No,
I just wish that people would consider that there may in fact be Muslims,
French, Poles, Italians, etc. on this list, and they have a right to be
treated with respect. When they are insulted, degraded and marginalised before
their individual personalities have been considered, we are doing ourselves a
disservice. This is even worse considering that we are talking about science
fiction. There is no need to insult the people that are here now.
I realise that John has some good things to say. Often those things outweigh
the bad things that are said. However, I don't think that it takes very much
effort to frame an argument in
a non-bigoted way.
It has been said that the French don't really have anything to brag about
militarily. Compared to, for example, the mighty U.S.A, which is unparalleled
in it's ability to bomb the crap out of second rate armies in third world
countries. I know that that comment will likely just set people off. But I
would like to point out that it's basis is from Mr.Atkinson's own remarks.
It is easy to insult people. Does that make it right?
Cheers,
> At 09:50 PM 5/28/02 -0700, you wrote:
Respectfully, no. No one has a "right" to be treated with respect. Respect is
earned.
It would be nice if the world ran that way, but it doesn't.
Having said that, I will definitely own up that treating everyone with respect
is both a good way to get respect and to keep things calm and civil.
I'll even agree we do ourselves a disservice by being disrespectful,
degrading, insulting, etc.
> I realise that John has some good things to say. Often those
And honestly, how much effort does it take to not be offended to a bigoted
argument?
Words are words. If you allow them to control your actions, who has won
the battle?
> It has been said that the French don't really have anything to
How does this prove your point? That you can sink as low as someone else? That
you don't need to follow your own advice above? Really, not a good way to make
your point.
However, since you mentioned it... You're dead on... We are really good at
bombing the crap out of second rate armies in third world countries. I suspect
we're even better at bombing third rate militaries anywhere. Then again, when
your a first rate military, it's not out of whack to be good at beating a less
rated military.
> It is easy to insult people. Does that make it right?
No, but it doesn't necessarily make it wrong either.
> ps. for the record, I like Americans. I have a lot of respect
*shrug* There are those of my fellow Americans I like, and those that I
dislike. As a people, we tend to be young at heart, with all the faults
entailed with youth... Luckily for us and the rest of the world, we're growing
up.
From: "Tony Christney" <tchristney@telus.net>
> I just wish that people would consider that there may in fact be
But there are cultural differences.
Let's see, in the past I've been known to be scathing about Yanks, Poms,
Frogs, put in a *zing* about the perils of being a neighbour to Germany, and
if there's anyone else I've been less than tactful with, my apologies for
forgetting them. I'll be tactless with you too in time.
All I can say is that Australians tend to be a bit more forthright
than polite. (You never would have guessed, right? :-) )
> Let's see, in the past I've been known to be scathing about
Feel free to bash away at the Danes - I won't get offended :-))
I guess you're excused since you live on flat island! I do my self and I'm a
nutcase...
/cheers!
All I can say is that Australians tend to be a bit more forthright
than polite. (You never would have guessed, right? :-) )
I knew there was a reason I liked you guys.....)
On Wed, 29 May 2002 17:30:40 -0700 (PDT), John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We "bombed the crap out of" second rate armies like
Once. You can't call the War of 1812 an American victory (though US schools
try to teach it as such).
> --- Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net> wrote:
OK, so the original intent was to conquer Canada.
No problem. Frankly, I'm glad we didn't--what would
we do with seven more states full of
pseudo-Minnessotans.
On the other hand, the Brits intended to hang onto their positions in the Ohio
valley, which they didn't. And except for burning Washington DC (and I've been
there, I would pay to have the British burn it down again) every one of their
attacking into the US got whacked and whacked good.
Maybe it wasn't an unmitigated victory, but we got what we wanted in the peace
treaty.
On Thu, 30 May 2002 11:21:22 -0700 (PDT), John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> OK, so the original intent was to conquer Canada.
And to stop the British inciting the First Nations. It wasn't the British,
though, but American policies on the natives that was inciting them.
> No problem. Frankly, I'm glad we didn't--what would
Considering there is US$1 billion in trade with Canada each day, and that the
US currently has a fairly hefty trade surplus with Canada, the US GDP would
have been helped greatly if the US had captured Canada.
> On the other hand, the Brits intended to hang onto
They also didn't hold onto Maine, either. You forget about the near bloodless
capture of Fort Detroit, where the British absolutely embarassed the American
garrison by essentially bluffing the Americans into surrendering. This with 70
men in something like a dozen canoes that did Fort York (Toronto) to Detroit
in about 2 weeks.
On the other hand, the US was the aggressor, and every one of the US attacks
into Canada got whacked and whacked good. Well, Lundy's Lane was essentially a
draw. However Stoney Creek was a major British and Canadian victory, where
they were outnumbered more than 4:1.
> Maybe it wasn't an unmitigated victory, but we got
The peace treaty was pro-American, indeed. However you never got one of
your war aims. The impressment issue and the stopping of ships on the high
seas was ended by the British before the war began (interestingly, the Union
during the Civil War ended up doing exactly what they were incensed at the
British for doing). The invasion of Canada was a failure.
The war was essentially a draw. The real losers, however, were the First
Nations.
the WAR OF 1812, as i recall ended with the repulse "BEF" and death of the
commander at BALTIMORE, and NEW ORLEANS (which was fought after the treaty was
signed ending the war) and pretty much helped the UK
politicos,, generals and etc, think that re-launching another campaign
was not worth it.
true the White House was burned and the USG fled the area, the crap militia
under the crap politically appointed General WINDER was chased away at
Bladensburg. but it was also true that some of the same militia was present
and kicked redoat ass around Baltimore.
the Northwest Frontier was a combat zone, with the redcoats and Canadian
fencibles looking at more numerous and battlehardened US Regulars and
Volunteers (Volunteers by the way, are not the militia).
the Indian Allies of the UK were defeated and scattered, although some hard
injun campaigning was still ahead for the US ARMY in the south.
on the Lakes, it seems that the RN was sunk, captured or in hiding, while what
was left f our little Lake navy squadrons were left to do as they pleased.
what was left of our tiny ocean navy was trapped in port, but , as i
recall it, the Royal Navy was not exactly wetting ist pants with excitement at
the prospects of going into those ports after them. i sem to recall some RN
directives about not engaging US frigates with anything less than 64 s or 74s
after some RATHER embarassing RN moment on the waters of the world.
and of course, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, decided to surrender to the
Brits, thus gaining the unique distinction of being the only American State to
formally surrender to a foreign power. i love to remind politicians from
Massachusetts of this everytime they get too
holy . . . . .
soo, ALLAN me lad, it was not quite a crushing defeat inflicted upon us by the
might of British arms.....
three of Conchy's hand picked generals sent to the New World and several
thousand of his crack Penisular troops were dead too.
all in all not such a bad performance by Cousin Jonathon.
but then, look where we mostly came from as colonials: England, Scotland,
Ireland, Wales, and Germany, with a smattering of other
Euro-dewds tossed in for seasoning.
> On Thu, 30 May 2002 14:22:10 -0500 (CDT), DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:
> and of course, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, decided to surrender
They also voted on seceding from the Union. Interestingly enough, the Hartford
Convention upheld the right of a state to secede...
> soo, ALLAN me lad, it was not quite a crushing defeat inflicted upon us
Oh, I didn't say it was. I was just objecting to John's suggestion that the
British were "whacked" by the Americans in the war. At best, the war was a
draw.
The American volunteer troops fought very well, showing what would happen
during the Civil War. The militia troops fought poorly on foreign soil, which
is to be expected. Most of the engagements on Canadian soil were victories for
the British and Canadians. The Warhawks went into the war with the assumption
that Canada was theirs "for the marching". That turned out to be way overly
optimisitic. The British and Canadian forces were usually outnumbered. The
fact that the American invasion was not only repelled but led to British gains
in territory (gains that Britain gave away in the Treaty of Ghent in order to
secure relative peace) indicates that the British were hardly "whacked".
As I said, it was a draw...
> but then, look where we mostly came from as colonials: England,
Which, of course, was the same of the Upper Canadians and British forces. The
Upper Canadians also had a good deal of American immigrants who were attracted
by cheap land (offered by the Governor General, Lord Simcoe I believe). That
was cause for some concern, but they ended up mostly staying loyal to the
crown. Oh, and the French Canadians also fought well.
> > >We "bombed the crap out of" second rate armies like
Let's get this straight. The U.S. launches an aggresive war. Is stopped cold.
Pushed back. And then get's the status quo of before the war in the peace
treaty and you call it a victory? By using your methodology, Saddam
Hussien could call the Iran-Iraq War a victory. Remember, Bahgdad was
not burned, Washington was.
> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Let's get this straight. The U.S. launches an
Actually got well more than status quo ante bellum. The Brits got the hell out
of the Ohio River Valley. Stopped impressment (wasn't in the treaty, but it
stopped).
All against the best and largest navy on the planet, and one of the best
armies going?
Damn right that's a victory.
> At 05:53 30/05/02 -0700, John wrote:
But the war didn't involve whole the navy or the army, in fact neither side
was able to sustain the war, a case of lengthening and contracting supply
lines. For the British there were pressing concerns in Europe.
By the way you can also apply your statement to the Vietnam War:)
One of the most interesting things I have found about the perception of the US
Navy of the period is how people never scratch past the surface, the US navy
frigates were at first glance better ships, but at that point the US Navy was
a Brown water navy operating on short cruises relatively close to their bases.
As a result their frigates carried more guns, so much so that in some cases
the number of guns carried actually warped the ship's hulls. The British on
the other hand went on cruises lasting years and had to carry the supplies
required.
> Damn right that's a victory.
While the rest of the world (including published American texts) consider it a
stalemate.
Cheers
On Thu, 30 May 2002 17:53:19 -0700 (PDT), John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stopped impressment (wasn't in the treaty, but it
Impressment had stopped before the war started. The British Orders In Council
were ended before Congress voted to declare war. Impressment wasn't in the
treaty because it was an excuse used by the Warhawks.
> All against the best and largest navy on the planet,
Which, for most of the war, was busy fighting the second best and largest navy
on the planet and arguably _the_ best army going at the time.
> Damn right that's a victory.
Just as the British stopping an American invasion of Canada is seen in the
Commonwealth as a victory.
> OK, so the original intent was to conquer Canada.
That was one of three goals/concerns actually if I remember my history
correctly.
> No problem. Frankly, I'm glad we didn't--what would
:) Now wait a minute there...what's wrong with this? :D Oh...they
wouldn't be true Minneasotans - that's the problem. BTW, I currently
reside in SE Minnesota for what it's worth.
> On the other hand, the Brits intended to hang onto
Wasn't most of their interest in the Ohio value with creating a Indian
territory - sort of a buffer zone to deal with US expansion past the
Ohio regions. British border raiding was reasonably effective IIRC in keeping
the US forces off guard and if I recall correctly there was quite a difference
in population and armed forces sizes with the US have
the larger number (wasn't population about a 10:1 ratio?).