the entire passage so you can take that foot out of your mouthSee if you can figure it out moron. The passage is talking about after the war was over "Britian ceased soverignty violations" is after the war was over "to which the United States had objected, two days prior to the start of the war." is in refrnce to the cause of the war. Now go away retard untill you know what youre talking about.The United States, which declared war and attacked British colonies and shipping first, ended the war without gaining any territory, its invasion of British North America having been defeated by British, Canadian and aboriginal forces; however, the British ceased the sovereignty violations, to which the United States had objected, two days prior to the start of the war.Way to fail at correcting someone and not being able to comprehend Englishjonsimon wrote:
Way to fail at high school grammar.
The goal of the war was not to annex Canada it was to preserve our soverignty. The war started becuase the Brits attacked our merchant ships. Somewherw along the road manifest desinty could have included Canada but we invaded Canada becuase thats where the Brits were
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-07 10:29:51)
The war of 1812 is considered the 2nd revolutionary war. Britains goal wasnt simply to preserve Canada but to retain thier former colonies. England thought they could reverse the outcome of the original revolutionary war and they couldnt. In 1812 America was still a fledgling country incapable of counquering. All America had to do to win was to not lose. The fact that thier soverignty was never threatened or questioned again is a victory. Any intentions of gaining land was 2nd to expelling the English and retaining our soverignty.Berster wrote:
Sounds like they lost to me, whereas Britains only objective of the war was to drive the US out of Canada, which they suceeded in doing.
Actually i think Vietnam is a perfect example. American losses 50 thousand NVA + VC = 2 million = an asskicking. When we left Vietnam it was with a peace with NVA and a stable SVietnam. Had it not been unpopular with the populace we could have easily went back and fought it all over again.CameronPoe wrote:
best forget about Vietnam as an example
Wishfull thinking.. the insurgents are not "grinding" they are killing civilians and wasting thier own lives getting killed for a worthless cause that has no chance of success.CameronPoe wrote:
whine all you want but they can keep grinding you down slowly from behind the shadows and all you can do is moan.
As is every other army in the world .. you can hardly hold that against them.CAmeronPoe wrote:
The conventional Iraqi army were woefully inferior to the US army.
Last edited by ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ (2006-08-07 10:58:04)
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.arabic name wrote:
Actually i think Vietnam is a perfect example. American losses 50 thousand NVA + VC = 2 million = an asskicking. When we left Vietnam it was with a peace with NVA and a stable SVietnam. Had it not been unpopular with the populace we could have easily went back and fought it all over again.CameronPoe wrote:
best forget about Vietnam as an example
The insurgents are making Iraq a horrible place to be. What was one of the 'stated' US goals there again? I thought you said the war had been won too?arabic name wrote:
Wishfull thinking.. the insurgents are not "grinding" they are killing civilians and wasting thier own lives getting killed for a worthless cause that has no chance of success.CameronPoe wrote:
whine all you want but they can keep grinding you down slowly from behind the shadows and all you can do is moan.
Hey let's face it. Boasting about military endeavours when everyone is leagues behind you smacks of arrogance and pettiness.arabic name wrote:
As is every other army in the world .. you can hardly hold that against them.CameronPoe wrote:
The conventional Iraqi army were woefully inferior to the US army.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-07 11:11:11)
Sorry im proud of what our boys did in Vietnam and had the NVA lived up to thier agreements then SVietnam would have been as prosperous as say SKorea is today. There are obvious exaples of less thanchivalrous actions but overall i think our men fought hard and bravely.
The same goes for Iraq although it does worry me the quality of life people in Baghdad suffer at times. Hopefully things will look up and Iraq can be an example in the middle east.. im sceptical tho
Is it petty to be proud of your country's strength? Stating a fact that noone comes close so therefore not arrogance.
The same goes for Iraq although it does worry me the quality of life people in Baghdad suffer at times. Hopefully things will look up and Iraq can be an example in the middle east.. im sceptical tho
Is it petty to be proud of your country's strength? Stating a fact that noone comes close so therefore not arrogance.
I don't belittle the acts of the US soldiers on the ground. You owe it to them to be proud of them. It's their leaders that failed them.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
Sorry im proud of what our boys did in Vietnam and had the NVA lived up to thier agreements then SVietnam would have been as prosperous as say SKorea is today. There are obvious exaples of less thanchivalrous actions but overall i think our men fought hard and bravely.
The same goes for Iraq although it does worry me the quality of life people in Baghdad suffer at times. Hopefully things will look up and Iraq can be an example in the middle east.. im sceptical tho
The jury is out on Iraq - I don't know what'll happen and neither do you. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-07 11:21:05)
i think the us forces them selfes into wars and stuf because
1 they can
2 if we dont people will bitch about us not helping
even when we try to help with anything somebody has to complain because thats basicly what politics are, nearly never is their a 100% agree or dissagree on anything.
1 they can
2 if we dont people will bitch about us not helping
even when we try to help with anything somebody has to complain because thats basicly what politics are, nearly never is their a 100% agree or dissagree on anything.
That's simply not true.ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:
The war of 1812 is considered the 2nd revolutionary war. Britains goal wasnt simply to preserve Canada but to retain thier former colonies. England thought they could reverse the outcome of the original revolutionary war and they couldnt. In 1812 America was still a fledgling country incapable of counquering. All America had to do to win was to not lose. The fact that thier soverignty was never threatened or questioned again is a victory. Any intentions of gaining land was 2nd to expelling the English and retaining our soverignty.Berster wrote:
Sounds like they lost to me, whereas Britains only objective of the war was to drive the US out of Canada, which they suceeded in doing.
"England thought they could reverse the outcome of the original revolutionary war and they couldnt."
Not true. I don't know where you get that from, a counter-attack was launched - but that what you do in war, you fight the enemy on their territory so you don't have to do it on your own.
"Any intentions of gaining land was 2nd to expelling the English and retaining our soverignty."
Expelling the English? The English weren't there - except in a few Northern border forts, which remained under British control after the treaty of Ghent. How did you expell the English?
The British had no interest in America whatsoever and were quite preoccupied at the time with the Napoleonic wars.
The simple fact is that if America had realised the concessions, made by the Foreign Ministry 2 days before war was declared, had been made - the war simply would not have happened. The British were only there to defend their territories, which they did.
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.
So, they went over to Canada, repelled the American invasion and hence WON the war.
America achieved NONE of it's original goals (violations of sovereignty ended before the war began and the invasion of Canada was a disaster).
Britain achieved it's initial goal in the war - America achieved none of it's initial goals in the war.
So Britain WON.
America did however gain a lot of respect on the world stage for their display of military prowess
there are some good points on both sides of this debate until i read this fuckin shit "Even the 'potato-munching alcoholic leprechaun fenian bastard paddies' of Ireland handed them their asses. The empire is dead - live with it. how the fuckin hell can you say they kicked our asses all those fuckin coward done was hide behind doors and detonate bombs by remote control and kill innocent ppl and fuckin horsesCameronPoe wrote:
Even the 'potato-munching alcoholic leprechaun fenian bastard paddies' of Ireland handed them their asses. The empire is dead - live with it.ATG wrote:
Widow_Warrior
Britian was a world superpower and they got there arses handed to them twice here by the states with a fraction of the population.
We went to Somolia for humanitarian reasons. We left for humanitarian reasons. Where would be the humanity in killing tens of thousands of people who were not being oppressed by an outside nation? We went there to help the population eat. When they attacked us and killed 18 of our soldiers it cost the Somalies 1100 killed in a one day running gun battle ( Blackhawk Down ). We simply said " fuck them, they don't want help."
We didn't lose any war, we choose not to engage in one. As for Vietnam, saying we lost means defining loss as the Communist failing to keep their end of a negotiated treaty. I guess you could say we lost because we didn't bomb the fuck out of Pol Pot, but that would requires a childs understanding of the world.
Sounds to me like you mostly have resentment because America is so much more successful since we parted ways with England. You have ancesteral jealousy because your forebearers didn't have the sense to get on the Mayflower. You had your chance, now stay there on your soggy island and learn to like the rain.
i remember all to well back 1978 at xmas and being told to leave a shop because of a fucking bomb scare 2hrs l8r there were four injured and two dead from a bomb 2 streets across and yes the dead were kids!! nice christmas present for those parents dont u agree
anyone who thinks the IRA kicked our asses is a retard maybe if they had come out from those doors we might have a better argument here
and b4 you start most of them that did creep out!!! DIED
sorry for going off the track abit but the irish bollix got me rattled!!!
Last edited by Iron (2006-08-07 11:47:07)
I was referring the Irish uprising and wars of independence. Not 'the troubles'.Iron wrote:
there are some good points on both sides of this debate until i read this fuckin shit "Even the 'potato-munching alcoholic leprechaun fenian bastard paddies' of Ireland handed them their asses. The empire is dead - live with it. how the fuckin hell can you say they kicked our asses all those fuckin coward done was hide behind doors and detonate bombs by remote control and kill innocent ppl and fuckin horsesCameronPoe wrote:
Even the 'potato-munching alcoholic leprechaun fenian bastard paddies' of Ireland handed them their asses. The empire is dead - live with it.ATG wrote:
Widow_Warrior
Britian was a world superpower and they got there arses handed to them twice here by the states with a fraction of the population.
We went to Somolia for humanitarian reasons. We left for humanitarian reasons. Where would be the humanity in killing tens of thousands of people who were not being oppressed by an outside nation? We went there to help the population eat. When they attacked us and killed 18 of our soldiers it cost the Somalies 1100 killed in a one day running gun battle ( Blackhawk Down ). We simply said " fuck them, they don't want help."
We didn't lose any war, we choose not to engage in one. As for Vietnam, saying we lost means defining loss as the Communist failing to keep their end of a negotiated treaty. I guess you could say we lost because we didn't bomb the fuck out of Pol Pot, but that would requires a childs understanding of the world.
Sounds to me like you mostly have resentment because America is so much more successful since we parted ways with England. You have ancesteral jealousy because your forebearers didn't have the sense to get on the Mayflower. You had your chance, now stay there on your soggy island and learn to like the rain.
i remember all to well back 1978 at xmas and being told to leave a shop because of a fucking bomb scare 2hrs l8r there were four injured and to dead from a bomb 2 streets across and yes the dead was kids nice christmas present for those parents dont u agree
anyone who thinks the IRA kicked our asses is a retard maybe if they had come out from those doors we might have a better argument here
and b4 you start most of them that did creep out!!! DIED
sorry for going off the track abit but the irish bollix got me rattled!!!
then maybe you should explain your self better
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:
How did you expell the English
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.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.
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/warof1812/
The War of 1812 was a struggle to maintain America's independence from Great Britain.
http://nicholelouise.tripod.com/id1.htmlTermed 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.
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.
Quite so, unusual for a well structured (And Diversely Opinionated) forum such as this?lowing wrote:
you and I are singin' from the same song book then .BallisticallyYours wrote:
Sorry my sentences tend to be cryptic, its my fault really. It is allot like trying to pick emotions out of an e-mail isnt it? I am one American who feels this nation is under appreciated and yes we do screw up but who's perfect?lowing wrote:
you are absolutely correct, as usual, I DID miss the sarcasm. My apologies. I am terrible at putting the inflection into someones words when I read them if the writing isn't painfully, obviously, sarcastic.
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.