20-07-2005 17:47									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: So then Nicaragua had every right to invade the Honduras in the 1980s.

I don't see why not.

	20-07-2005 17:53									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Well, okay then.

	20-07-2005 20:31									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

It's settled.

	20-07-2005 20:34									#94
	Full PM-box? Change here!

An agreement on poly? wow.

	20-07-2005 20:40									#95
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

the first american general to lose a war:
Benedict Arnold. He was American (connecticut, established family) a general (a brilliant one) and the side he was on when the war ended, lost.

	20-07-2005 20:43									#96
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

He didn't lose the war. He was just on the losing side.

	20-07-2005 20:46									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

First American general to lose the war:

Chief Biggums of the Choctaw tribe

Was trying to TAP THAT AZZZ of Big Barrell when rival Chief Causes Heart Attack slapped him upside the head with a buffalo horn.

	20-07-2005 20:46									#98
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: An agreement on poly? wow.

And between Che and I no less

I wouldn't call the second Mexican American war too much of a victory either.

	20-07-2005 20:47									#99
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Ted, you certainly seemed to be obsessed with gay sex recently. Is there something you need to tell us?

	20-07-2005 20:49									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Big Barrel is a woman!!!!!!!!!!

Come on know your Choctaw!!!!!!!

	20-07-2005 20:53									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Sikander Yea, involuntary servitude is a really stupid reason to go to war. I'm sure Canada will agree when I make you my new butler.

I supposed you still believe that there were WMD in Iraq, eh.

	20-07-2005 20:55									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I know you Canadians have an inferiority complex when it comes to us and have this incesent need to one up us, but really, try to realize the war wasn't all about you. Not even mostly about you. Canada was, as always, an afterthought.

	20-07-2005 21:08									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Sikander The U.S. military left completely intact and in comfort long before the collapse of ARVN.

Completely intact, except for billions of dollars wasted, tons of equipment left behind, disillusioned soldiers plus thousands dead and wounded.

The fact is the U.S. was defeated by an army of peasants. The US was never able to win against the Vietnamese.

South Vietnam was lost long before 1975. The Viet Cong controlled the countryside and had free movement within the cities.

The South Vietnamese was nothing more than a corrupt puppet of the US and hundreds of South Vietnamese government officials were actually Viet Cong.

The fact is the Nixon adminstration started an illegal, secret war by attacking a neutral country. If the bombings were just than Nixon would not have had to hide it.

In the end, 50,000+ American soldiers died for nothing. They died in vain so that U.S. politicians could make the empty boast that they had achieved peace with honor.

Millions of people died because American politicians thought they were invincible.

quote: Originally posted by Sikander The U.S. led West won the Cold War (you know, the 50 year war which Vietnam was only a part of) in 1989. That's 14 years, and we weren't exactly looking weak just before we won were we?

The West won the Cold War by default, the U.S. military had nothing to do with it. The Soviet Union collapsed from within. It couldn't handle it's defeat in Afghanistan.

quote: Originally posted by Sikander Typical crap from you. You have to run the U.S. down in order to live with your devotion to your Chicom masters. But you might consider burnishing your rationalizations in private in order to avoid the regular pwnage you receive.

	20-07-2005 21:09									#104
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara He didn't lose the war. He was just on the losing side.

if he hadnt screwed up his contacts with Andre, and had managed to turnover West Point and its troops and supplies, the brits might have won.

	20-07-2005 21:13									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I know you Canadians have an inferiority complex when it comes to us and have this incesent need to one up us, but really, try to realize the war wasn't all about you. Not even mostly about you. Canada was, as always, an afterthought.

Yeah, General Hull and his crew were just going for a hike... before they turned and ran without a fight.

The Americans who crossed at Queenston Heights just went on a boat ride, before they got their butt kicked back across the the Niagara River. Samething at Lundy's Lane and further east Chrysler's Farm.

Impressment was just an excuse for a land grab.

	20-07-2005 22:11									#106
	Got spare money?

And in any case Brits stopped impressig as a policy after the Napoleonic wars, but DEFINITELY not because of the war of 1812.

	20-07-2005 22:18									#107
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Saras And in any case Brits stopped impressig as a policy after the Napoleonic wars, but DEFINITELY not because of the war of 1812.

Of course the americans werent concerned with whether or not the brits continued impressment as a policy, but whether or not they continued to impress sailors from american merchant ships.

	20-07-2005 22:21									#108
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: 2) To remove British forts from the American fronteer and stop the Brits from stirring up the Indians against us.

Right, like American policy towards the Indians was intended to pacify them, that they were all nice and peaceful towards them, in their drive for manifest destiny.

The British used to have a heck of a time trying to police the squabbles between the US colonies and the native peoples who lived beyond the allocated colony boundaries. When the Americans became independent, the British no longer had to pay to defend both sides from each other.

quote: Regardless of whether or noth the Indians had a legit cause for going after us, the Brits had no right to be arming them and giving them supplies just to attack us.

If the Indians are allies to the British, then they have every right to sell and trade weapons to help them defend themselves against the Americans.

quote: Further, if you can't control your own territory and stop foreign countries from putting forts in it, it's not your territory. Had we done nothing about those forts, the Brits could have claimed the Northwest territories.

Which justifies burning forts on the other side of the border how? I have to go with the arguments here, that the Americans were only too happy to get their hands on Canada, figured it would be a pushover, and when Canada didn't fold right away, they were shocked and surprised.

	20-07-2005 22:26									#109
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai A feeble excuse to start a war, not unlike weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

In the case of the impressment something was actually occuring whereas the WMD situation was action about something that might occur.

If the US started boarding UK ships and apprehending british citizens to send them to gitmo, you would not think that an act of war?

	20-07-2005 23:43									#110
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo In the case of the impressment something was actually occuring whereas the WMD situation was action about something that might occur. If the US started boarding UK ships and apprehending british citizens to send them to gitmo, you would not think that an act of war?

The British were boarding merchant ships in international and arresting British desserters during a time of war. No it was not an act of war against the US, and the US government knew it. That's why it took the US warhawks so long to drum up enough support to start the war.

	21-07-2005 00:03									#111
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai The British were boarding merchant ships in international and arresting British desserters during a time of war. No it was not an act of war against the US, and the US government knew it. That's why it took the US warhawks so long to drum up enough support to start the war.

Stopping a ship in international waters is irrelevant, stopping a ship without justification in Int waters is piracy. And lots of American sailors were of British birth, and they were taken more or less indiscriminately. There was of course reluctance to go to war anyway.

	21-07-2005 00:04									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi If the Indians are allies to the British, then they have every right to sell and trade weapons to help them defend themselves against the Americans. .

Not if they were on what was recognized as American territory.

	21-07-2005 00:31									#113
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Stopping a ship in international waters is irrelevant, stopping a ship without justification in Int waters is piracy. And lots of American sailors were of British birth, and they were taken more or less indiscriminately. There was of course reluctance to go to war anyway.

At this very moment, Nato warships are stopping ships in international waters, such as in the Persian Gulf. Is that piracy?

Besides, desserters were arrested, not American citizens.

	21-07-2005 00:36									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

They didn't really care much about distinguishing between the two.

	21-07-2005 00:40									#115
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Besides, desserters were arrested, not American citizens.

This is just one example.

quote: Chesapeake, U.S. frigate, famous for her role in the Chesapeake affair (June 22, 1807) and for her battle with the H.M.S. Shannon (June 1, 1813). The Chesapeake left Norfolk, Va., for the Mediterranean under the command of James Barron in June, 1807. Just outside U.S. territorial waters the H.M.S. Leopard stopped her and demanded the right to search her for British deserters. Barron refused to allow this, and shortly afterward the Leopard opened fire. Unprepared for action, Barron was forced to submit and allow the impressment of four of his crew (two of whom were American-born).

http://www.answers.com/topic/chesapeake?method=5&linktext=Chesapeake

Besides saying that the Brits were only arresting Brit citizens is more than a little disingenuous considering the fact that it wasn't until 1850 that they reconized the right of a man to renounce his nationality.

	21-07-2005 00:46									#116
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai At this very moment, Nato warships are stopping ships in international waters, such as in the Persian Gulf. Is that piracy?

looking for Terrorists, who pose a risk of violence, not deserters. What would you think if we forced a Canadian passenger jet to land, on the belief that deserters from US forces in Iraq were on it?

	21-07-2005 00:49									#117
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc This is just one example. quote: Chesapeake, U.S. frigate, famous for her role in the Chesapeake affair (June 22, 1807) and for her battle with the H.M.S. Shannon (June 1, 1813). The Chesapeake left Norfolk, Va., for the Mediterranean under the command of James Barron in June, 1807. Just outside U.S. territorial waters the H.M.S. Leopard stopped her and demanded the right to search her for British deserters. Barron refused to allow this, and shortly afterward the Leopard opened fire. Unprepared for action, Barron was forced to submit and allow the impressment of four of his crew (two of whom were American-born). http://www.answers.com/topic/chesapeake?method=5&linktext=Chesapeake Besides saying that the Brits were only arresting Brit citizens is more than a little disingenuous considering the fact that it wasn't until 1850 that they reconized the right of a man to renounce his nationality.

Yes, a well known case, and yes, distinguishing which nation a person belonged to was difficult, particulary less than 20 years after the American Revolution.

Nonetheless, the British did not take every sailor on the Chesapeake, only four.

And while American history books will mention that two, or three of the four were born in the US, the more pertinent question was whether they had served in the Royal Navy and whether they were deserters.

	21-07-2005 00:49									#118
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker They didn't really care much about distinguishing between the two.

Indeed:

quote: In the late 1700s and early 1800s, the Royal Navy aggressively reclaimed British deserters posing as sailors of any other Navy, both by halting and searching merchant ships, and in many cases, by searching American port cities. Since it was difficult to tell whether a sailor was British or American, the Royal Navy "accidentally" impressed over 6000 American sailors during the early 1800s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment
Bolded an interesting part.

	21-07-2005 00:55									#119
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Do you really think that the U.S. government would have allowed the Royal Navy to search for sailors in US cities, particularly after winning the American Revolution?

	21-07-2005 01:02									#120
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Do you really think that the U.S. government would have allowed the Royal Navy to search for sailors in US cities, particularly after winning the American Revolution?

No, i think we would have gone to war over it. Isnt that what we're talking about?