Turkey fired on U.S. special forces in Syria. It's absurd that it still has U.S. nukes.

[3leftsdoo]

Endless war is endlessly insane.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The War of 1812 is an after thought in the US. It certainly wasn’t “one of our greatest victories”—- although the crushing of the British at New Orleans certainly does qualify.

One of the reasons why "The War of 1812 is an after thought in the US." is because it's one of the wars that the US didn't "win" - just like every other time that the military forces from what is now the United States of America attempted to invade and conquer what is now Canada.

People don't think a lot about "The Korean War" either. Of course that is another war that the US didn't "win".

Given a decade or so and people won't think a lot about "The Vietnam War" either.

Given a bit longer and people won't think a lot about "The War in Afghanistan" or "The War in Iraq".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Well in that case, Trumpkin is either so bombastically corrupt that he put his own interests above that of the country or he so bombastically bad as a negotiator and so incomparably ignorant about the realities of Mr Erdogan that he was simply HAD AGAIN! I have never seen a President so dense and impossibly awful that both considerations are an even bet independently with a third being that Trumpkin is both incomparably ignorant and bombastically bad as a negotiator at the same time.

Do you think it would have made some sense for Trumpkin to ask a question or two of his own people before committing to action on the very phone call in question?

Yes I do.

On the other hand I am NOT the President of the United States of America and "Der Führer der freien Welt" either.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Theft of nuclear weapons can only be responded to with overwhelming force.

The Turkish Land Forces consist of 260,000 personnel with 2,446 Tanks, 9,031 Armoured Fighting Vehicles, 872 Artillery pieces and 418 Multiple Rocket Launchers. The Turkish Air Forces consist of 60,000 personneland 635 aircraft .

In military parlance, "overwhelming force" STARTS at a 3 to 1 superiority and I don't think that the US is quite ready to commit over 750,000 land personnel, over 7,500 tanks, over 27,000 armoured fighting vehicles, over 2,700 artillery pieces, over 180,000 air force personnel, and over 1,900 aircraft to a war on Turkey - do you?

Or are you thinking that the appropriate method of proceeding is to simply "Nuke The Turks"?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Blockade Turkey ?

There's quite a few Western manufacturing plants in Turkey that supply Western Europe and North America, earning very valuable foreign $$$ not to mention employment.

Greece will help and if those manufactured goods stay in Turkey, the Turks lose big time.

Quite a good plan, predicated on everyone deciding that they are NOT going to take the opportunity to poke Mr. Trump in the eye with a stick.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

How many military leaders and government officers think Trump caused the war in Syria and/or was wrong to pull a couple dozen troops out at this particular juncture? All of them? Just a few? Democrats or republicans or both? All democrats or republicans or American people? Obviously not. What we have here is not a crime on Trump's part but widespread dissention among the native citizens of America.



Good man, but he did not always support prior presidential agreements, the Budapest Memorandum being one example.



Trump should leave military decisions to his most vocal critics on the left, whether they have any experience or not? If you don't like Trump, then vote for Buttilick, he has promised to be turned like a puppet by leftist public opinion if elected.



I smile when you say that. Trump can be an arrogant ass at times but I love the way he drives arrogant democrat asses crazy when they come at him with their dummass verbal assaults and he spanks their bad bottoms before turning them loose again.



Democrats desperate to rise to the top of the jack-booted, Nazi-saluting democrat mob brutally bringing Americans under their iron fist of control if ever able to regain the power for themselves again: 'Trump is a danger to America, its people, its laws, its customs, its traditions, its military, its decency, its honor, its patriotism, its freedom and so forth. Impeach Trump and vote democrat to save America!'

Having noted your (seeming) preoccupation with the human posterior in your post, I think that I'll wait until you rephrase it is a more civilized tone before responding to it further.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Endless war is endlessly insane.

And highly profitable.

 

[Tigerace117]

One of the reasons why "The War of 1812 is an after thought in the US." is because it's one of the wars that the US didn't "win" - just like every other time that the military forces from what is now the United States of America attempted to invade and conquer what is now Canada.

People don't think a lot about "The Korean War" either. Of course that is another war that the US didn't "win".

Given a decade or so and people won't think a lot about "The Vietnam War" either.

Given a bit longer and people won't think a lot about "The War in Afghanistan" or "The War in Iraq".

The War of 1812 is an after thought because nothing really changed. Well, other then the fact that the British learned that grabbing random sailors off our ships wasn’t the brightest move in the world.

The Brits got the ever living crap beat out of them at New Orleans which pretty killed you lots’ enthusiasm for adventures in our backyard.

Considering that it was the North Koreans who started the war in the first place, the US did succeed in driving them out and preserving South Korea’s independence.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The War of 1812 is an after thought because nothing really changed.

Well, one thing DID change, the Americans decided that it really wasn't a good idea to attempt to conquer Canada.

Well, other then the fact that the British learned that grabbing random sailors off our ships wasn’t the brightest move in the world.

Which was something that had already been agreed to before the United States of America declared war on Great Britain.

The Brits got the ever living crap beat out of them at New Orleans which pretty killed you lots’ enthusiasm for adventures in our backyard.

A battle that was fought AFTER the war of 1812 was over and which had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the settlement terms.

Considering that it was the North Koreans who started the war in the first place, the US did succeed in driving them out and preserving South Korea’s independence.

So, if "Country A" invades "Country B" with the intention of conquering it and absorbing its territory AND if "Country B" succeeds in repelling the invasion by "Country A" and maintaining its previously existing boundaries, that means that "Country A" is "**T*H*E** **L*O*S*E*R**" does it?

In that case, with reference to the War of 1812, wasn't "Country A" the United States of America and wasn't "Country B" what is now Canada? Wouldn't that mean that, with reference to the War of 1812, "Country A" was "**T*H*E** **L*O*S*E*R**" or is that yet another case of "But that's DIFFERENT!!"?

 

[Tigerace117]

Well, one thing DID change, the Americans decided that it really wasn't a good idea to attempt to conquer Canada.



Which was something that had already been agreed to before the United States of America declared war on Great Britain.



A battle that was fought AFTER the war of 1812 was over and which had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the settlement terms.



So, if "Country A" invades "Country B" with the intention of conquering it and absorbing its territory AND if "Country B" succeeds in repelling the invasion by "Country A" and maintaining its previously existing boundaries, that means that "Country A" is "**T*H*E** **L*O*S*E*R**" does it?

In that case, with reference to the War of 1812, wasn't "Country A" the United States of America and wasn't "Country B" what is now Canada? Wouldn't that mean that, with reference to the War of 1812, "Country A" was "**T*H*E** **L*O*S*E*R**" or is that yet another case of "But that's DIFFERENT!!"?

I mean, if you consider getting Toronto torched a victory, that’s on you bud :lamo

Pretending that that the British Empire—- which Canada was a part of, and a very willing part of at that—wasn’t the aggressor is also rather funny.

If the British had taken New Orleans they certainly never would have left; the treaty would have suffered some....abrupt...changes, and if the US complained they would have been told “so make us leave”. The British did similar things across the globe and there’s no reason to think that they would have changed. But nope, they got absolutely crushed. But hey, I get that you lot need any straw to grasp at.

Impressment was ended because the Royal Navy no longer needed the additional manpower.....not because they realized that grabbing random sailors off ships was wrong.

But hey, it did get them into another shooting war, so that’s....something.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I mean, if you consider getting Toronto torched a victory, that’s on you bud :lamo

And the burning of the White House never happened, and repelling the invading armies while retaining 100% of your original territory is not a victory (which is what happened in the southern half of Korea [in case you have forgotten]) - right?

Pretending that that the British Empire—- which Canada was a part of, and a very willing part of at that—wasn’t the aggressor is also rather funny.

Quite right, the United States of America didn't declare war on Great Britain until AFTER Great Britain had (effectively) declared war on the United States of America by invading the United States of America (after it had bombed Pearl Harbour) - right?

If the British had taken New Orleans they certainly never would have left; ...

Possibly, and possibly not.

the treaty would have suffered some....abrupt...changes, ...

Possibly, and possibly not.

...and if the US complained they would have been told “so make us leave”. ...

Possibly, and possibly not.

The British did similar things across the globe ...

Citations and links please.

But nope, they got absolutely crushed.

Indeed they did.

But hey, I get that you lot need any straw to grasp at.

"The facts, Maam, just the facts."

Impressment was ended because the Royal Navy no longer needed the additional manpower.....not because they realized that grabbing random sailors off ships was wrong.

So, by your own words, the causus belli had vanished before the United States of America had declared a war of invasion and conquest.

But hey, it did get them into another shooting war, so that’s....something.

Indeed, a war that should have been stopped the minute the American delegation returned to the US with the signed agreement granting the US everything that it had gone to war to get (well, officially, at any rate). The real reason why the US declared war on Great Britain was because it

wanted to seize British territory

contrary to the wishes of the people who lived there and

to impose a foreign government on people

who were quite happy with the government that they already had.
​

Mind you, if Great Britain hadn't been rather preoccupied because it was at war with a madman who wanted to conquer the world (a madman to which American merchants were gleefully selling all the war materials that they could ship [and a war which the government of the United States of America was very determined not to become embroiled in {which, in case you have lost count, makes three times that the Brits fought madmen who wanted to conquer the world and the US government stood aside as long as possible <read as "no direct attacks on the United States of America and lots of profits to be made selling war materials to both sides">), the results of the War of 1812 just might have been somewhat different.

 

[jnug]

Mind you, if Great Britain hadn't been rather preoccupied because it was at war with a madman who wanted to conquer the world (a madman to which American merchants were gleefully selling all the war materials that they could ship [and a war which the government of the United States of America was very determined not to become embroiled in {which, in case you have lost count, makes three times that the Brits fought madmen who wanted to conquer the world and the US government stood aside as long as possible <read as "no direct attacks on the United States of America and lots of profits to be made selling war materials to both sides">), the results of the War of 1812 just might have been somewhat different.

Sorry I cut out so much of your post in order to reply to just a part of it.

But the point I am trying to make really relates to the last part which is in the Block quote above.

Regardless of all the noise about America and foreign entanglements, historically even to this day, even through Vietman and our Central American adventures and every other Tom, Dick and Larry thing you can think of, the US has been remarkably isolationist all things considered. We were dragged kicking and screaming into Anglo Imperialism and foreign adventure largely due to two things:
- the incredibly consistent tendency for European powers to beat each others skulls in at a time and in an era when the center of world power was Europe (Royalty at its finest). The European powers expended mass amounts of treasure and life and threatened the world economy hacking at each other endlessly.
- the eventual exit of France and GB from the Middle East as Military forces and then the exit of the UK as the entity responsible for managing Western oil interests thus moving the US into that role.

The beauty of the Marshall plan and similar efforts in Japan post WW2 is that it taught us that rebuilding your customers can work out for you in the long run as WW1 led to WW2 and the aftermath of WW2 was the catalyst for the US becoming the world's greatest power. Yes, we had the raw elements of being a great world power. We had raw materials abounding.

We really had no natural enemies on our land borders and only two land borders to boot. We had the engine of Democracy and a Capitalistic economic system. Two large oceans on our flanks when having large oceans on our flanks really meant something. But while having two large oceans on our flanks, we were for the most part extremely open to Immigration (Trumpettes take note that our openness to Immigration was a tremendous benefit to us). However without being enabled if not forced to come forward in the world by world events outside of our direct control, we would never have moved forward in the way we did, not in my opinion.

My view of it is that the single most important geopolitical decision we made post throwing off Royalty and becoming a country and sucking up the rest of the contiguous 48 through land purchases and "other means" was Wilson's calculated decision to stay out of WW1 all the way up until he could no longer stay out. While the European powers created alliances that totally flopped as vehicles to prevent war, we did not ally with anyone in the prosecution of that war. We were a belligerent in WW1, not an ally. We entered just at the point when the alliance that we preferred was about to lose that war. While both sides had exhausted themselves, the Central Powers were in a better position to win that thing than the Triple Entente and the Central Powers winning would not have suited us AT ALL.

While the main combatants expended millions of lives per country and untold treasure, Wilson expended about 117,000 lives just at the last in gaining the outcome we wanted, actually the outcome we had to have. That the Treaty of Versailles and other efforts to create a more manageable environment post WW1 literally catalyzed WW2 and unleashed the beast embedded in the mind set of Old Saxony AGAIN was not Wilson's fault. That this time it was urged on by mad man Hitler was not Wilson's fault. None of that was really Wilson's fault. He tried as hard as US Democracy would allow him. But our old isolationism immediately reared its head again and short circuited all of Wilson's post WW1 plans at least as far as a more peaceful world was concerned.

I am not lionizing Wilson. American history is chock full of the right guy showing up at the right time and in the right place, Washington at inception, Lincoln in the mid-19th century, Wilson in the early 20th Century and Roosevelt in the mid-20th Century. After Roosevelt, not so much.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Has Trump lifted all the Turkey sanctions already? Before the genocide of Kurds is even completed?

 

[Tigerace117]

And the burning of the White House never happened, and repelling the invading armies while retaining 100% of your original territory is not a victory (which is what happened in the southern half of Korea [in case you have forgotten]) - right?



Quite right, the United States of America didn't declare war on Great Britain until AFTER Great Britain had (effectively) declared war on the United States of America by invading the United States of America (after it had bombed Pearl Harbour) - right?



Possibly, and possibly not.



Possibly, and possibly not.



Possibly, and possibly not.



Citations and links please.



Indeed they did.



"The facts, Maam, just the facts."



So, by your own words, the causus belli had vanished before the United States of America had declared a war of invasion and conquest.



Indeed, a war that should have been stopped the minute the American delegation returned to the US with the signed agreement granting the US everything that it had gone to war to get (well, officially, at any rate). The real reason why the US declared war on Great Britain was because it

wanted to seize British territory

contrary to the wishes of the people who lived there and

to impose a foreign government on people

who were quite happy with the government that they already had.
​

Mind you, if Great Britain hadn't been rather preoccupied because it was at war with a madman who wanted to conquer the world (a madman to which American merchants were gleefully selling all the war materials that they could ship [and a war which the government of the United States of America was very determined not to become embroiled in {which, in case you have lost count, makes three times that the Brits fought madmen who wanted to conquer the world and the US government stood aside as long as possible <read as "no direct attacks on the United States of America and lots of profits to be made selling war materials to both sides">), the results of the War of 1812 just might have been somewhat different.

Did I say the US won the War of 1812? No, I said it was a draw. It is you who desperately started blithering about the US “losing”....presumably because, like I said before, Canadians are the only ones who give a damn about the War of 1812.

Considering that North and South Korea had already been divided well before the North Koreans launched their assault, the South Koreans “lost half their territory” long before the war began.

The war never would have happened had the British Empire not decided they could snatch sailors off American ships. You blithering about Pearl Harbor is utterly meaningless and rather bizarre to boot.

You want citations and links for every war of aggression the British Empire fought? That’d be a laughably long list. One example which was fresh in every American’s mind though....continued British presence in the Northwest Territory

Northwest Territory - Wikipedia

Wars of conquest ? Considering how many British imperialist campaigns you Canadians happily supported the irony of you complaining about “wars of conquest” is rather hilarious.

The US went to war to stop an imperial power which, gee, certainly didn’t consult the people’s of its numerous colonial conquests whether or not they wanted to be part of the British Empire, from snatching sailors of American—which, by the way, was a neutral power—ships. They continued fighting because they didn’t want the aggressive, imperialist regime which had only recently been humiliated and sent packing on their border if at all possible.

Madmen who wanted to conquer the world, hmm?

https://out.reddit.com/t3_14edai?ur...1tpg4YvIksQgc_s9_zVn7MalTBodi&app_name=mweb2x

Yes, the US certainly did fight madmen who wanted to conquer the world. Gee, I wonder how many of those countries the British bothered to ask if they were happy with their previous government before they rolled in and set up shop? Ireland certainly wasn’t consulted. Nor India. Nor Kenya. Oh, but I forgot......BUT THAT’S DIFFERENT :roll:

As for your whining about the other instances.....England was just as much at fault as the rest of the European powers for World a War One, and in World War Two the US was effectively in a shooting war with Kriegsmarine U-Boats long before Pearl Harbor.....to keep England, which had just been smashed in France, from starving.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Sorry I cut out so much of your post in order to reply to just a part of it.

But the point I am trying to make really relates to the last part which is in the Block quote above.

Regardless of all the noise about America and foreign entanglements, historically even to this day, even through Vietman and our Central American adventures and every other Tom, Dick and Larry thing you can think of, the US has been remarkably isolationist all things considered. We were dragged kicking and screaming into Anglo Imperialism and foreign adventure largely due to two things:
- the incredibly consistent tendency for European powers to beat each others skulls in at a time and in an era when the center of world power was Europe (Royalty at its finest). The European powers expended mass amounts of treasure and life and threatened the world economy hacking at each other endlessly.
- the eventual exit of France and GB from the Middle East as Military forces and then the exit of the UK as the entity responsible for managing Western oil interests thus moving the US into that role.

The beauty of the Marshall plan and similar efforts in Japan post WW2 is that it taught us that rebuilding your customers can work out for you in the long run as WW1 led to WW2 and the aftermath of WW2 was the catalyst for the US becoming the world's greatest power. Yes, we had the raw elements of being a great world power. We had raw materials abounding.

We really had no natural enemies on our land borders and only two land borders to boot. We had the engine of Democracy and a Capitalistic economic system. Two large oceans on our flanks when having large oceans on our flanks really meant something. But while having two large oceans on our flanks, we were for the most part extremely open to Immigration (Trumpettes take note that our openness to Immigration was a tremendous benefit to us). However without being enabled if not forced to come forward in the world by world events outside of our direct control, we would never have moved forward in the way we did, not in my opinion.

My view of it is that the single most important geopolitical decision we made post throwing off Royalty and becoming a country and sucking up the rest of the contiguous 48 through land purchases and "other means" was Wilson's calculated decision to stay out of WW1 all the way up until he could no longer stay out. While the European powers created alliances that totally flopped as vehicles to prevent war, we did not ally with anyone in the prosecution of that war. We were a belligerent in WW1, not an ally. We entered just at the point when the alliance that we preferred was about to lose that war. While both sides had exhausted themselves, the Central Powers were in a better position to win that thing than the Triple Entente and the Central Powers winning would not have suited us AT ALL.

While the main combatants expended millions of lives per country and untold treasure, Wilson expended about 117,000 lives just at the last in gaining the outcome we wanted, actually the outcome we had to have. That the Treaty of Versailles and other efforts to create a more manageable environment post WW1 literally catalyzed WW2 and unleashed the beast embedded in the mind set of Old Saxony AGAIN was not Wilson's fault. That this time it was urged on by mad man Hitler was not Wilson's fault. None of that was really Wilson's fault. He tried as hard as US Democracy would allow him. But our old isolationism immediately reared its head again and short circuited all of Wilson's post WW1 plans at least as far as a more peaceful world was concerned.

I am not lionizing Wilson. American history is chock full of the right guy showing up at the right time and in the right place, Washington at inception, Lincoln in the mid-19th century, Wilson in the early 20th Century and Roosevelt in the mid-20th Century. After Roosevelt, not so much.

Quite a good analysis. Unfortunately Mr. Wilson was not quite the right guy at the right time and the right place. Had he succeeded, I would agree that he was, but he did NOT succeed and the fact that the US withdrew from world affairs was a major factor in enabling Herr Hitler to ooze his way to power and everyone knows what that produced. Had the US backed Czechoslovakia and Poland, WWII would have been ended by a 9mm Parabellum decision rather rapidly.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Has Trump lifted all the Turkey sanctions already? Before the genocide of Kurds is even completed?

No he has not. He has not lifted the sanctions that he didn't impose.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Did I say the US won the War of 1812? No, I said it was a draw. It is you who desperately started blithering about the US “losing”....presumably because, like I said before, Canadians are the only ones who give a damn about the War of 1812.

When a country achieves absolutely NONE of its "war aims" it tends to want to ignore the fact that it started a war.

Considering that North and South Korea had already been divided well before the North Koreans launched their assault, the South Koreans “lost half their territory” long before the war began.

Alternatively, the (North) Koreans "lost half their territory" long before the war began - didn't they?

And, which countries were responsible for the (South) Koreans "losing half their territory"? It wasn't the (South) Koreans and it wasn't the (North) Koreans either.

The war never would have happened had the British Empire not decided they could snatch sailors off American ships.

PIFFLE - The "War Hawks" didn't give a damn about sailors. What the "War Hawks" wanted was LAND.

You blithering about Pearl Harbor is utterly meaningless and rather bizarre to boot.

And deliberately so.

You want citations and links for every war of aggression the British Empire fought?

No, just the relevant ones.

One example which was fresh in every American’s mind though....continued British presence in the Northwest Territory

Strangely enough, your "proof" consists of evidence that "The British" did, in fact, cede the territory that they had agreed to cede. You appear to be upset because the people who live in that territory didn't pack up and leave.

Wars of conquest ? Considering how many British imperialist campaigns you Canadians happily supported the irony of you complaining about “wars of conquest” is rather hilarious. [/quote]

The only one that comes even close would be the South African Campaign and that was a campaign to put down an armed revolution.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The US went to war to stop an imperial power which, gee, certainly didn’t consult the people’s of its numerous colonial conquests whether or not they wanted to be part of the British Empire, from snatching sailors of American—which, by the way, was a neutral power—ships.

Strangely enough the US government actually recognized the right of Great Britain to "snatch sailors" from American ships - IF those sailors were British subjects. That is why the American authorities were quite liberal in handing out documents "certifying" people to be "Americans".

They continued fighting because they didn’t want the aggressive, imperialist regime which had only recently been humiliated and sent packing on their border if at all possible.

PIFFLE, the US continued fighting because there was a lot of money to be made out of supplying the armies and there was a lot of land to be parcelled out to the supporters of the war.

Madmen who wanted to conquer the world, hmm?

Yep, and if it hadn't been for Great Britain then the US would never have existed - would it?

Yes, the US certainly did fight madmen who wanted to conquer the world.

Eventually.

Gee, I wonder how many of those countries the British bothered to ask if they were happy with their previous government before they rolled in and set up shop? Ireland certainly wasn’t consulted. Nor India. Nor Kenya. Oh, but I forgot......BUT THAT’S DIFFERENT :roll:

Was I ever arguing that Great Britain was NOT an imperial and colonial power? Does the US, today, not have its own colonies (in actual fact, although not in name)?

As for your whining about the other instances.....England was just as much at fault as the rest of the European powers for World a War One,

Actually, the Kaiser wanted to put the brakes on the whole thing right when it started. However he was informed (and correctly so) that to interrupt the mobilization already in progress would throw the German economy into chaos.

... and in World War Two the US was effectively in a shooting war with Kriegsmarine U-Boats long before Pearl Harbor.....to keep England, which had just been smashed in France, from starving.

The first American hostile action against Axis forces was on 10 April 1941 when the USS Niblack attacked the German U-52 there were no casualties on either side. On September 14, 1941, the USCGC Northland destroyed a German weather station in northeast Greenland (with the consent of the Danish government. On October 17, 1941 the German U-568 attacked, but did not sink, the USS Kearny , but the US did not declare war on Germany. On October 31 the German U-552 sank the USS Reuben James by U-552 - but the US did not declare war on Germany.

Some "shooting war".

BTW, the American companies that were supplying all that food to the UK were making a nice tidy profit out if it as well. If Herr Hitler had not been stupid enough to declare war on the US, then the odds are that the US wouldn't have entered the European phase of WWII (except to sell arms, food, and essential war materials to whichever side could pay for them. Had Herr Hitler not been stupid enough to redirect his military forces away from the UK and towards Russia, the odds are that the Brits would have ended up being crushed - in which case the US government would have been quite content to deal with Herr Hitler's Third Reich (as long as it wanted to purchase war materials so that it could crush Russia and Communism).

 

[Tigerace117]

When a country achieves absolutely NONE of its "war aims" it tends to want to ignore the fact that it started a war.



Alternatively, the (North) Koreans "lost half their territory" long before the war began - didn't they?

And, which countries were responsible for the (South) Koreans "losing half their territory"? It wasn't the (South) Koreans and it wasn't the (North) Koreans either.



PIFFLE - The "War Hawks" didn't give a damn about sailors. What the "War Hawks" wanted was LAND.



And deliberately so.



No, just the relevant ones.



Strangely enough, your "proof" consists of evidence that "The British" did, in fact, cede the territory that they had agreed to cede. You appear to be upset because the people who live in that territory didn't pack up and leave.

Wars of conquest ? Considering how many British imperialist campaigns you Canadians happily supported the irony of you complaining about “wars of conquest” is rather hilarious.

The only one that comes even close would be the South African Campaign and that was a campaign to put down an armed revolution.[/QUOTE]

Were the British still in the Old Northwest after the war?Nope. Were the British snatching sailors off US ships after the war? Nope. Were the North Koreans occupying South Korea after the war? Nope. In all those cases the US achieved goals.

But yes, I’m sure that you Canadians like to pretend the beloved empire didn’t start **** :lamo

Oh look, more grasping at straws from you. Too funny :lamo

No, actually, America was a young country which was very sensitive to the idea that it was being treated as a doormat by the same thugs who they’d just kicked out. There was a real fear that the British would try a re-conquest at some point down the line. Hence the need to show strength, and to kick you lot off our border if at all possible.

:lamo

And now we are into full on British Empire apologism. Gee, the South Africans certainly weren’t consulted if they liked the government they had before either.

 

[Tigerace117]

Strangely enough the US government actually recognized the right of Great Britain to "snatch sailors" from American ships - IF those sailors were British subjects. That is why the American authorities were quite liberal in handing out documents "certifying" people to be "Americans".



PIFFLE, the US continued fighting because there was a lot of money to be made out of supplying the armies and there was a lot of land to be parcelled out to the supporters of the war.

Madmen who wanted to conquer the world, hmm?

Yep, and if it hadn't been for Great Britain then the US would never have existed - would it?



Eventually.



Was I ever arguing that Great Britain was NOT an imperial and colonial power? Does the US, today, not have its own colonies (in actual fact, although not in name)?



Actually, the Kaiser wanted to put the brakes on the whole thing right when it started. However he was informed (and correctly so) that to interrupt the mobilization already in progress would throw the German economy into chaos.



The first American hostile action against Axis forces was on 10 April 1941 when the USS Niblack attacked the German U-52 there were no casualties on either side. On September 14, 1941, the USCGC Northland destroyed a German weather station in northeast Greenland (with the consent of the Danish government. On October 17, 1941 the German U-568 attacked, but did not sink, the USS Kearny , but the US did not declare war on Germany. On October 31 the German U-552 sank the USS Reuben James by U-552 - but the US did not declare war on Germany.

Some "shooting war".

BTW, the American companies that were supplying all that food to the UK were making a nice tidy profit out if it as well. If Herr Hitler had not been stupid enough to declare war on the US, then the odds are that the US wouldn't have entered the European phase of WWII (except to sell arms, food, and essential war materials to whichever side could pay for them. Had Herr Hitler not been stupid enough to redirect his military forces away from the UK and towards Russia, the odds are that the Brits would have ended up being crushed - in which case the US government would have been quite content to deal with Herr Hitler's Third Reich (as long as it wanted to purchase war materials so that it could crush Russia and Communism).

Oh, so now you are attributing the existence of North America to the British Empire as well? There was always going to be a United States in some form or another. We might not have had to fight your particular band of ultra-aggressive would be world conquerors but that doesn’t mean “there wouldn’t be a United States”.

Considering the laughably corrupt ways in which sailors were impressed into the Royal Navy in the first place, you complaining about the US providing people with papers is, again, the height of hypocrisy. Nor was the Royal Navy particularly careful about choosing who to snatch off US ships.

We’d been fighting madmen who wanted to conquer the world since 1775-1776.

No, actually we don’t, but nice attempt at “whataboutism” to try and hand wave away the fact that the British ruled with an iron fist over their empire....and that as willing parts of said empire, you Canadians were every bit as guilty.

If the Kaiser hadn’t given Austria Hungary a blank check it’s entirely possible the whole thing could have been negotiated out like the previous couple war scares before it.

....which doesn’t change the fact that US ships were shooting at German ships to protect supplies and resources to keep England from starving, after England had created the mess by appeasing the Nazis at every turn. But, since you lot don’t seem to have wanted it, perhaps we shouldn’t have.

I see you’ve conveniently ignored the fact that numerous countries the British conquered in wars of aggression and then refused to leave—Ireland, Kenya, India—were not consulted on whether or not they liked the government they had before when London’s troops showed up.

 

[Manc Skipper]

No he has not. He has not lifted the sanctions that he didn't impose.

He did. Nine days before he lifted them again.

YouTube

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Were the British still in the Old Northwest after the war?Nope.

And they weren't before the War of 1812 either.

Were the British snatching sailors off US ships after the war? Nope.

And they had already stopped before the War of 1812 (except for those sailors who were British subjects and did not have American "protections").

Were the North Koreans occupying South Korea after the war? Nope.

Were the Americans occupying British North America after the War of 1812?

In all those cases the US achieved goals.

The American goal in the War of 1812 was to conquer and annex British North America, did it achieve its goal?

But yes, I’m sure that you Canadians like to pretend the beloved empire didn’t start **** :lamo

What you are "sure of" and what is reality are not necessarily the same thing. In this case, they aren't.

Oh look, more grasping at straws from you. Too funny :lamo

Indeed, the Canadians completely ignore the fact that the Americans were completely successful in their intended invasion, conquest, and annexation of British North America.

No, actually, America was a young country which was very sensitive to the idea that it was being treated as a doormat by the same thugs who they’d just kicked out.

Actually it's more likely that the "War Hawks" saw a chance for a lot of really nice (and quick) profit by invading, conquering, and annexing British North America while the Brits were preoccupied dealing with Napoleon's militaristic empire building (which involved invading, conquering, and annexing other countries and their territories.

There was a real fear that the British would try a re-conquest at some point down the line.

I'll agree that there was a lot of public claims to that effect. There were also a lot of public claims about "vast stockpiles of WMD" and "protecting freedom in Syria".

Hence the need to show strength, and to kick you lot off our border if at all possible.

It didn't work out as being possible, did it?

And now we are into full on British Empire apologism. Gee, the South Africans certainly weren’t consulted if they liked the government they had before either.

In those days - NO ONE asked "Black People" what they wanted. Not even Americans asked "Black People" (not even "Black People" in the United States of America) what they wanted - did they?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Oh, so now you are attributing the existence of North America to the British Empire as well? There was always going to be a United States in some form or another. We might not have had to fight your particular band of ultra-aggressive would be world conquerors but that doesn’t mean “there wouldn’t be a United States”.

Would you like me to review Grade 3 History for you so that you know where the vast majority of the people who lived in the British colonies in North America came from originally?

Considering the laughably corrupt ways in which sailors were impressed into the Royal Navy in the first place, you complaining about the US providing people with papers is, again, the height of hypocrisy. Nor was the Royal Navy particularly careful about choosing who to snatch off US ships.

If you ever find me defending "impressment" on an absolute basis, it will be a first.

"Impressment" was the then current equivalent of "the draft".

We’d been fighting madmen who wanted to conquer the world since 1775-1776.

Only after all of the profit possible had been extracted from both the intended conquerors and the intended conquerees.

No, actually we don’t, but nice attempt at “whataboutism” to try and hand wave away the fact that the British ruled with an iron fist over their empire....and that as willing parts of said empire, you Canadians were every bit as guilty.

Would that mean that, before the American Revolution the American colonies were every bit as guilty as well?

If the Kaiser hadn’t given Austria Hungary a blank check it’s entirely possible the whole thing could have been negotiated out like the previous couple war scares before it.

Ignores the fact that the Kaiser wanted to call the whole thing off and the fact that the general European system of mass mobilization meant that, once the process had started it couldn't be stopped - doesn't it?

....which doesn’t change the fact that US ships were shooting at German ships to protect supplies and resources to keep England from starving, after England had created the mess by appeasing the Nazis at every turn.

I was wondering how long it would take for you to get to the point where you blamed countries that had lost around 25% of their military aged male population in a war that was still all too clear in everyone's mind for attempting to do anything that they could to prevent another one from starting.

But, since you lot don’t seem to have wanted it, perhaps we shouldn’t have.

Which, I suspect was a sentence that was intended to make something remotely resembling sense.

I see you’ve conveniently ignored the fact that numerous countries the British conquered in wars of aggression and then refused to leave—Ireland, Kenya, India—were not consulted on whether or not they liked the government they had before when London’s troops showed up.

The Brits gave the Irish a free choice as to whether or not to leave. Some chose to leave and some chose to remain.

The Brits granted Kenya its independence WITHOUT a "Kenyan Revolution"

The Brits granted India its independence WITHOUT an "Indian Revolution".

In fact, the ONLY British colonies that ever felt the need for a revolution in order to secure independence were the 12 American colonies. All of the other British colonies that achieved independence managed to do so WITHOUT resorting to violence.

PS - I do note that the US spent considerable amounts in both lives and money in order to continue its repression of the Philippines (after ousting the indigenous Philippine government that had declared its independence from Spain) for quite some time after the Brits had agreed to the independence of the greater part of its colonial possessions.

PPS - I do also note that the Brits were (and remain) quite open about the fact that Britain's colonial possessions WERE colonial possessions while the United States of America continues to deny that its colonial possessions are (or ever were) colonial possessions.

 

[Tigerace117]

Would you like me to review Grade 3 History for you so that you know where the vast majority of the people who lived in the British colonies in North America came from originally?



If you ever find me defending "impressment" on an absolute basis, it will be a



Would that mean that, before the American Revolution the American colonies were every bit as guilty as



Which, I suspect was a sentence that was intended to make something remotely resembling sense.



The Brits gave the Irish a free choice as to whether or not to leave. Some chose to leave and some chose to remain.

The Brits granted Kenya its independence WITHOUT a "Kenyan Revolution"

The Brits granted India its independence WITHOUT an "Indian Revolution

PS - I do note that the US spent considerable amounts in both lives and money in order to continue its repression of the Philippines (after ousting the indigenous Philippine government that had declared its independence from Spain) for quite some time after the Brits had agreed to the independence of the greater part of its colonial possessions.

PPS - I do also note that the Brits were (and remain) quite open about the fact that Britain's colonial possessions WERE colonial possessions while the United States of America continues to deny that its colonial possessions are (or ever were) colonial possessions.

Apparently Grade 3 History in Canada is massively deficient, because you seem to have forgotten that there were colonies in North America long before the British Empire showed up.

:lamo

Please provide evidence of agents of the draft board hijacking airplanes and grabbing random passengers off them to enlist in the United States military. I’ll wait. Trying to claim it was “equivalent to the draft” is idiotic.

Again, considering that your beloved empire routinely did that on a global basis—- and that draining wealth was the explicit purpose of colonial regimes in the first place, you crying about it is rather funny.

Except the American colonies rebelled against the British Empire.....before the abuses and the bulk of the wars of imperial conquest took place.

Canada, on the other hand, stayed loyal and happily participated in whatever atrocities the Empire “needed”.

Ignores the fact that it was the Kaiser’s pursuit of a “place in the sun” which had turned the whole place into a tinderbox to begin with....doesn’t it?

The British only gave Ireland a choice after force of arms made it clear they couldn’t keep the island under control any longer, and only after they committed plenty of atrocities.

Aw, the poor poor British Empire, so picked on by everyone. Boo ****ing hoo. :roll:

The British, again, only granted India independence after it was made very clear to them that they could no longer control it, and even they botched the partition horrifically.
Quit India Movement - Wikipedia
Partition of India - Wikipedia

The British only granted Kenya independence after committing horrific atrocities

5 of the worst atrocities carried out by the British Empire | The Independent

WN Day 25: Monty Python Burning Kikuyu Skit - By Gary Brecher - The eXiled

British atrocities in colonial Kenya: The Canadian connection | Pambazuka News

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/18/uncovering-truth-british-empire-caroline-elkins-mau-mau

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_Tans

The fact is, the British Empire—and it’s loyal supporters in Canada and elsewhere—committed horrific atrocities on a routine basis and only gave up control over a country if there was no possible way that they could hold on any longer.

The fact that you’ve managed to ignore Ireland, India, Kenya, South Africa, and numerous other places where the locals fought wars of independence against the British Empire is rather funny.

PS Considering the US had granted independence to the Philippines while the British Empire still was in control of the bulk of its African holdings—and India— your post is a bad joke.

PPS Yes, you Empire fanboys like to pretend the empire was some sort of positive influence and react rather poorly whenever the facts come to light.....as they have about Kenya in recent years.

 

[Tigerace117]

And they weren't before the War of 1812 either.



And they had already stopped before the War of 1812 (except for those sailors who were British subjects and did not have American "protections").



Were the Americans occupying British North America after the War of 1812?



The American goal in the War of 1812 was to conquer and annex British North America, did it achieve its goal?



What you are "sure of" and what is reality are not necessarily the same thing. In this case, they aren't.



Indeed, the Canadians completely ignore the fact that the Americans were completely successful in their intended invasion, conquest, and annexation of British North America.



Actually it's more likely that the "War Hawks" saw a chance for a lot of really nice (and quick) profit by invading, conquering, and annexing British North America while the Brits were preoccupied dealing with Napoleon's militaristic empire building (which involved invading, conquering, and annexing other countries and their territories.



I'll agree that there was a lot of public claims to that effect. There were also a lot of public claims about "vast stockpiles of WMD" and "protecting freedom in Syria".



It didn't work out as being possible, did it?



In those days - NO ONE asked "Black People" what they wanted. Not even Americans asked "Black People" (not even "Black People" in the United States of America) what they wanted - did they?

Oh look, even more empire fanboying from you.

Yep, the British were forced to stop snatching sailors off American ships—and no, they were not particularly scrupulous about determining who was a “British subject”.

Yep, the British influence in the Old Northwest was destroyed.

Yep, a British army got absolutely obliterated outside New Orleans.

Yes, yes, we all know that’s it’s only the British Empire which is allowed to indulge in militaristic empire building :roll:

The rest of your post is nothing more than more fanboying drivel