Discussion:
The Burning of Washington: The British invasion of 1814
(too old to reply)
Churchill
2004-10-02 10:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Sometimes Americans forget what we Canadians and British did to them!

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557506922/qid=1096713303/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_0_3/701-2197787-6887567

Perhaps, if these memories were more clear they would comprehend the
potential threats and danger from Terrorists and WMD !



Cordially
The Rifleman
2004-10-02 12:36:11 UTC
Permalink
Just think what we could have done if we were not already fighting in
France, Spain, India, the far East Egypt and other campaigns, we could have
given the north american colony our full attention, and in those thankfully
long gone days his Majesties troops knew how to deal with traitors . Still
what the rifle regiments did to Washington DC is being repeated today by the
bloods and the crips :o)
Gunner
2004-10-02 13:55:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 13:36:11 +0100, "The Rifleman"
Post by The Rifleman
Just think what we could have done if we were not already fighting in
France, Spain, India, the far East Egypt and other campaigns, we could have
given the north american colony our full attention, and in those thankfully
long gone days his Majesties troops knew how to deal with traitors . Still
what the rifle regiments did to Washington DC is being repeated today by the
bloods and the crips :o)
Just goes to show that the British simply couldnt get along with
anyone.

<G>

Gunner

Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Jamie Hart
2004-10-04 12:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 13:36:11 +0100, "The Rifleman"
Post by The Rifleman
Just think what we could have done if we were not already fighting in
France, Spain, India, the far East Egypt and other campaigns, we could have
given the north american colony our full attention, and in those thankfully
long gone days his Majesties troops knew how to deal with traitors . Still
what the rifle regiments did to Washington DC is being repeated today by the
bloods and the crips :o)
Just goes to show that the British simply couldnt get along with
anyone.
Damned right, and I'm pleased to see you colonials are carrying on the
tradition.
Carl.
2004-10-02 18:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Rifleman
Just think what we could have done if we were not already fighting in
France, Spain, India, the far East Egypt and other campaigns, we could have
given the north american colony our full attention, and in those thankfully
long gone days his Majesties troops knew how to deal with traitors .
Of course, the British method of colonizing is exactly what got them into
those wars with France, Spain, India, Egypt, etc, so it is unlikely that
they would have ever been involved only in a single battle. Why would there
be just this one place?
Post by The Rifleman
Still
what the rifle regiments did to Washington DC is being repeated today by the
bloods and the crips :o)
Criminal as they may be for other reasons, they are at least American enough
to arm themselves in spite of laws that violate the constitution.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 9/28/2004
JP
2004-10-02 22:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Rifleman
Just think what we could have done if we were not already fighting in
France, Spain, India, the far East Egypt and other campaigns, we could have
given the north american colony our full attention, and in those thankfully
long gone days his Majesties troops knew how to deal with traitors .
Still
Post by The Rifleman
what the rifle regiments did to Washington DC is being repeated today by the
bloods and the crips :o)
Wrong city <g> (gang names)
raymond o'hara
2004-10-03 00:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Rifleman
Post by The Rifleman
Just think what we could have done if we were not already fighting in
France, Spain, India, the far East Egypt and other campaigns, we could
have
Post by The Rifleman
given the north american colony our full attention, and in those
thankfully
Post by The Rifleman
long gone days his Majesties troops knew how to deal with traitors .
Still
Post by The Rifleman
what the rifle regiments did to Washington DC is being repeated today by
the
Post by The Rifleman
bloods and the crips :o)
Wrong city <g> (gang names)
both gangs have chapters nation wide, there are bloods and crips in boston,
new york, detroit and not just l.a.
JP
2004-10-03 00:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
Post by The Rifleman
Just think what we could have done if we were not already fighting in
France, Spain, India, the far East Egypt and other campaigns, we could
have
Post by The Rifleman
given the north american colony our full attention, and in those
thankfully
Post by The Rifleman
long gone days his Majesties troops knew how to deal with traitors .
Still
Post by The Rifleman
what the rifle regiments did to Washington DC is being repeated today by
the
Post by The Rifleman
bloods and the crips :o)
Wrong city <g> (gang names)
both gangs have chapters nation wide, there are bloods and crips in boston,
new york, detroit and not just l.a.
Right........*chapters*. The actual gangs are in LA.
raymond o'hara
2004-10-03 03:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
Post by The Rifleman
Just think what we could have done if we were not already fighting in
France, Spain, India, the far East Egypt and other campaigns, we could
have
Post by The Rifleman
given the north american colony our full attention, and in those
thankfully
Post by The Rifleman
long gone days his Majesties troops knew how to deal with traitors .
Still
Post by The Rifleman
what the rifle regiments did to Washington DC is being repeated
today
Post by raymond o'hara
by
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
the
Post by The Rifleman
bloods and the crips :o)
Wrong city <g> (gang names)
both gangs have chapters nation wide, there are bloods and crips in
boston,
Post by raymond o'hara
new york, detroit and not just l.a.
Right........*chapters*. The actual gangs are in LA.
go to one of these chapters and tell them that.
they are national organizations like the hells angels.
JP
2004-10-03 03:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
Post by The Rifleman
Just think what we could have done if we were not already fighting
in
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
Post by The Rifleman
France, Spain, India, the far East Egypt and other campaigns, we
could
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
have
Post by The Rifleman
given the north american colony our full attention, and in those
thankfully
Post by The Rifleman
long gone days his Majesties troops knew how to deal with traitors .
Still
Post by The Rifleman
what the rifle regiments did to Washington DC is being repeated
today
Post by raymond o'hara
by
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
the
Post by The Rifleman
bloods and the crips :o)
Wrong city <g> (gang names)
both gangs have chapters nation wide, there are bloods and crips in
boston,
Post by raymond o'hara
new york, detroit and not just l.a.
Right........*chapters*. The actual gangs are in LA.
go to one of these chapters and tell them that.
they are national organizations like the hells angels.
Lol. Sheesh, ok, whatever you say <rolls eyes>
Gunner
2004-10-03 05:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by JP
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
Post by The Rifleman
Just think what we could have done if we were not already fighting
in
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
Post by The Rifleman
France, Spain, India, the far East Egypt and other campaigns, we
could
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
have
Post by The Rifleman
given the north american colony our full attention, and in those
thankfully
Post by The Rifleman
long gone days his Majesties troops knew how to deal with traitors
.
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
Still
Post by The Rifleman
what the rifle regiments did to Washington DC is being repeated
today
Post by raymond o'hara
by
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
the
Post by The Rifleman
bloods and the crips :o)
Wrong city <g> (gang names)
both gangs have chapters nation wide, there are bloods and crips in
boston,
Post by raymond o'hara
new york, detroit and not just l.a.
Right........*chapters*. The actual gangs are in LA.
go to one of these chapters and tell them that.
they are national organizations like the hells angels.
Lol. Sheesh, ok, whatever you say <rolls eyes>
Raymond is indeed correct. They are simply chapters of the national
organizations. Taxes are submitted, personell are interchanged (often
hit men), drug shipments are shared..the usual

Gunner

Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
JP
2004-10-03 13:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by JP
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
Post by The Rifleman
Just think what we could have done if we were not already fighting
in
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
Post by The Rifleman
France, Spain, India, the far East Egypt and other campaigns, we
could
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
have
Post by The Rifleman
given the north american colony our full attention, and in those
thankfully
Post by The Rifleman
long gone days his Majesties troops knew how to deal with traitors
.
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
Still
Post by The Rifleman
what the rifle regiments did to Washington DC is being repeated
today
Post by raymond o'hara
by
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by The Rifleman
the
Post by The Rifleman
bloods and the crips :o)
Wrong city <g> (gang names)
both gangs have chapters nation wide, there are bloods and crips in
boston,
Post by raymond o'hara
new york, detroit and not just l.a.
Right........*chapters*. The actual gangs are in LA.
go to one of these chapters and tell them that.
they are national organizations like the hells angels.
Lol. Sheesh, ok, whatever you say <rolls eyes>
Raymond is indeed correct. They are simply chapters of the national
organizations. Taxes are submitted, personell are interchanged (often
hit men), drug shipments are shared..the usual
Gunner
Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Whoosh, right over the top.
William Black
2004-10-03 08:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
go to one of these chapters and tell them that.
they are national organizations like the hells angels.
The Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club is international.
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
Gunner
2004-10-02 13:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Churchill
Sometimes Americans forget what we Canadians and British did to them!
http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557506922/qid=1096713303/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_0_3/701-2197787-6887567
Perhaps, if these memories were more clear they would comprehend the
potential threats and danger from Terrorists and WMD !
Cordially
Sometimes Canadians and the British forget American resolve....

"The British withdrew once the capital lay in ruins, sailing on to the
more economically promising targets of Alexandria and Baltimore. The
latter city's successful resistance demonstrated that the British were
not invincible. Even militia, given competent commanders and
sufficient numbers, could blunt the edge of a raiding force unable to
replace its own losses. At least as significant, according to Pitch,
was the decision not to relocate the capital even temporarily, but to
continue governing from the ruins, which conveyed the message that,
like its predecessor, this second war of independence would be fought
to a finish. In a Britain weary of conflict, that was a powerful
incentive to initiate negotiations that within four months produced
the Treaty of Ghent and confirmed America's identity as a nation."

Gunner

Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Jim Voege
2004-10-02 13:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Churchill
Sometimes Americans forget what we Canadians and British did to them!
http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557506922/qid=1096713303/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_0_3/701-2197787-6887567
Perhaps, if these memories were more clear they would comprehend the
potential threats and danger from Terrorists and WMD !
Cordially
Sometimes Canadians and the British forget American resolve....
"The British withdrew once the capital lay in ruins, sailing on to the
more economically promising targets of Alexandria and Baltimore. The
latter city's successful resistance demonstrated that the British were
not invincible. Even militia, given competent commanders and
sufficient numbers, could blunt the edge of a raiding force unable to
replace its own losses. At least as significant, according to Pitch,
was the decision not to relocate the capital even temporarily, but to
continue governing from the ruins, which conveyed the message that,
like its predecessor, this second war of independence would be fought
to a finish. In a Britain weary of conflict, that was a powerful
incentive to initiate negotiations that within four months produced
the Treaty of Ghent and confirmed America's identity as a nation."
Would you say that this analysis applies with equal force in relation to the
American expedition against York? In reverse though, of course.

Jim
pyotr filipivich
2004-10-02 15:12:05 UTC
Permalink
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
Post by Gunner
Post by Churchill
Sometimes Americans forget what we Canadians and British did to them!
http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557506922/qid=1096713303/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_0_3/701-2197787-6887567
Perhaps, if these memories were more clear they would comprehend the
potential threats and danger from Terrorists and WMD !
Cordially
Sometimes Canadians and the British forget American resolve....
"The British withdrew once the capital lay in ruins, sailing on to the
more economically promising targets of Alexandria and Baltimore. The
latter city's successful resistance demonstrated that the British were
not invincible. Even militia, given competent commanders and
sufficient numbers, could blunt the edge of a raiding force unable to
replace its own losses. At least as significant, according to Pitch,
was the decision not to relocate the capital even temporarily, but to
continue governing from the ruins, which conveyed the message that,
like its predecessor, this second war of independence would be fought
to a finish. In a Britain weary of conflict, that was a powerful
incentive to initiate negotiations that within four months produced
the Treaty of Ghent and confirmed America's identity as a nation."
People tend to forget the British have a history of long wars, and of
deciding towards the end, that some sideshow isn't worth the candle. What
we call the war of 1812 occurred at the end of a ten year period of war
with Napoleon. The War in the Americas ended pretty much when the British
could shift seasoned Regulars from the a now quiet Europe elsewhere.
Likewise in 1948. A lot of places were granted independence because of
war weariness as much as anything. Hmmm, I wonder if any ex-British
soldier put on a job application under occupation "Machine Gunner"? Unless
he was applying to one of the Mercenary outfits.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
K Horner
2004-10-02 23:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly, the
british lost the war. And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire. Then, we did it again
twenty odd years later. It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge. What
with the royal families friendship with the Nazi party.

Cordially
Post by Churchill
Sometimes Americans forget what we Canadians and British did to them!
brian w edginton
2004-10-02 23:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by K Horner
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly, the
british lost the war. And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire. Then, we did it again
twenty odd years later. It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge. What
with the royal families friendship with the Nazi party.
What about Preston Bush's banking services to the Nazis?
Went on while Europe was fighting for its life.....only stopped when
it was banned by the US govt after(from memory}, Pearl Harbour.
Which, btw, was why the US entered the war....wasn't to save anyone's
arse but their own.
But, I do thank them...they saved my arse in the process.


brianWE
Please ignore any advice I offer...
if I was smart, I wouldn't be talking to you.
David Thornley
2004-10-05 02:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by brian w edginton
it was banned by the US govt after(from memory}, Pearl Harbour.
Which, btw, was why the US entered the war....wasn't to save anyone's
arse but their own.
Not the case - the US was pushing into the war against Germany,
having supplied a good deal of illegal support for Britain and
started a shooting war in the North Atlantic.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
***@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
brian w edginton
2004-10-05 03:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thornley
Post by brian w edginton
it was banned by the US govt after(from memory}, Pearl Harbour.
Which, btw, was why the US entered the war....wasn't to save anyone's
arse but their own.
Not the case - the US was pushing into the war against Germany,
having supplied a good deal of illegal support for Britain and
started a shooting war in the North Atlantic.
Absolutely!
Roosevelt wasn't stupid enough to miss the point that a Europe
completely controlled by the Nazis would be a disaster for America's
ability to trade freely around the world.
And, face it.....America was a huge trading nation. Europe was a major
market.
Pearl Harbour gave him the only excuse the American people would
accept for a total commitment to combat.
Europe and North Africa in German hands,and the Pacific in Japanese
hands would have made the US a nonentity in terms of being a "World
Power".
And, let's not forget the indecision on the part of Central and South
American countries. Some of them could have gone either way.
America HAD to throw its hand in with the other Allies who had been
fighting the common enemy for a couple of years.
While I do appreciate what the US did for the "Free World", I don't
believe it was, entirely, altruistic.


brianWE
Please ignore any advice I offer...
if I was smart, I wouldn't be talking to you.

Jim Voege
2004-10-03 00:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by K Horner
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly,
the british lost the war.
You do not recall correctly.

Jim
Mike Kirkland
2004-10-03 02:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by K Horner
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly, the
british lost the war.
Wrong. There was a peace agreement. Niether side won. But the invasion
of Canada was stopped in its tracks so in theory *you* lost.
raymond o'hara
2004-10-03 03:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kirkland
Post by K Horner
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly, the
british lost the war.
Wrong. There was a peace agreement. Niether side won. But the invasion
of Canada was stopped in its tracks so in theory *you* lost.
.
the invasions of La. and NY were foiled too, both with significant defeats
. Plattsburg Bay on Lake Champlain and at New Orleans so if invasions
stopped is the criteria the US stopped 3 , the Niagara frontier was a
disaster for the brits too. so you guys lost too.
William Black
2004-10-03 08:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
the invasions of La. and NY were foiled too, both with significant defeats
. Plattsburg Bay on Lake Champlain and at New Orleans so if invasions
stopped is the criteria the US stopped 3 , the Niagara frontier was a
disaster for the brits too. so you guys lost too.
I think you'll find that New Orleans was fought after the treaty was signed.
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
Dallas Patterson
2004-10-03 09:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
the invasions of La. and NY were foiled too, both with significant
defeats
Post by raymond o'hara
. Plattsburg Bay on Lake Champlain and at New Orleans so if invasions
stopped is the criteria the US stopped 3 , the Niagara frontier was a
disaster for the brits too. so you guys lost too.
I think you'll find that New Orleans was fought after the treaty was signed.
So what? Britain made yet another failed attempt to invade and divide
the United States. Britain's objectives from the end of the American
Revolutionary War until sometime after the American Civil War were to
bring about the breakup of the United States and maintain control of
Canada. Britain failed to accomplish the former and succeeded at
accomplishing the latter objective. The war objectives of the United
States was to keep Britain from breaking up the United States, bring an
end to impressments of American sailors, and bring the
British-Amerindian terrorism raids on the American frontier communities
from Canada and Spanish Florida to an end. The United States succeeded
at keeping Britian from breaking up the United States, bringing a
virtual end to the British impressment of American sailors, and bringing
Brtiish-Amerindian terrorism raids on the American frontier communities
to an end, without capturing Canada to do so. Canada was no more secure
after the war than it was before the war. The United States was far more
secure after the war than it was before the war. The United States won
objectives of far greater importance to the postwar security of its
territories and people than did Britain and Canada. The United States
simply wouldn't exist today, if the United States weren't the overall
victor of the War of 1812.
The Rifleman
2004-10-03 11:13:50 UTC
Permalink
The United States won
Post by Dallas Patterson
objectives of far greater importance to the postwar security of its
territories and people than did Britain and Canada.
Yet the US has failed to expand , Nay it is culturally and economically in
decline whilst the commonwealth continues to flourish, Brits can still
travel the world in general without harm whilst many americans have to
pretend they are Canadians when they go overseas.
Jim Voege
2004-10-03 12:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by raymond o'hara
the invasions of La. and NY were foiled too, both with significant
defeats
Post by raymond o'hara
. Plattsburg Bay on Lake Champlain and at New Orleans so if invasions
stopped is the criteria the US stopped 3 , the Niagara frontier was a
disaster for the brits too. so you guys lost too.
I think you'll find that New Orleans was fought after the treaty was signed.
So what? Britain made yet another failed attempt to invade and divide the
United States. Britain's objectives from the end of the American
Revolutionary War until sometime after the American Civil War were to
bring about the breakup of the United States
Source?
and maintain control of Canada. Britain failed to accomplish the former
Strawman.
and succeeded at accomplishing the latter objective. The war objectives of
the United States was to keep Britain from breaking up the United States,
bring an end to impressments of American sailors, and bring the
British-Amerindian terrorism raids on the American frontier communities
from Canada and Spanish Florida to an end.
The primary war objective of the U.S. was to capture Canada -- something it
had been attempting since 1775. It failed. Again.
The United States succeeded at keeping Britian from breaking up the United
States, bringing a virtual end to the British impressment of American
sailors,
It is my understanding that this, *to the knowledge of the American
administration* had already been accomplished before the U.S. declaration of
war. Another strawman.
and bringing Brtiish-Amerindian terrorism raids on the American frontier
communities to an end, without capturing Canada to do so.
If they really wanted to stop Indian raiding all they had to do was to
respect Indian territory. However, the impulse to expand was too strong --
and the root cause for the War of 1812.
Canada was no more secure after the war than it was before the war.
I don't follow this. Before the war Canada would eventually face an
attempted American annexation. After the war, no such attempt was ever
again made. I'd say that Canada was infinitely more secure after the war.
In point of fact, the U.S. recognized that it had a small window of
opportunity whilst Britain was still entangled in Europe. It missed the
window and, knowing that, sued for peace.
The United States was far more secure after the war than it was before the
war. The United States won objectives of far greater importance to the
postwar security of its territories and people than did Britain and
Canada. The United States simply wouldn't exist today, if the United
States weren't the overall victor of the War of 1812.
Only if you assume that somehow the United States was threatened in 1812
which, quite frankly, is the ultimate strawman.

Jim
Mike Kirkland
2004-10-03 20:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dallas Patterson
So what? Britain made yet another failed attempt to invade and divide
the United States. Britain's objectives from the end of the American
Revolutionary War until sometime after the American Civil War were to
bring about the breakup of the United States and maintain control of
Canada. Britain failed to accomplish the former and succeeded at
accomplishing the latter objective. The war objectives of the United
States was to keep Britain from breaking up the United States, bring an
end to impressments of American sailors, and bring the
British-Amerindian terrorism raids on the American frontier communities
from Canada and Spanish Florida to an end. The United States succeeded
at keeping Britian from breaking up the United States, bringing a
virtual end to the British impressment of American sailors, and bringing
Brtiish-Amerindian terrorism raids on the American frontier communities
to an end, without capturing Canada to do so. Canada was no more secure
after the war than it was before the war. The United States was far more
secure after the war than it was before the war. The United States won
objectives of far greater importance to the postwar security of its
territories and people than did Britain and Canada. The United States
simply wouldn't exist today, if the United States weren't the overall
victor of the War of 1812.
What a load of crap. The U.S. initially attacked Canada, not the other
way around. You were the asshole invaders, and you're still the
assholes trying to control us politically.
raymond o'hara
2004-10-03 20:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kirkland
What a load of crap. The U.S. initially attacked Canada, not the other
way around. You were the asshole invaders, and you're still the
assholes trying to control us politically.
actually shithead the first offensive action of the war was the british
seizure of michilimackinac from the garrison which was unaware that war was
declared.

but like any true frostback you have no history and no interest in history.
Mike Kirkland
2004-10-04 01:01:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
but like any true frostback you have no history and no interest in history.
I'm a Brit, twatley.
Skip
2004-10-03 23:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kirkland
What a load of crap. The U.S. initially attacked Canada, not the other
way around. You were the asshole invaders, and you're still the
assholes trying to control us politically.
But you are so lovable and charming, how could we resist? With that
funny little way of talking, having a leaf for a flag and wearing
those amusing plaid shirts, who could resist looking after you?
... eh?



----------------------------

"Base not your joy upon the deeds of others, for what is given can be taken away."
The Rifleman
2004-10-03 11:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
I think you'll find that New Orleans was fought after the treaty was signed.
--
William Black
would that be when the French Navy came to the US's rescue ?
The Rifleman
2004-10-03 11:09:52 UTC
Permalink
"raymond It must be a real bitch for the americans to remember it was the
French Navy who saved the US in the end when it snuck up behind the British
forces, the US was created by the Cheese Eating Surrender monkeys and an act
of treason against your homeland, rather a sad start :o)
fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com (Frank White)
2004-10-03 17:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Rifleman
"raymond It must be a real bitch for the americans to remember it was the
French Navy who saved the US in the end when it snuck up behind the British
forces, the US was created by the Cheese Eating Surrender monkeys and an act
of treason against your homeland, rather a sad start :o)
Nonsense! We just declared the American Revolution the high point
of human history, ignored French actions in 1812, and glory in our
own importance!

With little in the way of collective memory, that's easy to do...

FW
raymond o'hara
2004-10-03 17:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Rifleman
"raymond It must be a real bitch for the americans to remember it was the
French Navy who saved the US in the end when it snuck up behind the British
forces, the US was created by the Cheese Eating Surrender monkeys and an act
of treason against your homeland, rather a sad start :o)
the french navy was not involved with the war of 1812 in any way, now if
you mean the battle of the capes at the mouth of chesapeake bay on sept 5th
1781 we here in America are grateful, it must burn youe limey ass that when
it mattered the french chased you off and ruined your american empire.

the naval battles in 1812 ,put in bay{lake erie}, plattsburg bay, {lake
champlain}where all american endevors that saw the brits crushingly defeated
, at put in bay the entire brit squadron was taken,

"Sirs, we have met the enemy and they are ours. 2 ships,2 brigs,1schooner 1
sloop."
oliver hazard perry after the battle in a letter sent to washington.
Jim Voege
2004-10-03 19:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Churchill
Post by The Rifleman
"raymond It must be a real bitch for the americans to remember it was the
French Navy who saved the US in the end when it snuck up behind the
British
Post by The Rifleman
forces, the US was created by the Cheese Eating Surrender monkeys and an
act
Post by The Rifleman
of treason against your homeland, rather a sad start :o)
the french navy was not involved with the war of 1812 in any way, now if
you mean the battle of the capes at the mouth of chesapeake bay on sept 5th
1781 we here in America are grateful, it must burn youe limey ass that when
it mattered the french chased you off and ruined your american empire.
the naval battles in 1812 ,put in bay{lake erie}, plattsburg bay, {lake
champlain}where all american endevors that saw the brits crushingly defeated
, at put in bay the entire brit squadron was taken,
"Sirs, we have met the enemy and they are ours. 2 ships,2 brigs,1schooner 1
sloop."
oliver hazard perry after the battle in a letter sent to washington.
That's absolutely true. As bad as American military leadership was during
the war, they were absolutely superb on the water.

Jim
raymond o'hara
2004-10-03 20:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Churchill
Post by The Rifleman
"raymond It must be a real bitch for the americans to remember it was the
French Navy who saved the US in the end when it snuck up behind the
British
Post by The Rifleman
forces, the US was created by the Cheese Eating Surrender monkeys and an
act
Post by The Rifleman
of treason against your homeland, rather a sad start :o)
the french navy was not involved with the war of 1812 in any way, now if
you mean the battle of the capes at the mouth of chesapeake bay on sept 5th
1781 we here in America are grateful, it must burn youe limey ass that when
it mattered the french chased you off and ruined your american empire.
the naval battles in 1812 ,put in bay{lake erie}, plattsburg bay, {lake
champlain}where all american endevors that saw the brits crushingly defeated
, at put in bay the entire brit squadron was taken,
"Sirs, we have met the enemy and they are ours. 2 ships,2
brigs,1schooner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Churchill
1
sloop."
oliver hazard perry after the battle in a letter sent to washington.
That's absolutely true. As bad as American military leadership was during
the war, they were absolutely superb on the water.
Jim
sackett's harbor, lundy's lane, chippewa, new orleans , thames. all land
defeats of british arms.
Jim Voege
2004-10-03 21:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Churchill
Post by The Rifleman
"raymond It must be a real bitch for the americans to remember it was
the
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Churchill
Post by The Rifleman
French Navy who saved the US in the end when it snuck up behind the
British
Post by The Rifleman
forces, the US was created by the Cheese Eating Surrender monkeys and
an
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Churchill
act
Post by The Rifleman
of treason against your homeland, rather a sad start :o)
the french navy was not involved with the war of 1812 in any way, now if
you mean the battle of the capes at the mouth of chesapeake bay on sept 5th
1781 we here in America are grateful, it must burn youe limey ass that when
it mattered the french chased you off and ruined your american empire.
the naval battles in 1812 ,put in bay{lake erie}, plattsburg bay, {lake
champlain}where all american endevors that saw the brits crushingly defeated
, at put in bay the entire brit squadron was taken,
"Sirs, we have met the enemy and they are ours. 2 ships,2
brigs,1schooner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Churchill
1
sloop."
oliver hazard perry after the battle in a letter sent to washington.
That's absolutely true. As bad as American military leadership was during
the war, they were absolutely superb on the water.
Jim
sackett's harbor, lundy's lane, chippewa, new orleans , thames. all land
defeats of british arms.
Lundy's Lane was, at best, a draw. And as I'm sure you are aware, there is
a much, much longer list of clear British victories on land.

Jim
Mudhead
2004-10-03 23:15:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 17:22:23 -0400, "Jim Voege"
Post by Jim Voege
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Churchill
Post by The Rifleman
"raymond It must be a real bitch for the americans to remember it was
the
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Churchill
Post by The Rifleman
French Navy who saved the US in the end when it snuck up behind the
British
Post by The Rifleman
forces, the US was created by the Cheese Eating Surrender monkeys and
an
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Churchill
act
Post by The Rifleman
of treason against your homeland, rather a sad start :o)
the french navy was not involved with the war of 1812 in any way, now if
you mean the battle of the capes at the mouth of chesapeake bay on sept 5th
1781 we here in America are grateful, it must burn youe limey ass that when
it mattered the french chased you off and ruined your american empire.
the naval battles in 1812 ,put in bay{lake erie}, plattsburg bay, {lake
champlain}where all american endevors that saw the brits crushingly defeated
, at put in bay the entire brit squadron was taken,
"Sirs, we have met the enemy and they are ours. 2 ships,2
brigs,1schooner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Churchill
1
sloop."
oliver hazard perry after the battle in a letter sent to washington.
That's absolutely true. As bad as American military leadership was during
the war, they were absolutely superb on the water.
Jim
sackett's harbor, lundy's lane, chippewa, new orleans , thames. all land
defeats of british arms.
Lundy's Lane was, at best, a draw. And as I'm sure you are aware, there is
a much, much longer list of clear British victories on land.
Jim
As I recall you ended up with Detroit after the end of the war. That
in itself is a clear victory for the fledgling Canada.
raymond o'hara
2004-10-03 23:47:39 UTC
Permalink
"Mudhead" >
Post by Mudhead
As I recall you ended up with Detroit after the end of the war. That
in itself is a clear victory for the fledgling Canada.
detroit was US land aftwer the rev but the brits maintained a post ther
illegally.
and hamilton ont is sooo much better.
Jim Voege
2004-10-04 00:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
"Mudhead" >
Post by Mudhead
As I recall you ended up with Detroit after the end of the war. That
in itself is a clear victory for the fledgling Canada.
detroit was US land aftwer the rev but the brits maintained a post ther
illegally.
and hamilton ont is sooo much better.
Is it? I kind of like Hamilton but a lot of Ontarians think of it as the
armpit of the province, probably because of all the heavy industry along the
lake.

Is Detroit that bad?

Jim
raymond o'hara
2004-10-03 23:48:52 UTC
Permalink
"Jim Voege" > >
Post by Jim Voege
Lundy's Lane was, at best, a draw. And as I'm sure you are aware, there is
a much, much longer list of clear British victories on land.
Jim
start naming and make sure your list is longer . and i can add more if you
like.
Jim Voege
2004-10-04 00:36:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
"Jim Voege" > >
Post by Jim Voege
Lundy's Lane was, at best, a draw. And as I'm sure you are aware, there
is
Post by Jim Voege
a much, much longer list of clear British victories on land.
Jim
start naming and make sure your list is longer . and i can add more if you
like.
This won't be complete. Fort Mackinac, Detroit, Queenston, Fort Meigs,
Chateauguay, Chrysler’s Farm, La Colle Mill, Fort Erie, Stoney Creek, Beaver
Dam ...

Jim
raymond o'hara
2004-10-04 11:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
Post by raymond o'hara
"Jim Voege" > >
Post by Jim Voege
Lundy's Lane was, at best, a draw. And as I'm sure you are aware, there
is
Post by Jim Voege
a much, much longer list of clear British victories on land.
Jim
start naming and make sure your list is longer . and i can add more if you
like.
This won't be complete. Fort Mackinac, Detroit, Queenston, Fort Meigs,
Chateauguay, Chrysler's Farm, La Colle Mill, Fort Erie, Stoney Creek,
Beaver
Post by Jim Voege
Dam ...
Jim
fort meigs was an american victory , it was won by w.h. harrison. so go back
and recheck your list.
Jim Voege
2004-10-04 13:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by raymond o'hara
"Jim Voege" > >
Post by Jim Voege
Lundy's Lane was, at best, a draw. And as I'm sure you are aware,
there
Post by Jim Voege
Post by raymond o'hara
is
Post by Jim Voege
a much, much longer list of clear British victories on land.
Jim
start naming and make sure your list is longer . and i can add more if
you
Post by Jim Voege
Post by raymond o'hara
like.
This won't be complete. Fort Mackinac, Detroit, Queenston, Fort Meigs,
Chateauguay, Chrysler's Farm, La Colle Mill, Fort Erie, Stoney Creek,
Beaver
Post by Jim Voege
Dam ...
Jim
fort meigs was an american victory , it was won by w.h. harrison. so go back
and recheck your list.
Ray, I am aware that the fort wasn't taken. However, given the catastrophic
events for the Americans outside the fort (of the entire 800 man left column
of the relief force only 150 escaped death or capture), that would seem to
me to be a trifle.

Jim
raymond o'hara
2004-10-04 17:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by raymond o'hara
"Jim Voege" > >
Post by Jim Voege
Lundy's Lane was, at best, a draw. And as I'm sure you are aware,
there
Post by Jim Voege
Post by raymond o'hara
is
Post by Jim Voege
a much, much longer list of clear British victories on land.
Jim
start naming and make sure your list is longer . and i can add more if
you
Post by Jim Voege
Post by raymond o'hara
like.
This won't be complete. Fort Mackinac, Detroit, Queenston, Fort Meigs,
Chateauguay, Chrysler's Farm, La Colle Mill, Fort Erie, Stoney Creek,
Beaver
Post by Jim Voege
Dam ...
Jim
fort meigs was an american victory , it was won by w.h. harrison. so go back
and recheck your list.
Ray, I am aware that the fort wasn't taken. However, given the catastrophic
events for the Americans outside the fort (of the entire 800 man left column
of the relief force only 150 escaped death or capture), that would seem to
me to be a trifle.
Jim
the bris retreated defeated . and at ft MICHILImackinac the brits took
it from a care taker force who was unaware that war was declared. itwas
recaptured when the fought a real battle.
Jim Voege
2004-10-04 17:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by raymond o'hara
"Jim Voege" > >
Post by Jim Voege
Lundy's Lane was, at best, a draw. And as I'm sure you are aware,
there
Post by Jim Voege
Post by raymond o'hara
is
Post by Jim Voege
a much, much longer list of clear British victories on land.
Jim
start naming and make sure your list is longer . and i can add more
if
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
you
Post by Jim Voege
Post by raymond o'hara
like.
This won't be complete. Fort Mackinac, Detroit, Queenston, Fort Meigs,
Chateauguay, Chrysler's Farm, La Colle Mill, Fort Erie, Stoney Creek,
Beaver
Post by Jim Voege
Dam ...
Jim
fort meigs was an american victory , it was won by w.h. harrison. so go back
and recheck your list.
Ray, I am aware that the fort wasn't taken. However, given the
catastrophic
Post by Jim Voege
events for the Americans outside the fort (of the entire 800 man left
column
Post by Jim Voege
of the relief force only 150 escaped death or capture), that would seem to
me to be a trifle.
Jim
the bris retreated defeated . and at ft MICHILImackinac the brits took
it from a care taker force who was unaware that war was declared. itwas
recaptured when the fought a real battle.
All trifles. The bottom line is that the U.S. wanted Canada. When the war
was over they owned none of it. Simple really.

Jim
Dallas Patterson
2004-10-04 19:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by raymond o'hara
"Jim Voege" > >
Post by Jim Voege
Lundy's Lane was, at best, a draw. And as I'm sure you are aware,
there
Post by Jim Voege
Post by raymond o'hara
is
Post by Jim Voege
a much, much longer list of clear British victories on land.
Jim
start naming and make sure your list is longer . and i can add more
if
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
you
Post by Jim Voege
Post by raymond o'hara
like.
This won't be complete. Fort Mackinac, Detroit, Queenston, Fort Meigs,
Chateauguay, Chrysler's Farm, La Colle Mill, Fort Erie, Stoney Creek,
Beaver
Post by Jim Voege
Dam ...
Jim
fort meigs was an american victory , it was won by w.h. harrison. so go back
and recheck your list.
Ray, I am aware that the fort wasn't taken. However, given the
catastrophic
Post by Jim Voege
events for the Americans outside the fort (of the entire 800 man left
column
Post by Jim Voege
of the relief force only 150 escaped death or capture), that would seem to
me to be a trifle.
Jim
the bris retreated defeated . and at ft MICHILImackinac the brits took
it from a care taker force who was unaware that war was declared. itwas
recaptured when the fought a real battle.
All trifles. The bottom line is that the U.S. wanted Canada. When the war
was over they owned none of it. Simple really.
Jim
The principal purpose of the American invasion of Canada was to
eliminate the use of Canadian territory as a safe haven and base of
operations for terror raids against the American settlements on the
Western frontiers, just as Canada was used by the French during the
previous French and Indian Wars. After the War of 1812, the hostile
Indian nations had been defeated decisively enough to force an end to
the terror raids on American communities sponsored from Canada by
Britain. Consequently, the abatement of the threat from Canada made
further invasions of Canada unnecessary and undesirable. It was not
until the American Civil War that Canada was once more used as a serious
threat to invade the United States, and the United States responded to
the threat by letting Britain know Canada would be counterattacked if
British troops invaded or permitted any more Confederate forces to
continue any further raids from Canadian territory. This remained the
situation until Britain and Canada allied themselves to the United
States instead of continuing to sponsor efforts to raid American
communities and attempt to destabilize the U.S. government.
Jim Voege
2004-10-04 21:12:06 UTC
Permalink
The principal purpose of the American invasion of Canada was to eliminate
the use of Canadian territory as a safe haven and base of operations for
terror raids against the American settlements on the Western frontiers,
just as Canada was used by the French during the previous French and
Indian Wars.
I don't accept this for a minute. There would have been zero raiding were
it not for American incursions onto Indian lands. However, the U.S. coveted
the Indian lands just as they coveted British land further north and they
were prepared to accept the inevitable consequences to get them -- up to and
including war.
After the War of 1812, the hostile Indian nations had been defeated
decisively enough
For which we should read "virtually irradicated". > to force an end to
the terror raids on American communities sponsored from Canada by Britain.
This genocidal greed for land was later to repeat itself in the Black Hawk
War in 1932 and then west of the Mississippi against the plains and
southwest Indians. Or would you have us believe that these tribes too
largely disappeared purely as a reaction to "terror raids" instigated by the
British?
Consequently, the abatement of the threat from Canada made further
invasions of Canada unnecessary and undesirable. It was not until the
American Civil War that Canada was once more used as a serious threat to
invade the United States, and the United States responded to the threat by
letting Britain know Canada would be counterattacked if British troops
invaded or permitted any more Confederate forces to continue any further
raids from Canadian territory.
Source please. This surely is a matter of public record.
This remained the situation until Britain and Canada allied themselves to
the United States instead of continuing to sponsor efforts to raid
American communities and attempt to destabilize the U.S. government.
There was what, one tiny raid at St Albans VT -- really nothing more than a
bank robbery -- by some 21 Confederate prisoners that the Union authorities
had carelessly let escape into Canada. Later the organization of whole
battalions of Fenians in the U.S. to operate against the British in Canada
was a much more serious matter. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of.

Further, the entire suggestion is off. Starting a war with Britain during
its civil war would have been the last thing the U.S. would have done. It
is as mind-bending a proposition as the suggestion that the British were
trying to provoke a war with America whist engaged in Europe against
Napoleon.

Jim
Spiv
2004-10-04 21:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
The principal purpose of the American invasion of Canada was to eliminate
the use of Canadian territory as a safe haven and base of operations for
terror raids against the American settlements on the Western frontiers,
just as Canada was used by the French during the previous French and
Indian Wars.
I don't accept this for a minute. There would have been zero raiding were
it not for American incursions onto Indian lands. However, the U.S. coveted
the Indian lands just as they coveted British land further north and they
were prepared to accept the inevitable consequences to get them -- up to and
including war.
After the War of 1812, the hostile Indian nations had been defeated
decisively enough
For which we should read "virtually irradicated". > to force an end to
the terror raids on American communities sponsored from Canada by Britain.
This genocidal greed for land was later to repeat itself in the Black Hawk
War in 1932 and then west of the Mississippi against the plains and
southwest Indians. Or would you have us believe that these tribes too
largely disappeared purely as a reaction to "terror raids" instigated by the
British?
Consequently, the abatement of the threat from Canada made further
invasions of Canada unnecessary and undesirable. It was not until the
American Civil War that Canada was once more used as a serious threat to
invade the United States, and the United States responded to the threat by
letting Britain know Canada would be counterattacked if British troops
invaded or permitted any more Confederate forces to continue any further
raids from Canadian territory.
Source please. This surely is a matter of public record.
This remained the situation until Britain and Canada allied themselves to
the United States instead of continuing to sponsor efforts to raid
American communities and attempt to destabilize the U.S. government.
There was what, one tiny raid at St Albans VT -- really nothing more than a
bank robbery -- by some 21 Confederate prisoners that the Union authorities
had carelessly let escape into Canada. Later the organization of whole
battalions of Fenians in the U.S. to operate against the British in Canada
was a much more serious matter. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of.
Further, the entire suggestion is off. Starting a war with Britain during
its civil war would have been the last thing the U.S. would have done. It
is as mind-bending a proposition as the suggestion that the British were
trying to provoke a war with America whist engaged in Europe against
Napoleon.
Jim
I have the impression that the war of 1814 and the US civil war in the 1860s
are being mixed up.
raymond o'hara
2004-10-04 20:10:53 UTC
Permalink
"Jim Voege"
Jim
the u.s did not go to war to capture canada, the u.s. went to war to get
freedom of the seas and british forces out of america , the invasion of
canada was an off the cuff adventure that ended with the u.s. moving at will
through western ontario after the battle of the thames but we went home
after the treaty. the u.s. got the brits off american tertitory and the
brits never bothered our shipping again.
Jim Voege
2004-10-04 21:14:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
the u.s did not go to war to capture canada, the u.s. went to war to get
freedom of the seas and british forces out of america ,
This is a difference without a distinction.
Post by raymond o'hara
the invasion of
canada was an off the cuff adventure that ended with the u.s. moving at will
through western ontario after the battle of the thames but we went home
after the treaty. the u.s. got the brits off american tertitory and the
brits never bothered our shipping again.
This sounds good except it doesn't explain why the U.S. declared war *after*
it was informed that Britain had agreed to order its Navy to stop impressing
American seamen.

Face it. The U.S. wanted Canada plain and simple. Let's move on.

Jim
Mike Kirkland
2004-10-03 20:48:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:09:52 +0100, "The Rifleman"
Post by The Rifleman
"raymond It must be a real bitch for the americans to remember it was the
French Navy who saved the US in the end when it snuck up behind the British
forces, the US was created by the Cheese Eating Surrender monkeys and an act
of treason against your homeland, rather a sad start :o)
Yep, yanks are nothing but a bunch of treasonous traitors to the
British Crown. Shame!
CW
2004-10-04 01:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kirkland
Yep, yanks are nothing but a bunch of treasonous traitors to the
British Crown. Shame!
And proud of it.
Mike Kirkland
2004-10-04 02:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by CW
And proud of it.
And who's now your closest ally? You don't deserve us if you are proud
of being a turncoat.
CW
2004-10-04 02:31:53 UTC
Permalink
You have a choice.
Post by Mike Kirkland
Post by CW
And proud of it.
And who's now your closest ally? You don't deserve us if you are proud
of being a turncoat.
Mike Kirkland
2004-10-04 06:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by CW
You have a choice.
What do you have to be proud about? You are less free than Canada, you
rape the land of its resources, and your civil rights record is
atrocious.
Jeff Urs
2004-10-04 07:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kirkland
What do you have to be proud about? You are less free than Canada,
That is, as they say, debatable.
Post by Mike Kirkland
you rape the land of its resources,
Guilty as charged.
Post by Mike Kirkland
and your civil rights record is atrocious.
No worse than might be expected for our unique situation (although
much worse, of course, than could have been hoped for).

In most of the places into which the British introduced African
slavery, it seems to me, the slaves were imported in such numbers that
they became the largest ethnic group, making civil rights problems
unlikely when independence was achieved. Slavery was not nearly so
prevalent here, so the African-descended population is much smaller --
large enough to cause friction, not nearly large enough to give them
much political power.

By the way, remind me which side the British supported when we were
settling our slavery issue?
--
Jeff
Spiv
2004-10-04 07:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Urs
Post by Mike Kirkland
What do you have to be proud about? You are less free than Canada,
That is, as they say, debatable.
Post by Mike Kirkland
you rape the land of its resources,
Guilty as charged.
Post by Mike Kirkland
and your civil rights record is atrocious.
No worse than might be expected for our unique situation (although
much worse, of course, than could have been hoped for).
In most of the places into which the British introduced African
slavery, it seems to me, the slaves were imported in such numbers that
they became the largest ethnic group, making civil rights problems
unlikely when independence was achieved. Slavery was not nearly so
prevalent here, so the African-descended population is much smaller --
large enough to cause friction, not nearly large enough to give them
much political power.
By the way, remind me which side the British supported when we were
settling our slavery issue?
Both. The laid shipbuilders on the Mersey were building ships for both
sides on adjacent slipways.
Jim Voege
2004-10-04 13:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Urs
Post by Mike Kirkland
What do you have to be proud about? You are less free than Canada,
That is, as they say, debatable.
Indeed. My perception is that there really isn't a measurable difference,
all things considered.

Jim
Mike Kirkland
2004-10-04 16:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Urs
By the way, remind me which side the British supported when we were
settling our slavery issue?
The movement to abolish slavery for economic and humanitarian reasons
began in the 18th cent. Britain outlawed (1807) the slave trade and
abolished (1833) slavery in the British Empire.

The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University
Press. Copyright © 1995 by Columbia University Press. All rights
reserved.
Giftzwerg
2004-10-04 17:59:16 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@email.here
says...
Post by Mike Kirkland
Post by Jeff Urs
By the way, remind me which side the British supported when we were
settling our slavery issue?
The movement to abolish slavery for economic and humanitarian reasons
began in the 18th cent. Britain outlawed (1807) the slave trade and
abolished (1833) slavery in the British Empire.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University
Press. Copyright © 1995 by Columbia University Press. All rights
reserved.
Where do you get your economic lore? The World Book?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If it weren't for the small matter of the war for civilization,
I'd find it hard to resist a Kerry Presidency. Groucho Marx once
observed that an audience will laugh at an actress playing an old
lady pretending to fall downstairs, but, for a professional comic
to laugh, it has to be a real old lady. That's how I feel about
the Kerry campaign."
- Mark Steyn
Peter H. Granzeau
2004-10-04 18:52:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:59:16 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
says...
Post by Mike Kirkland
Post by Jeff Urs
By the way, remind me which side the British supported when we were
settling our slavery issue?
The movement to abolish slavery for economic and humanitarian reasons
began in the 18th cent. Britain outlawed (1807) the slave trade and
abolished (1833) slavery in the British Empire.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University
Press. Copyright © 1995 by Columbia University Press. All rights
reserved.
Where do you get your economic lore? The World Book?
A gratuitous insult that adds nothing to the discussion.

The fact remains that although the British Empire had outlawed slavery
within its own borders, it supported the slave-owning Confederate
States of America. It finally took a threat of war by Minister to
Great Britain Charles Francis Adams (entirely on his own authority, by
the way, in no way authorized by either Lincoln or Seward) to stop the
delivery of warships by British shipbuilders to the Confederacy.
Dallas Patterson
2004-10-04 18:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter H. Granzeau
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:59:16 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
says...
Post by Mike Kirkland
Post by Jeff Urs
By the way, remind me which side the British supported when we were
settling our slavery issue?
The movement to abolish slavery for economic and humanitarian reasons
began in the 18th cent. Britain outlawed (1807) the slave trade and
abolished (1833) slavery in the British Empire.
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia is licensed from Columbia University
Press. Copyright © 1995 by Columbia University Press. All rights
reserved.
Where do you get your economic lore? The World Book?
A gratuitous insult that adds nothing to the discussion.
The fact remains that although the British Empire had outlawed slavery
within its own borders, it supported the slave-owning Confederate
States of America. It finally took a threat of war by Minister to
Great Britain Charles Francis Adams (entirely on his own authority, by
the way, in no way authorized by either Lincoln or Seward) to stop the
delivery of warships by British shipbuilders to the Confederacy.
Also, some of the captains of the Confederate warships were British
Royal Navy cpatains and other naval officers who were "theoretically" on
leave of absence or retirement from the Royal Navy.
raymond o'hara
2004-10-04 20:14:23 UTC
Permalink
"Dallas Patterson" >
Post by Dallas Patterson
Also, some of the captains of the Confederate warships were British
Royal Navy cpatains and other naval officers who were "theoretically" on
leave of absence or retirement from the Royal Navy.
the brits built ships for the confeds and they lent some men to semmes for
the alabama's fight with kearsarge but no british rn captains commanded
southern ships.
Spiv
2004-10-04 21:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
"Dallas Patterson" >
Post by Dallas Patterson
Also, some of the captains of the Confederate warships were British
Royal Navy cpatains and other naval officers who were "theoretically" on
leave of absence or retirement from the Royal Navy.
the brits built ships for the confeds
They also built them for the north as well.
Post by raymond o'hara
and they lent some men to semmes for
the alabama's fight with kearsarge but no british rn captains commanded
southern ships.
Mike Kirkland
2004-10-05 01:52:36 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:52:20 -0400, Peter H. Granzeau
Post by Peter H. Granzeau
The fact remains that although the British Empire had outlawed slavery
within its own borders, it supported the slave-owning Confederate
States of America. It finally took a threat of war by Minister to
Great Britain Charles Francis Adams (entirely on his own authority, by
the way, in no way authorized by either Lincoln or Seward) to stop the
delivery of warships by British shipbuilders to the Confederacy.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm
To be sure, the Southern nation was based on the institution of
chattel slavery-a completely repugnant anachronism by the middle of
the nineteenth century. Neither the British nor the French people
would go along with any policy that involved fighting to preserve
slavery. But up to the fall of 1862 slavery was not an issue in the
war. The Federal government had explicitly declared that it was
fighting solely to save the Union. If a Southern emissary wanted to
convince Europeans that they could aid the South without thereby
aiding slavery, he could prove his case by citing the words of the
Federal President and Congress. As far as Europe was concerned, no
moral issue was involved; the game of power politics could be played
with a clear conscience.
So it was played, and the threat of European intervention was
real and immediate. Outright war with England nearly took place in the
fall of 1861, when a hot-headed US. naval officer, Captain Charles
Wilkes, undertook to twist the lion's tail and got more of a reaction
than anyone was prepared for.
David Thornley
2004-10-05 02:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kirkland
http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm
To be sure, the Southern nation was based on the institution of
chattel slavery-a completely repugnant anachronism by the middle of
the nineteenth century. Neither the British nor the French people
would go along with any policy that involved fighting to preserve
slavery. But up to the fall of 1862 slavery was not an issue in the
war.
Right - it was not until the Emancipation Proclamation that the war
became anti-slavery. After that, it became politically impossible
for the British or French to openly support the Confederacy.

This didn't mean that there was no covert support; relations between
the US and Britain were not necessarily friendly at this period.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
***@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Mike Kirkland
2004-10-05 01:43:52 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:59:16 -0400, Giftzwerg
Post by Giftzwerg
Where do you get your economic lore? The World Book?
CIA Factbook.
Gunner
2004-10-04 08:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kirkland
Post by CW
You have a choice.
What do you have to be proud about? You are less free than Canada, you
rape the land of its resources, and your civil rights record is
atrocious.
You are talking about the British, are you not?

Gunner

Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Spiv
2004-10-04 08:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Mike Kirkland
Post by CW
You have a choice.
What do you have to be proud about? You are less free than Canada, you
rape the land of its resources, and your civil rights record is
atrocious.
You are talking about the British, are you not?
On the last point no. And the second point is that we do not use the land to
its full potential for the benefit of the people.
K Horner
2004-10-05 00:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kirkland
Post by CW
You have a choice.
What do you have to be proud about? You are less free than Canada, you
rape the land of its resources, and your civil rights record is
atrocious.
Whenever someone starts to bad mouth the way of life inthe U.S., I have only
one question. Why is so damn many people want to come here? Perhaps we
should just send them onto Canada, or over to England.
K Horner
2004-10-05 00:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Kirkland
Post by CW
And proud of it.
And who's now your closest ally? You don't deserve us if you are proud
of being a turncoat.
Well, strangely enough, Germany is in some ways a closer ally than Britian.
Mike Kirkland
2004-10-05 01:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by K Horner
Well, strangely enough, Germany is in some ways a closer ally than Britian.
How do you figure that? How many troops did you send to Iraq?
Jim Voege
2004-10-03 12:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by raymond o'hara
Post by Mike Kirkland
Post by K Horner
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly,
the
Post by Mike Kirkland
Post by K Horner
british lost the war.
Wrong. There was a peace agreement. Niether side won. But the invasion
of Canada was stopped in its tracks so in theory *you* lost.
.
the invasions of La. and NY were foiled too, both with significant defeats
. Plattsburg Bay on Lake Champlain
Did the British have territorial designs on US territory? Not that I'm
aware although I invite you to correct this. But if not, then any raids
("invasions) is too large a word, need to be seen for what they were --
aggressive-defensive operations which, BTW, were entirely successful,
regardless of tactical outcomes.
Post by raymond o'hara
and at New Orleans
As noted by William, battle that occurs after the ultimate treaty is signed
is necessarily irrelevant to the question of who "won".
Post by raymond o'hara
so if invasions
stopped is the criteria the US stopped 3,
Many more than 3 actually, just as there were many more incusions by the US
into Canada that you are note taking into account and all of them were
similarly turned back -- not exactly what the U.S. had hoped for when they
initiated the war while, on the other hand, the British in Canada were
entirely satisfied with a return to the status quo ante bellum. They badly
betrayed their Indian allies in the process however.
Post by raymond o'hara
the Niagara frontier was a
disaster for the brits too. so you guys lost too.
A disaster? How so? If you are referring to the casualties taken at
Lundy's Lane, they were indeed approximately equal to American casualties,
slightly greater actually IIRC. And depredations against civilians on
either side of the Niagara River appear to have been about equally matched.
But the bottom line is that at the end of the day the Americans had been
forced back onto their own side of the river.

Jim
Gregory E. Garland
2004-10-03 13:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
Did the British have territorial designs on US territory? Not that I'm
aware although I invite you to correct this.
They wanted most of the Northwest Territory to ensure their control of the
fur trade and give them access to the Mississippi River. The actual proposal
was to create an "Indian" buffer state which would be garrisoned by British
military forces.
Jim Voege
2004-10-03 14:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory E. Garland
Post by Jim Voege
Did the British have territorial designs on US territory? Not that I'm
aware although I invite you to correct this.
They wanted most of the Northwest Territory to ensure their control of the
fur trade and give them access to the Mississippi River. The actual proposal
was to create an "Indian" buffer state which would be garrisoned by British
military forces.
Which Northwest Territory are we talking about now?

Jim
Don Phillipson
2004-10-03 18:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory E. Garland
They wanted most of the Northwest Territory to ensure their control of the
fur trade and give them access to the Mississippi River. The actual proposal
was to create an "Indian" buffer state which would be garrisoned by
British military forces.
This may not be partly wrong. Treaties concluding the
French & Indian War proclaimed that western Indian
land would not be settled by English or Americans.
This would have left Indian lands as a buffer state
between the English-owned 13 Colonies and French-
owned Louisiana (the Prairies). But no one proposed
putting a garrison there. The earlier Queen Anne's
Proclamation guaranteed Indian control of all Indian land.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Jim Voege
2004-10-03 19:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Gregory E. Garland
They wanted most of the Northwest Territory to ensure their control of
the
Post by Gregory E. Garland
fur trade and give them access to the Mississippi River. The actual proposal
was to create an "Indian" buffer state which would be garrisoned by
British military forces.
This may not be partly wrong. Treaties concluding the
French & Indian War proclaimed that western Indian
land would not be settled by English or Americans.
This would have left Indian lands as a buffer state
between the English-owned 13 Colonies and French-
owned Louisiana (the Prairies). But no one proposed
putting a garrison there. The earlier Queen Anne's
Proclamation guaranteed Indian control of all Indian land.
So what happened? Did the Americans consider themselves not bound by these
treaties?

Jim
Gregory E. Garland
2004-10-03 20:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Gregory E. Garland
Post by Jim Voege
Did the British have territorial designs on US territory? Not that I'm
aware although I invite you to correct this.
They wanted most of the Northwest Territory to ensure their control of the
fur trade and give them access to the Mississippi River. The actual proposal
was to create an "Indian" buffer state which would be garrisoned by British
military forces.
Which Northwest Territory are we talking about now?
The U.S. Northwest Territory, roughly bounded by the Ohio River on the S/SE,
the Mississippi River on the W, and the Great Lakes on the N. The British
had
promised their Indian allies that they would never seek a separate peace
with
the U.S. without the creation of such a state in exchange for their support
during the war. As usual, the Native tribes got shafted.
Jim Voege
2004-10-03 21:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory E. Garland
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Gregory E. Garland
Post by Jim Voege
Did the British have territorial designs on US territory? Not that I'm
aware although I invite you to correct this.
They wanted most of the Northwest Territory to ensure their control of the
fur trade and give them access to the Mississippi River. The actual proposal
was to create an "Indian" buffer state which would be garrisoned by British
military forces.
Which Northwest Territory are we talking about now?
The U.S. Northwest Territory, roughly bounded by the Ohio River on the S/SE,
the Mississippi River on the W, and the Great Lakes on the N. The British
had
promised their Indian allies that they would never seek a separate peace
with
the U.S. without the creation of such a state in exchange for their support
during the war. As usual, the Native tribes got shafted.
Indeed. A real disgrace.

Jim
The Rifleman
2004-10-03 11:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by K Horner
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly, the
british lost the war.
It was not really a war as such in british eyes because they simply viewed
it and a colony not even fully established, If we were established as a
truly recognised place we would have done they same as we did with the
established colony in the Falklands


And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
Post by K Horner
upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire.
Needed??? I dont think so, welcome none the less but US forces only
arrived in the dying months of the war


Then, we did it again
Post by K Horner
twenty odd years later
Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
turned against the germans, esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
shortened the war.

. It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge.
Nor do we for rescuing the US in Korea or teaching the US how to fight in
Vietnam



What
Post by K Horner
with the royal families friendship with the Nazi party.
Would that be the same Nazi party that was still active in the US as late as
Sept 1941??, Would that be the same Nazi party whose members were taken to
the US to create NBC weapons for the US of A ? ;0)
Post by K Horner
Cordially
Quite
Churchill
2004-10-03 12:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Rifleman
Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
turned against the germans, esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
shortened the war.
. It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge.
Well, the US did have the Lend Lease Agreement and supplied the Russians
too.
Jim Voege
2004-10-03 13:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Rifleman
Post by K Horner
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly,
the
Post by K Horner
british lost the war.
It was not really a war as such in british eyes because they simply viewed
it and a colony not even fully established, If we were established as a
truly recognised place we would have done they same as we did with the
established colony in the Falklands
And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
Post by K Horner
upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire.
Needed??? I dont think so, welcome none the less but US forces only
arrived in the dying months of the war
Not so. When the Americans started arriving in force the allies were still
reeling from the German Spring 1918 offensives. The allied position, at
best, was a stalemate. Once the U.S. was able to field corps-sized
formations the balance rapidly tipped in allied favour. So while it is true
that American participation in WWI was dreadfully late, the contribution,
when it came, was utterly decisive.
Post by The Rifleman
Then, we did it again
Post by K Horner
twenty odd years later
Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
turned against the germans,
This is just wrong. Germany continued on the ascendant until a year later
with the twin defeats at Alamein and Stalingrad. Further, it is entirely
conceivable that the course of the fighting on the eastern front would have
taken an entirely different turn had the Axis not been faced with the
presence of US troops in the Mediterrean and across the Channel.
Post by The Rifleman
esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
shortened the war.
. It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge.
Nor do we for rescuing the US in Korea or teaching the US how to fight in
Vietnam
If you're going to go trolling you should use better bait.

Jim
Spiv
2004-10-03 23:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
Post by K Horner
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly,
the
Post by K Horner
british lost the war.
It was not really a war as such in british eyes because they simply viewed
it and a colony not even fully established, If we were established as a
truly recognised place we would have done they same as we did with the
established colony in the Falklands
And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
Post by K Horner
upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire.
Needed??? I dont think so, welcome none the less but US forces only
arrived in the dying months of the war
Not so. When the Americans started arriving in force the allies were still
reeling from the German Spring 1918 offensives. The allied position, at
best, was a stalemate. Once the U.S. was able to field corps-sized
formations the balance rapidly tipped in allied favour. So while it is true
that American participation in WWI was dreadfully late, the contribution,
when it came, was utterly decisive.
The US only came into WW1 after the big push started that ended the war,.
US contribution in the fields was so small it was hardly worth considering.
US involvement forced the Germans to surrender as they were at the end of
their tether. The thought of having to face even another large army in 1919,
the US army, was just too much. The US politically tipped the balance, but
not in the field.
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
Then, we did it again
Post by K Horner
twenty odd years later
Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
turned against the germans,
This is just wrong. Germany continued on the ascendant until a year later
with the twin defeats at Alamein and Stalingrad.
Not so. They were on the defensive in Dec 1941 when the Soviets stopped the
German advance and counter attacked near Moscow.
Post by Jim Voege
Further, it is entirely
conceivable that the course of the fighting on the eastern front would have
taken an entirely different turn had the Axis not been faced with the
presence of US troops in the Mediterrean and across the Channel.
It would have taken longer that's all. Once the Germans had not taken out
the UK they were doomed. Eventually they were going to loose.
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
shortened the war.
. It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge.
Nor do we for rescuing the US in Korea or teaching the US how to fight in
Vietnam
If you're going to go trolling you should use better bait.
Didn't the Brits get you off the beach in Korea? The Brits also stopped the
Chinese offensive.
Jim Voege
2004-10-04 00:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
Post by K Horner
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall
correctly,
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
the
Post by K Horner
british lost the war.
It was not really a war as such in british eyes because they simply
viewed
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
it and a colony not even fully established, If we were established as a
truly recognised place we would have done they same as we did with the
established colony in the Falklands
And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
Post by K Horner
upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire.
Needed??? I dont think so, welcome none the less but US forces only
arrived in the dying months of the war
Not so. When the Americans started arriving in force the allies were
still
Post by Jim Voege
reeling from the German Spring 1918 offensives. The allied position, at
best, was a stalemate. Once the U.S. was able to field corps-sized
formations the balance rapidly tipped in allied favour. So while it is
true
Post by Jim Voege
that American participation in WWI was dreadfully late, the contribution,
when it came, was utterly decisive.
The US only came into WW1 after the big push started that ended the war,.
You are, quite simply wrong. The Americans were a very large part of that
"big push". Indeed it would not have been possible without American
participation.
Post by K Horner
US contribution in the fields was so small it was hardly worth
considering.
US force levels in France in the Autumn of 1918 were, I think, about a
million *fresh* men. They were a very big deal indeed.
Post by K Horner
US involvement forced the Germans to surrender as they were at the end of
their tether. The thought of having to face even another large army in 1919,
the US army, was just too much. The US politically tipped the balance, but
not in the field.
Jesus. The U.S. took 116,000 casualties in WWI. Most of those in the
Argonne battles.
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
Then, we did it again
Post by K Horner
twenty odd years later
Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939
you
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
turned against the germans,
This is just wrong. Germany continued on the ascendant until a year later
with the twin defeats at Alamein and Stalingrad.
Not so. They were on the defensive in Dec 1941 when the Soviets stopped the
German advance and counter attacked near Moscow.
What are you just going to ignore the German offensive in 1942? They were
no where near Stalingrad, for example in December 1941. They advanced all
the way through central and eastern Ukraine to the Caucuses in '42.
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Further, it is entirely
conceivable that the course of the fighting on the eastern front would
have
Post by Jim Voege
taken an entirely different turn had the Axis not been faced with the
presence of US troops in the Mediterrean and across the Channel.
It would have taken longer that's all. Once the Germans had not taken out
the UK they were doomed. Eventually they were going to loose.
What do you figure Britain could have done in Europe without the US?
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
shortened the war.
. It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge.
Nor do we for rescuing the US in Korea or teaching the US how to fight
in
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
Vietnam
If you're going to go trolling you should use better bait.
Didn't the Brits get you off the beach in Korea?
Not me. I'm not that old. It also sounds like you think I'm a Yank. I
ain't.
Post by K Horner
The Brits also stopped the
Chinese offensive.
Commonwealth troops certainly participated in that fight, and did well, but,
given their rather limited numbers, to attribute it entirely to them is an
enormous stretch.

Jim
Spiv
2004-10-04 08:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
Post by K Horner
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall
correctly,
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
the
Post by K Horner
british lost the war.
It was not really a war as such in british eyes because they simply
viewed
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
it and a colony not even fully established, If we were established as a
truly recognised place we would have done they same as we did with the
established colony in the Falklands
And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
Post by K Horner
upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire.
Needed??? I dont think so, welcome none the less but US forces only
arrived in the dying months of the war
Not so. When the Americans started arriving in force the allies were
still
Post by Jim Voege
reeling from the German Spring 1918 offensives. The allied position, at
best, was a stalemate. Once the U.S. was able to field corps-sized
formations the balance rapidly tipped in allied favour. So while it is
true
Post by Jim Voege
that American participation in WWI was dreadfully late, the
contribution,
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
when it came, was utterly decisive.
The US only came into WW1 after the big push started that ended the war,.
You are, quite simply wrong. The Americans were a very large part of that
"big push".
They were not a large part at all.
Post by Jim Voege
Indeed it would not have been possible without American
participation.
That is nonsense. The French and Commonwealth forces amounted to millions
of men, equipped with the latest weapon, the tank.
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
US contribution in the fields was so small it was hardly worth considering.
US force levels in France in the Autumn of 1918 were, I think, about a
million *fresh* men. They were a very big deal indeed.
A million men were not on the front line.
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
US involvement forced the Germans to surrender as they were at the end of
their tether. The thought of having to face even another large army in 1919,
the US army, was just too much. The US politically tipped the balance, but
not in the field.
Jesus. The U.S. took 116,000 casualties in WWI. Most of those in the
Argonne battles.
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
Then, we did it again
Post by K Horner
twenty odd years later
Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939
you
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
turned against the germans,
This is just wrong. Germany continued on the ascendant until a year later
with the twin defeats at Alamein and Stalingrad.
Not so. They were on the defensive in Dec 1941 when the Soviets stopped the
German advance and counter attacked near Moscow.
What are you just going to ignore the German offensive in 1942? They were
no where near Stalingrad, for example in December 1941. They advanced all
the way through central and eastern Ukraine to the Caucuses in '42.
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Further, it is entirely
conceivable that the course of the fighting on the eastern front would
have
Post by Jim Voege
taken an entirely different turn had the Axis not been faced with the
presence of US troops in the Mediterrean and across the Channel.
It would have taken longer that's all. Once the Germans had not taken out
the UK they were doomed. Eventually they were going to loose.
What do you figure Britain could have done in Europe without the US?
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
shortened the war.
. It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge.
Nor do we for rescuing the US in Korea or teaching the US how to fight
in
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
Vietnam
If you're going to go trolling you should use better bait.
Didn't the Brits get you off the beach in Korea?
Not me. I'm not that old. It also sounds like you think I'm a Yank. I
ain't.
Post by K Horner
The Brits also stopped the
Chinese offensive.
Commonwealth troops certainly participated in that fight, and did well, but,
given their rather limited numbers, to attribute it entirely to them is an
enormous stretch.
The Glousters took the full brunt of the attack at Imogen, and held out for
a ling time, with old ex WW2 vets.
Jim Voege
2004-10-04 13:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
Post by K Horner
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall
correctly,
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
the
Post by K Horner
british lost the war.
It was not really a war as such in british eyes because they simply
viewed
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
it and a colony not even fully established, If we were established
as
a
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
truly recognised place we would have done they same as we did with
the
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
established colony in the Falklands
And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
Post by K Horner
upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire.
Needed??? I dont think so, welcome none the less but US forces only
arrived in the dying months of the war
Not so. When the Americans started arriving in force the allies were
still
Post by Jim Voege
reeling from the German Spring 1918 offensives. The allied position,
at
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
best, was a stalemate. Once the U.S. was able to field corps-sized
formations the balance rapidly tipped in allied favour. So while it is
true
Post by Jim Voege
that American participation in WWI was dreadfully late, the
contribution,
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
when it came, was utterly decisive.
The US only came into WW1 after the big push started that ended the
war,.
Post by Jim Voege
You are, quite simply wrong. The Americans were a very large part of that
"big push".
They were not a large part at all.
Post by Jim Voege
Indeed it would not have been possible without American
participation.
That is nonsense. The French and Commonwealth forces amounted to millions
of men, equipped with the latest weapon, the tank.
How many?
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
US contribution in the fields was so small it was hardly worth considering.
US force levels in France in the Autumn of 1918 were, I think, about a
million *fresh* men. They were a very big deal indeed.
A million men were not on the front line.
Indeed. Neither were all the forces of the other allies. In fact, I
believe to some extent the Americans relied on logistical support from the
French so their administrative "tail" might have been proportionately
smaller.
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
US involvement forced the Germans to surrender as they were at the end
of
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
their tether. The thought of having to face even another large army in 1919,
the US army, was just too much. The US politically tipped the balance, but
not in the field.
Jesus. The U.S. took 116,000 casualties in WWI. Most of those in the
Argonne battles.
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
Then, we did it again
Post by K Horner
twenty odd years later
Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939
you
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war
had
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
turned against the germans,
This is just wrong. Germany continued on the ascendant until a year later
with the twin defeats at Alamein and Stalingrad.
Not so. They were on the defensive in Dec 1941 when the Soviets
stopped
the
German advance and counter attacked near Moscow.
What are you just going to ignore the German offensive in 1942? They were
no where near Stalingrad, for example in December 1941. They advanced all
the way through central and eastern Ukraine to the Caucuses in '42.
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Further, it is entirely
conceivable that the course of the fighting on the eastern front would
have
Post by Jim Voege
taken an entirely different turn had the Axis not been faced with the
presence of US troops in the Mediterrean and across the Channel.
It would have taken longer that's all. Once the Germans had not taken
out
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
the UK they were doomed. Eventually they were going to loose.
What do you figure Britain could have done in Europe without the US?
Post by K Horner
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
shortened the war.
. It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge.
Nor do we for rescuing the US in Korea or teaching the US how to
fight
Post by Jim Voege
Post by K Horner
in
Post by Jim Voege
Post by The Rifleman
Vietnam
If you're going to go trolling you should use better bait.
Didn't the Brits get you off the beach in Korea?
Not me. I'm not that old. It also sounds like you think I'm a Yank. I
ain't.
Post by K Horner
The Brits also stopped the
Chinese offensive.
Commonwealth troops certainly participated in that fight, and did well,
but,
Post by Jim Voege
given their rather limited numbers, to attribute it entirely to them is an
enormous stretch.
The Glousters took the full brunt of the attack at Imogen, and held out for
a ling time, with old ex WW2 vets.
The Glousters did very well indeed. Tales similar to theirs are told of the
Cdn Bde in Korea. However, these are regimental actions covering small
sections of a broad front. Important actions but hardly sufficient to
suggest that commonwealth troops got the Americans "off the beach in Korea".

Jim
Gunner
2004-10-03 15:47:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:07:21 +0100, "The Rifleman"
Post by The Rifleman
Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
turned against the germans, esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
shortened the war.
"long after the tide had turned against the Germans"......

Blink blink...in 1941? They held most of Europe as a client state,
had forced the British to a holding action defending the British
Isles, controlled most of North Africa and were pushing the Russians
back towards the east in droves.
The battle for Stalingrad didnt even occur until late in 1942 and the
Russians were in full retreat, scorching and burning their own lands.

Which tide was that you were refering to, again?

Steve, while your nationalism should be commended...on this particular
subject..its quite misplaced.

Gunner

Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Spiv
2004-10-03 23:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:07:21 +0100, "The Rifleman"
Post by The Rifleman
Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
turned against the germans, esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
shortened the war.
"long after the tide had turned against the Germans"......
Blink blink...in 1941? They held most of Europe as a client state,
had forced the British to a holding action defending the British
Isles, controlled most of North Africa and were pushing the Russians
back towards the east in droves.
Quite wrong. Just before Pearl Harbour the Soviets counter attacked near
Moscow taking around 30,000 German prisoners. The German advance had
stopped in the east. The German advance in the west was stopped with the
battle of Britain in 1940. BY the time the US came into the war the Germans
were pretty well on the defensive and had been stopped on two fronts. The
desert was a yo-yo affair until less than a year after Pearl Harbour when
the Germans were defeated at El Alamein, with the US hardly making any
fighting contribution up until that point.

When the US came into the war in earnest in fighting mode, the Germans had
been defeated in the desert and pegged back on two fronts going nowhere,
fighting more or less a defensive war.
Gunner
2004-10-04 04:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spiv
Post by Gunner
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:07:21 +0100, "The Rifleman"
Post by The Rifleman
Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
turned against the germans, esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
shortened the war.
"long after the tide had turned against the Germans"......
Blink blink...in 1941? They held most of Europe as a client state,
had forced the British to a holding action defending the British
Isles, controlled most of North Africa and were pushing the Russians
back towards the east in droves.
Quite wrong. Just before Pearl Harbour the Soviets counter attacked near
Moscow taking around 30,000 German prisoners. The German advance had
stopped in the east.
No. Just for the Winter.
Post by Spiv
The German advance in the west was stopped with the
battle of Britain in 1940.
Chuckle..the Germans were not willing to take Britian, they just
wanted them contained, and they largely were.
Operation Sealion (invasion of Britian) was only put on the back
burner because Hitler still had hopes of an alliance between the Brits
and Germany, or at the least, Britian being neutral. The only clear
superiority that the Brits enjoyed, was Naval. And the Brits were
clearly superior in this regard. As usual. After the Dunkirk
disaster, where 90% of British heavy weapons were lost..the Brits were
in no condition to even defend their land from an invasion. It was
only the superlative actions of the RAF that gave the Brits even a
hope of avoiding total German air superiority.

The Russians were bleeding men and equipment in horrifying numbers as
they fought a holding action so Western factories and workers could be
transported farther east, deeper into Russia. And they were not doing
so well. The Germans were only stopped at the gates of Moscow by the
weather. It wasnt until later in 1941 that the Winter Counter
Offensive began, and then the Russians gave a good accounting of
themselves. 2000 superb Russian tanks against 1400 odd German ones,
all subject to the long long supply lines needed to furnish men,
material and fuel. Much of which btw..supplied by the US via convoy
Post by Spiv
BY the time the US came into the war the Germans
were pretty well on the defensive and had been stopped on two fronts. The
desert was a yo-yo affair until less than a year after Pearl Harbour when
the Germans were defeated at El Alamein, with the US hardly making any
fighting contribution up until that point.
The Germans had been indeed stopped at two fronts, but were advancing
on others.

As to Al Alamein, Monty had more than a bit of input on the usage of
the green as grass farmboys from the US. Afterall, the Brits had
been fighting for several years, while the US didnt enter the war
until late in 1941..enter the war by supplying troops. Materials on
the other hand..had been pouring into Britian by the convoy load.
Post by Spiv
When the US came into the war in earnest in fighting mode, the Germans had
been defeated in the desert and pegged back on two fronts going nowhere,
fighting more or less a defensive war.
Only in the Desert, and inside Russia. So about the rest of Europe?

<G>

Gunner


Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Spiv
2004-10-04 08:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Spiv
Post by Gunner
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:07:21 +0100, "The Rifleman"
Post by The Rifleman
Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941 long after the tide of war had
turned against the germans, esp as the russians had already got stuck in,
but you major contribution was once again very welcome and certainly
shortened the war.
"long after the tide had turned against the Germans"......
Blink blink...in 1941? They held most of Europe as a client state,
had forced the British to a holding action defending the British
Isles, controlled most of North Africa and were pushing the Russians
back towards the east in droves.
Quite wrong. Just before Pearl Harbour the Soviets counter attacked near
Moscow taking around 30,000 German prisoners. The German advance had
stopped in the east.
No. Just for the Winter.
No. Stopped for good. The Germans had advanced as fast as their armies
could move. Now they were stopped. The front, as in the desert, was toing
and froing but the Germans were on the defensive.
Post by Gunner
Post by Spiv
The German advance in the west was stopped with the
battle of Britain in 1940.
Chuckle..the Germans were not
willing to take Britian, they just
wanted them contained, and they largely were.
They could not take it. They were facing the world's largest navy, with a
navy not worth talking about.
Post by Gunner
Operation Sealion (invasion of Britian)
Was a ruse to press the UK for peace. The Germans did not want a war with
the UK. Look at D day. With all that specialist invasion equip,ment, even
then it was touch and go. The Germans were building concrete barges to be
towed over. Laughable.
Post by Gunner
clearly superior in this regard. As
usual. After the Dunkirk disaster,
where 90% of British heavy weapons
were lost..the Brits were in no condition
to even defend their land from an invasion.
Briain had a large industry and could replace equpiment quite quickly.
During the Battle of Britain, 55 tanks were sent to the desert. The Germans
were going nowhere and the Brits and Germans knew it. If the Germans could
have taken the UK they would have.
Post by Gunner
It was only the superlative actions of the RAF that gave the Brits even a
hope of avoiding total German air superiority.
Admiral Raider, said to Hitler, that could not guarantee putting an army on
UK shores, even if the RAF was destroyed, while the RN was there. During
this time the UK also had a very large bomber fleet.
Post by Gunner
The Russians were bleeding men and equipment in horrifying numbers as
they fought a holding action so Western factories and workers could be
transported farther east, deeper into Russia. And they were not doing
so well. The Germans were only stopped at the gates of Moscow by the
weather.
So, that counter-attack using the new T34s tanks taking 30,000 prisoners
stopping the Germans didn't matter then?
Post by Gunner
It wasnt until later in 1941 that the Winter Counter
Offensive began, and then the Russians gave
a good accounting of themselves. 2000 superb
Russian tanks against 1400 odd German ones,
Offensive? You mean the Germans fighting for their lives. They had been
stopped at Moscow and now the tooing and froing had begun. There was no
"offensive". The Soviets allowed them to go into the Caucasus knowing they
would consume men a equipment which they could not afford to take from the
main battle areas.
Post by Gunner
Post by Spiv
BY the time the US came into the war the Germans
were pretty well on the defensive and had been stopped on two fronts.
The
Post by Gunner
Post by Spiv
desert was a yo-yo affair until less than a year after Pearl Harbour when
the Germans were defeated at El Alamein, with the US hardly making any
fighting contribution up until that point.
The Germans had been indeed stopped
at two fronts, but were advancing
on others.
On what front was that then?
Post by Gunner
As to Al Alamein, Monty had more than
a bit of input on the usage of
the green as grass farmboys from the US.
No Yanks were at El Alemein.
Post by Gunner
Afterall, the Brits had
been fighting for several years, while
the US didnt enter the war
until late in 1941
When the Germans had been stopped on two fronts and still fighting another.
Post by Gunner
..enter the war by
supplying troops. Materials on
the other hand..had been pouring into
Britian by the convoy load.
And paid for with interest.
Post by Gunner
Post by Spiv
When the US came into the war in earnest
in fighting mode, the Germans had
been defeated in the desert and pegged
back on two fronts going nowhere,
fighting more or less a defensive war.
Only in the Desert, and inside Russia. So
about the rest of Europe?
What are you on about? The US came into the war with troops in late 1941
with a small contingent in north Africa. At that time the Germans were being
defeated at El Alemein, stopped in the west at the Channel and on the
defensive in the east. Where did the Yanks come in and stop the German
advances?
David Thornley
2004-10-05 03:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spiv
No. Stopped for good. The Germans had advanced as fast as their armies
could move. Now they were stopped. The front, as in the desert, was toing
and froing but the Germans were on the defensive.
You have a very odd definition of "toing and froing", not to mention
"defensive".

The Germans were on the offensive come Spring 1942, and covered hundreds
of kilometers.
Post by Spiv
They could not take it. They were facing the world's largest navy, with a
navy not worth talking about.
Basically, yes. There was no way Sealion was going to work.

If the RAF and RN were to magically disappear, the Germans did have
a chance to win, but not a good one. The British defenders were not
well-equipped at that time, but they were numerous and determined.
The Germans would have had to mount a major military operation, which
would have required a lot of supplies to come through ports the
Brits had rigged for demolition, for example.
Post by Spiv
Briain had a large industry and could replace equpiment quite quickly.
Not all that quickly. The only thing that saved the Brits was the
English Channel.
Post by Spiv
Post by Gunner
The Russians were bleeding men and equipment in horrifying numbers as
they fought a holding action so Western factories and workers could be
transported farther east, deeper into Russia. And they were not doing
so well. The Germans were only stopped at the gates of Moscow by the
weather.
So, that counter-attack using the new T34s tanks taking 30,000 prisoners
stopping the Germans didn't matter then?
The truth is somewhere between those. The Soviets stopped the Germans,
but temporarily and at horrible cost. They were in great danger in
1942. The Soviets were afraid of the Germans until the summer of 1943.
Post by Spiv
"offensive". The Soviets allowed them to go into the Caucasus knowing they
would consume men a equipment which they could not afford to take from the
main battle areas.
You're delusional. The Soviets wanted to stop the Germans, but couldn't
manage it. They did manage to run enough like bunnies to avoid too many
large encirclements of prisoners, which was a considerable improvement
over 1941.
Post by Spiv
Post by Gunner
As to Al Alamein, Monty had more than
a bit of input on the usage of
the green as grass farmboys from the US.
No Yanks were at El Alemein.
Wrong.

Not many Yanks, I'll admit, and I don't think there were any with the
ground troops.
Post by Spiv
Post by Gunner
Afterall, the Brits had
been fighting for several years, while
the US didnt enter the war
until late in 1941
When the Germans had been stopped on two fronts and still fighting another.
Nope; the US entered the war, by which I mean attacking the enemy, in
the late Summer or early Fall of 1941.

The US didn't do very well, inflicting no damage on U-boats and suffering
destroyer losses, but the US was fighting.

At that time, the Germans were looking unstoppable.
Post by Spiv
Post by Gunner
Only in the Desert, and inside Russia. So
about the rest of Europe?
What are you on about? The US came into the war with troops in late 1941
with a small contingent in north Africa.
Are you thinking of Operation Torch? That was November 1942. There
were Americans in Africa earlier, but not many of them.

At that time the Germans were being
Post by Spiv
defeated at El Alemein,
With a good deal of US materiel assistance.

y

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
***@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Churchill
2004-10-04 10:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Chuckle..the Germans were not willing to take Britian, they just
wanted them contained, and they largely were.
Incorrect, the Germans wanted to conquer Britain, that is obvious. They
could not get their land troops across the channel so the Sealion invasion
could not occur. So they tried to conquer the British with the Luftwaffe,
which did not work.
Post by Gunner
Operation Sealion (invasion of Britian) was only put on the back
burner because Hitler still had hopes of an alliance between the Brits
and Germany, or at the least, Britian being neutral. The only clear
superiority that the Brits enjoyed, was Naval.
Depends on how you look at it, numbers are one thing, quality is another.
In additon, everytime a German plane was shot down over British airspace
they lost a pilot, the British pilots got to fly again.
Post by Gunner
And the Brits were
clearly superior in this regard. As usual. After the Dunkirk
disaster, where 90% of British heavy weapons were lost..the Brits were
in no condition to even defend their land from an invasion.
You have forgotten about Winnie and Pooh.

http://www.doverpages.co.uk/big_guns.htm
Post by Gunner
It was
only the superlative actions of the RAF that gave the Brits even a
hope of avoiding total German air superiority.
Agreed, if Germany could have landed their troops in Britain, they would
have captured England easily.
Spiv
2004-10-04 12:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Churchill
Post by Gunner
Chuckle..the Germans were not willing to take Britian, they just
wanted them contained, and they largely were.
Incorrect, the Germans wanted
to conquer Britain, that is obvious. They
could not get their land troops across the
channel so the Sealion invasion
could not occur. So they tried to conquer
the British with the Luftwaffe,
which did not work.
The Germans knew full well they could not conquer the UK. Sealion and the
Battle of Britain was a ruse to force a peace treaty. The Germans would
have to conquer the UK on Normandy proportions, which they were clearly
incapable of doing..
Post by Churchill
Post by Gunner
Operation Sealion (invasion of Britian) was only put on the back
burner because Hitler still had hopes of an alliance between the Brits
and Germany, or at the least, Britian being neutral. The only clear
superiority that the Brits enjoyed, was Naval.
Depends on how you look at it, numbers are one thing, quality is another.
In additon, everytime a German plane was shot down over British airspace
they lost a pilot, the British pilots got to fly again.
Post by Gunner
And the Brits were
clearly superior in this regard. As usual. After the Dunkirk
disaster, where 90% of British heavy weapons were lost..the Brits were
in no condition to even defend their land from an invasion.
You have forgotten about Winnie and Pooh.
http://www.doverpages.co.uk/big_guns.htm
None of thsoe guns, either British or German were of any real use. Winnie
and Pooh were only of moral value. People seeing newsreels of super large
guns would feel more safe.
Post by Churchill
Post by Gunner
It was
only the superlative actions of the RAF that gave the Brits even a
hope of avoiding total German air superiority.
Agreed, if Germany could have landed their troops in Britain, they would
have captured England easily.
It would have had to have been a large number and in heavy armour, with a
clear supply line.
Dan
2004-10-05 00:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spiv
None of thsoe guns, either British or German were of any real use. Winnie
and Pooh were only of moral value.
Make that "morale" value...

Dan
David Thornley
2004-10-05 02:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Rifleman
Post by K Horner
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly,
the
Post by K Horner
british lost the war.
It was not really a war as such in british eyes because they simply viewed
it and a colony not even fully established,
In 1812, the US had been something of a going concern as an independent
country for decades.
Post by The Rifleman
And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
Post by K Horner
upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire.
Needed??? I dont think so, welcome none the less but US forces only
arrived in the dying months of the war
In 1918, the US did not make a big military contribution until the
last few months, but the fact that "the Yanks are coming" was exceedingly
important in shaping the strategy and morale of the combatants.
Had the war gone into 1919 the US would have been almost
unstoppable, and everybody knew that.
Post by The Rifleman
Then, we did it again
Post by K Horner
twenty odd years later
Sorry old chap but once aggain you are wrong, the War started in 1939 you
The war started in 1937; you British chaps just went along with the
aggressor (Japan) until you were attacked in 1941.
Post by The Rifleman
good chaps did not join in til Dec 1941
If you're talking about actual war operations against Germany, it
started somewhat earlier, in the North Atlantic.

long after the tide of war had
Post by The Rifleman
turned against the germans,
Not too good on your WWII history, are you? The British were just
getting their first real victory over the Germans (Crusader) in
a peripheral theater, and were going to suffer more defeats until
one could say the tide had turned. The Soviets were in the middle
of ensuring that they'd hang on until 1942, but weren't really
there yet.
Post by The Rifleman
. It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge.
Nor do we for rescuing the US in Korea or teaching the US how to fight in
Vietnam
Huh? Why do you think you taught us how to fight in Vietnam?

If you'd actually done that, we'd have done a much better job!

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
***@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Spiv
2004-10-03 19:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by K Horner
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly, the
british lost the war. And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire.
What would this be?
Post by K Horner
Then, we did it again
twenty odd years later.
Again, what would this be?
Post by K Horner
It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge. What
with the royal families friendship with the Nazi party.
Cordially
Post by Churchill
Sometimes Americans forget what we Canadians and British did to them!
K Horner
2004-10-05 00:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spiv
Post by K Horner
Tis true the british burned Washington D.C. But, if I recall correctly,
the
Post by K Horner
british lost the war. And just over a hundred years later "needed" the
upstart Americans to pull their ass out of the fire.
What would this be?
Small incident called WWI
Post by Spiv
Post by K Horner
Then, we did it again
twenty odd years later.
Again, what would this be?
Another inconsquential set to called WWII
Post by Spiv
Post by K Horner
It's a good thing we don't hold a grudge. What
with the royal families friendship with the Nazi party.
Cordially
Post by Churchill
Sometimes Americans forget what we Canadians and British did to them!
Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon
2004-10-03 06:41:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 06:45:16 -0400 the great cry-baby, Churchill
gave a whiny-assed opinion on, "The Burning of Washington: The
British invasion of 1814",
Post by Churchill
Sometimes Americans forget what we
Trolls can do. Plonk!
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...