21-07-2005 01:09									#121
	Got spare money?

No, the warhawks were complaining about impressment in general, not about the Royal Navy searching for sailors in American ports.

Besides, it would have been an easy thing to stop.

The wikipedia entry about searches in American cities is likely false.

	21-07-2005 01:18									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

yes we went to war about impressment in general - that would include impressment in ports if it was happening.

would it have been easy to stop? I think you overestimate the degree of orderliness in an 1810 US port city. You go into a tavern in the seedy part of Manhattan, near 5 points, where the sailors hung out, get a guy dead drunk, and drag him aboard a ship.

As to impressment at sea, they took ANY british citizen. And considered anyone born in Britain to be british.

My wife was born in Hungary. Can the Hungarian govt stop her on the high seas, on a US flag vessel or airplane, for no particular crime, and draft her into the service of Hungary?

	21-07-2005 01:22									#123
	Inflate your Upload Space

actually i think impressment was done at sea and in neutral ports. So youre a brit, who goes off to America, becomes a sailor on a US flag merchantman, and youre sitting in a bar in say, Canton, and the Brits come in and grab you.

	21-07-2005 01:26									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark As to impressment at sea, they took ANY british citizen. And considered anyone born in Britain to be british.

At the time all countries considered citizenship to be based on country of birth, no?

	21-07-2005 01:30									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark My wife was born in Hungary. Can the Hungarian govt stop her on the high seas, on a US flag vessel or airplane, for no particular crime, and draft her into the service of Hungary?

What is illegal today may not have been illegal 200 years ago.

As far as I know, the Royal Navy did not board ships unless the ship was in international or British waters.

The British had been searching ships for deserters for decades. The warhawks decided to use it as an excuse when the time was convenient for the US to invade Canada, namely when Britain was tied up in the Napoleanic wars.

	21-07-2005 13:17									#126
	Got spare money?

Wen't both sides just itching for an excuse to tie up the oustanding issues follwoing the earlier revolutionary wars.

	21-07-2005 13:30									#127
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo US 'lost' vietnam because we fought a huge war which didn't achieved any of it's objectives. This was probably inevitable since the US failed to actually define any objectives that could be achieved through such a limited war. No question there was a war and we didn't win it, so trying to argue we didn't lose it is basically pointless regardless of the lopsided endless series of (ultimately irrelevant) total military victories on the battlefield.

If we didn't have any objectives how could we have not achieved those objectives.

	21-07-2005 13:35									#128
	Put an end to popups!

In any case, I'm man enough to admit we lost the war politically. But there is no way in hell our military lost the war. They won nearly every battle. The war just wasn't winnable.

But we did lose the war overall. Just like we are going to lose the Iraq war. Eventually we will pull out, and things will turn to ****.

Yes this is another endless Iraq/Vietnam comparison. But it's very easy to see. When we start pulling out (I've heard even as soon as next year), the country will not survive in it's present form of goverment.

I feel so bad for supporting the Iraq war. . I want to kill myself. All those lives lost. It's people such as myself which allowed the president to do what he did. If congress had only stood up to the president and didn't allow him to do what he did. And congress would have stood up if people such as myself had put pressure on our representatives to not go to war. . I'll never support another war ever again. I don't even support the war on terrorism anymore.

	21-07-2005 16:10									#129
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Actually, the South started an offensive after the U.S. pulled out, despite the fact there was supposed to be a cease fire. They did well enough for a while, but they overstretched themselves (considering the corruption and lack of American air support). In '75, the South decided to pull back to better defend itself in the face of a minor NVA offesnive, but due to total incompetence on its part, the orderly retreat fell apart into a total collapse on the part of ARVN, and the NVA just moved forward and picked up the pieces. It wasn't "radicals in the U.S. Congress" who caused the South to fall. They, along with pretty much everyone but the reactionaries, felt that the South was a lost cause, even with all the help that we could have given them. Even the Ford Administration considered it hopeless, though they were willing to send supplies anyway.

The cut off of ammunition and fuel by congress in early 1975 (by the class of '74) and the realization that U.S. forces would never again intervene played a huge part in Thieu's appalling decision to abandon the central highlands and refuse to listen to the pleas of his American advisors. We lost all of our leverage there. The South was certainly demoralized by their defeat in their Cambodia offensive, but morale can renew itself rather quickly. The NVA on the other hand had lost a lot more combat power in the preceding years and they knew that they might never recover to their previous levels while the war continued.

Had ARVN held their positions in 1975 they would have been able to hold them in 1976 as well. They were the stronger force in South Vietnam than the NVA, but they got rolled.

	21-07-2005 16:16									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai I supposed you still believe that there were WMD in Iraq, eh.

I don't think any serious person doesn't think that there were WMD in Iraq, their presence there and the million or so casualties caused by them are very well documented.

	21-07-2005 16:33									#131
	Support Apolyton

here we go again with the WMD debate...

	21-07-2005 16:35									#132
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Yeah, General Hull and his crew were just going for a hike... before they turned and ran without a fight.

The fact that we invaded Canada doesn't mean that it was a primary war aim. Anyway, not to have done so would have been idiotic in the extreme, since anyone with at least half a brain would understand that Britain would be able to invade the U.S. from Canada. Even if Canada wasn't a war aim, we still would have invaded. You don't let the enemy (Great Britain) have an unmolested base from which to attack you.

Yes, we wanted Canada, but guess what, we wanted Canada before that. We didn't invade. We didn't invade until relations with the Brits fell, because they were occupying our territory and seizing our citizens.

	21-07-2005 16:36									#133
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai At the time all countries considered citizenship to be based on country of birth, no?

Not us

	21-07-2005 16:40									#134
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Right, like American policy towards the Indians was intended to pacify them,

This has what to do with the price of tea in China?

quote: When the Americans became independent, the British no longer had to pay to defend both sides from each other.

See above comment.

quote: 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.

So if we were allies with the Irish while they were part of the British Empire, it would have been perfectly acceptable for the U.S. to establish forts there and arm the Irish against the British. Don't you think the British Empire might have decalred war on us for doing something which so flagrantly violated their sovreignty?

quote: Which justifies burning forts on the other side of the border how?

Because we were at war.

The idea that the War of 1812 was soley or even mostly just an excuse to grab Canada is a joke.

	21-07-2005 16:40									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Not us

Hell, in the U.S., you didn't even have to be a citizen to vote until 1853.

	21-07-2005 16:48									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: So if we were allies with the Irish while they were part of the British Empire, it would have been perfectly acceptable for the U.S. to establish forts there and arm the Irish against the British. Don't you think the British Empire might have decalred war on us for doing something which so flagrantly violated their sovreignty?

i dont care about your stupid war but i wanna say this...this is all about whos point of view you are looking from...the US thought that the indian lands were part of the US...thus british helping them out with weapons was violation of the US sovereigty...but the indians saw the US as invaders of THEIR lands thus felt compelled to defend them selves...from the US point of view the UK was helping 'terrorists' and from a indian point of view the UK was battling the invader...


excatly the same can be said about your irish UK comparison...

just saying this in general...

	21-07-2005 16:55									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DeathByTheSword the US thought that the indian lands were part of the US...thus british helping them out with weapons was violation of the US sovereigty...but the indians saw the US as invaders of THEIR lands thus felt compelled to defend them selves...from the US point of view the UK was helping 'terrorists' and from a indian point of view the UK was battling the invader.

I'm not in disagreement that wrt the Indians, we were the bad guys. I'm glad the Brits helped them out because they were able to fight for themselves because of it. Regardless, it was a violation of American sovreignty for the Brits to arm them. It was an even more serious breach of our sovreignty for the British to be occupying what was internationally recognized as our territory, even if it was actually the Indians territory.

The War of 1812 was between the U.S. and Great Britain, thus what matters is why the U.S. declared war on Great Britain, and not whether the Indians had a legitmate greivenace against the Americans.

We recognize that we were the agressors in the Meixcan-American War and the Spanish American War as well as most of the Indian Wars. Those wars were all fought for conquest. While we declared war on Great Britain, it was a war of self-defence. The conquest of Canada was not a reason we went to war, but if we could take it during the war, that was a bonus.

	21-07-2005 16:58									#138
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

fine by me but like i said it is just from which point of view you are looking

	21-07-2005 17:01									#139
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Completely intact, except for billions of dollars wasted, tons of equipment left behind, disillusioned soldiers plus thousands dead and wounded.

We left equipment behind for ARVN, but abandoned nothing to the enemy. It was an orderly phased withdrawl over 4 years, starting in 1969. There is no serious dispute about this. We lost thousands of dead and wounded, but inflicted a million casualties ourselves.

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

We wiped out the peasant army (the Viet Cong). The NVA was a professional force with far more experience on average at lower ranks than the U.S. Army. Nonetheless they were beaten repeatedly by U.S. forces. Your statement, like so many of your statements, doesn't even contain a germ of truth.

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai South Vietnam was lost long before 1975. The Viet Cong controlled the countryside and had free movement within the cities.

Again, you simply don't know what you are talking about. Why didn't the VC simply take over in 1972 or 1973 when U.S. ground strength was next to nil? Because the VC was destroyed as a military force in 1969. Sure they had some cells that did not get rolled up by the Phoenix program or gunned down during Tet, but they had trouble even puting together company sized operations anywhere in the South. The NVA had to painstakingly infiltrate professional replacements to the south in order to maintain any pressure at all.

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai The South Vietnamese was nothing more than a corrupt puppet of the US and hundreds of South Vietnamese government officials were actually Viet Cong.

They weren't particularly corrupt by Asian standards. The exceptional group was the NVA, at least for a time.

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai 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.

More ignorance. The illegal and secret war had been going on for many years with little or no U.S. involvement, and it was started by the NVA. Nixon kept the bombing a secret not because it was illegal for the U.S. to bomb under international law, but because he didn't want to ask congress for direct authorization. A domestic political consideration.

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai 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.

A tiny minority died after Nixon decided to pull out and made his "Peace with Honor" statement. Read a book sometime. And they didn't die for nothing, they killed a lot of communists which is always worthwhile.

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Millions of people died because American politicians thought they were invincible.

Hubris had little or nothing to do with it. It was largely a failure of our democratically elected leadership to understand that they could not win a war where the enemy could not be attacked. The best possible outcome in such a circumstance was a stalemate, which is in fact where we left things. Nixon actually understood this, but his paranoia brought his government down (Wategate) and with it his intention to leave the RVN intact was doomed in the long run.

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai 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.

Stupider and stupider he goes, when will he stop, nobody knows!

What percentage of the Soviet army was aligned against the West during the height of the fighting in Afghanistan? What percentage of the Soviet GNP was spent on defense? What was the opportunity cost of having an enormous draft army and an enormous security apparatus for decades? What was the cost of bulding over 20,000 nuclear weapons, hundreds of submarines, a space race, etc. ad nauseum.

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai

While not objectively an intelligent statement, it is certainly your best effort in the thread so far. Congratulations, I guess.

	21-07-2005 17:02									#140
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DeathByTheSword fine by me but like i said it is just from which point of view you are looking

Not for the points being argued, which is why the U.S. declared war, and whether those reasons were valid.

It has been posited by the Canadians that the War of 1812 was simply an attempted land grab, and that since they were not conquered, they therefore won the war. They dismiss our legitimate greivances with the Mother Country. Regardless of whether or not the Indians had legitmate grievences with us has no bearing on whether our greivences with Great Britain were legitimate.

	21-07-2005 17:06									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Sikander They weren't particularly corrupt by Asian standards. The exceptional group was the NVA, at least for a time.

That sez more about Asia than it does about the South Vietnamese. The SV government was so corrupt that the Communist foreces were often better supplied with American supplies than ARVN.

quote: they didn't die for nothing, they killed a lot of communists which is always worthwhile.

Uhm, screw you.

	21-07-2005 17:20									#142
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara quote: Originally posted by Sikander They weren't particularly corrupt by Asian standards. The exceptional group was the NVA, at least for a time. That sez more about Asia than it does about the South Vietnamese. The SV government was so corrupt that the Communist foreces were often better supplied with American supplies than ARVN.

There was certainly an immense amount of material corruption, in part because of the mountains of supplies that the U.S. poured into that poor country. But it's important not to confuse this with moral corruption. Over a million South Vietnamese died in the conflict, and they were not all hapless victims of poorly aimed napalm or communist death squads. Many of them died bravely fighting for their country (whichever side that happened to be).

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara quote: they didn't die for nothing, they killed a lot of communists which is always worthwhile. Uhm, screw you.

Sorry I couldn't resist the troll. Let me restate it to this:

During a decades long struggle between the free world and monolithic totalitarian communism, killing a lot of communists has to look pretty damned good to the free world.

	21-07-2005 18:38									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by DeathByTheSword fine by me but like i said it is just from which point of view you are looking

the brits were the ones accused of violating US soverienty, and THEY had recognized the border since 1783.

	21-07-2005 22:53									#145
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Sikander We lost thousands of dead and wounded, but inflicted a million casualties ourselves. We wiped out the peasant army (the Viet Cong). The NVA was a professional force with far more experience on average at lower ranks than the U.S. Army. Nonetheless they were beaten repeatedly by U.S. forces.

You don't get it do you.

You're making the same mistakes that led to the US losing the war.

Victory was never about how many people the Americans could killed.

The US killed more than a million Vietnamese, and the Vietnamese still won.

The US assassinated people they thought were Viet Cong leaders, the Vietnamese still won.

The US bombed, napalmed and shot men, women and children, and the Vietnamese still won.

The US inflicted heavy casualties in hundreds of firefights, but the Vietnamese still won.

Everytime the US knocked down the Vietnamese, the Vietnamese bounced back and that's why the Vietnamese won.

For every Vietnamese killed by an American, another was willing to step up and fight the occupiers.

Westmoreland and the other generals thought they could win a war of attrition, that they could destroy the enemy, they were wrong, and the US lost.

The only things the US achieved was a lot of people killed, including innocent civilians. For nothing.

Try reading some books about military strategy, start with Sun Tzu's Art of War.

quote: Originally posted by Sikander They weren't particularly corrupt by Asian standards. The exceptional group was the NVA, at least for a time.

Okay, so now we know you that you don't anything about politics or the meaning of corruption.

quote: Originally posted by Sikander Nixon kept the bombing a secret not because it was illegal for the U.S. to bomb under international law, but because he didn't want to ask congress for direct authorization.

Hello, is anyone home.

By keeping it secret and not getting Congress approval, it was an illegal war.

quote: Originally posted by Sikander A tiny minority died after Nixon decided to pull out and made his "Peace with Honor" statement.

Read up on the history of the Vietnam War. Peace with honour didn't start with Nixon. From the very beginnig, the US politicians felt honoured bound to keep promises made by someone else and they were going to keep fighting until there was peace.

quote: Originally posted by Sikander What percentage of the Soviet GNP was spent on defense? What was the opportunity cost of having an enormous draft army and an enormous security apparatus for decades? What was the cost of bulding over 20,000 nuclear weapons, hundreds of submarines, a space race, etc. ad nauseum.

Oh lord, another poly economist. I'm not even going to begin to tell you what you don't understand.

	21-07-2005 22:57									#146
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Try reading some books about military strategy, start with Sun Tzu's Art of War.

God, you are a ****ing amateur.

	21-07-2005 23:05									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

im gonna threadjack my own thread, but who cares.

theres about a 50% chance that I will be drafted within the next year, and I can kinda choose what I want to do (you can kinda request it, but they dont have to give it to you.) could someone explain how recon works (in general what you do), how tanks work (in general what you do in an armored brigade), and what the infantry is all about, and what alpin units are about. thanks.

	21-07-2005 23:37									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Don't worry Pat, I think they have a comic version for you.

	21-07-2005 23:38									#149
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia im gonna threadjack my own thread, but who cares. theres about a 50% chance that I will be drafted within the next year, and I can kinda choose what I want to do (you can kinda request it, but they dont have to give it to you.) could someone explain how recon works (in general what you do), how tanks work (in general what you do in an armored brigade), and what the infantry is all about, and what alpin units are about. thanks.

alpine units get to move 3 squares in any terrain. They get to ski across deserts. really cool.

	22-07-2005 02:03									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Dis If we didn't have any objectives how could we have not achieved those objectives.

precisely the point. You can't win a war where you choose to fight and die for nothing. We didn't really have objectives just this bizarre faith that a large military presence would somehow magically ensure a favorable political outcome.