Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Gives Us the Right to Stay in Iraq?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    For example, if the US followed European examples, Mexico and Canada would not be separate nations.
    An attempt was made with the war of 1812.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post

      An attempt was made with the war of 1812.
      Indeed!

      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        ...


        The US is unique in this respect. Most previous super-powers simply occupied and took over countries they invaded--permanently such as all the European colonial powers. The US has outside the contiguous 48 states not done so. For example, if the US followed European examples, Mexico and Canada would not be separate nations.
        This "uniqueness" (which is not entirely true as the previous poster mentioned) was not a result of some superior moral superiority. it was the result of the fact that unlike the densely populated Europe in which rival powers had to compete for the control of limited space, the US was free to expand and gain the control of vast lands at the expense of the very weak Native Americans.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post

          An attempt was made with the war of 1812.
          A half-hearted one. In the Great Lakes region neither side had the manpower or resources to really mount an invasion of the other. The only two really good units in the region were the British 49th Foot called the "Green Tigers" from their green facings on their uniforms while the Kentucky Mounted Rifles was the good US unit.

          The former was a regular British infantry regiment and one of the few in the Americas that really was well trained and equipped. The Kentucky Mounted Rifles were volunteers but had to provide their horses and weapons meaning they had some wealth. They also were used to riding and even shooting from horseback.

          It's interesting that the two met the 1st Kentucky Mounted Rifles rode down the British line that deployed in an extended order and unlike European cavalry the Kentuckian's caracoled them with pistol and musket fire from horseback at close range breaking the unit. That was probably the only time the 49th lost a fight in that war.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by pamak View Post

            This "uniqueness" (which is not entirely true as the previous poster mentioned) was not a result of some superior moral superiority. it was the result of the fact that unlike the densely populated Europe in which rival powers had to compete for the control of limited space, the US was free to expand and gain the control of vast lands at the expense of the very weak Native Americans.
            In 1845 the US invaded Mexico and effectively controlled the country at the end of that war. The US paid Mexico a big chunk of money anyway for what is now most of the Western US along with withdrawing from Mexico. The typical European country would never have been so magnanimous. If the US wanted Mexico they could have just stayed and said "Guess what? Your are the next 31 states! Learn English!"

            The US took the Philippines and Cuba from Spain but held both for about 50 years, give or take, before letting them become their own nations. The US also invaded and held several Central American nations in the early 20th Century but didn't stay more than a few decades. The Panama Canal zone is about the longest the US stay in any of them.



            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

              A half-hearted one. In the Great Lakes region neither side had the manpower or resources to really mount an invasion of the other.

              .
              It's a fallacy to maintain that the British/Canadian side desired to mount an invasion of the United States in the war of 1812. The UK was at the time preoccupied by the war with Napoleon,which probably was the impetus for the United States to take their chance to try to take over Canada. That it failed because it didn't have the "manpower or resources to really mount an invasion" is not really a good argument in favour of "if the US followed European examples, Mexico and Canada would not be separate nations". Your original argument relates to moral superiority so changing it to an argument about martial inferiority is a non-sequentor.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                It's a fallacy to maintain that the British/Canadian side desired to mount an invasion of the United States in the war of 1812. The UK was at the time preoccupied by the war with Napoleon,which probably was the impetus for the United States to take their chance to try to take over Canada. That it failed because it didn't have the "manpower or resources to really mount an invasion" is not really a good argument in favour of "if the US followed European examples, Mexico and Canada would not be separate nations". Your original argument relates to moral superiority so changing it to an argument about martial inferiority is a non-sequentor.
                One of the things the British did in the Great Lakes area was make all sorts of promises to the Great Lakes tribes under Tecumseh including that they'd guarantee their territorial rights. When the war ended in a draw the Indian tribes got bent over and done raw by the Americans because they chose the wrong side in that war.
                There was a real attempt by the British to take several strategic points around the Great Lakes but not with much success. Neither side had the wherewithal to really do much.

                img]http://ss.sites.mtu.edu/mhugl/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/OperationsNorth.gif[/img]

                The US, if it followed European example, would have had a larger, much larger standing army and would have quickly moved to expand that by splitting regiments or forming second battalions of a regiment. Instead, what the US had was a tiny regular army and relied almost entirely on a mass of militia and volunteer regiments that formed locally and were usually of indifferent quality.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                  One of the things the British did in the Great Lakes area was make all sorts of promises to the Great Lakes tribes under Tecumseh including that they'd guarantee their territorial rights. When the war ended in a draw the Indian tribes got bent over and done raw by the Americans because they chose the wrong side in that war.
                  There was a real attempt by the British to take several strategic points around the Great Lakes but not with much success. Neither side had the wherewithal to really do much.

                  img]http://ss.sites.mtu.edu/mhugl/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/OperationsNorth.gif[/img]

                  The US, if it followed European example, would have had a larger, much larger standing army and would have quickly moved to expand that by splitting regiments or forming second battalions of a regiment. Instead, what the US had was a tiny regular army and relied almost entirely on a mass of militia and volunteer regiments that formed locally and were usually of indifferent quality.
                  Yes. I agree, the British and Canadians took measures to defend their homeland and loved ones from foreign invaders.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                    What are "rights" except they be maintained or defined or defended by force. The right to and the capacity to are forever entwined. Your rights here in the states exist only so long as someone like me exists to maintain them and protect them, or you yourself are willing to protect them yourself.
                    I'm sorry, but the reality is you're having the opposite effect.
                    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                    - Benjamin Franklin

                    The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                      In 1845 the US invaded Mexico and effectively controlled the country at the end of that war. The US paid Mexico a big chunk of money anyway for what is now most of the Western US along with withdrawing from Mexico. The typical European country would never have been so magnanimous. If the US wanted Mexico they could have just stayed and said "Guess what? Your are the next 31 states! Learn English!"

                      The US took the Philippines and Cuba from Spain but held both for about 50 years, give or take, before letting them become their own nations. The US also invaded and held several Central American nations in the early 20th Century but didn't stay more than a few decades. The Panama Canal zone is about the longest the US stay in any of them.



                      There is no doubt that the US did not become the colonial master that the British, French and Belgians were, but that was because there was no need to control such foreign territories when empty fields and rich land was within reach. By contrast, British, Spanish Belgian and French wealth depended on exploiting foreign lands. As I said, when resources are plentiful, it is easy to be "magnanimous."


                      Also, trying to control a country with hostile population does not come without a commitment to stage permanently troops there and spend blood. There was no point to control anything in today's Mexico territory when the war gave the opportunity to Americans to expand to the west up to California.

                      And of course, the Americans at the time were aware of Haiti and other similar revolutions against colonial powers which did not make it so easy to simply try to directly control the whole Cuba. At least, it would not worth it as long as the latter could not offer some significant enough advantage to justify such decision. Guantanamo was what the US permanently got for its fleet, and that was enough.

                      As for the Philippines, there was an insurrection and violence which at some points rose to levels of war crimes that were investigated by the senate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ged_war_crimes). So spare me with the oversimplified view of the US generosity.
                      Last edited by pamak; 16 Dec 19, 14:20.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                        It's a fallacy to maintain that the British/Canadian side desired to mount an invasion of the United States in the war of 1812. The UK was at the time preoccupied by the war with Napoleon,which probably was the impetus for the United States to take their chance to try to take over Canada. That it failed because it didn't have the "manpower or resources to really mount an invasion" is not really a good argument in favour of "if the US followed European examples, Mexico and Canada would not be separate nations". Your original argument relates to moral superiority so changing it to an argument about martial inferiority is a non-sequentor.
                        It does though lead to the question of how things would have been different if Canada and the US were not spread across a big land and their geography was more similar to that of the nations in mainland Europe. In that case, one can certainly see a situation where the concentration of manpower within a restricted geographical territory with limited resources compared to those found in America could have created the conditions and motivation for a much more serious invasion along the US-Canadian borders.
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post

                          It does though lead to the question of how things would have been different if Canada and the US were not spread across a big land and their geography was more similar to that of the nations in mainland Europe. In that case, one can certainly see a situation where the concentration of manpower within a restricted geographical territory with limited resources compared to those found in America could have created the conditions and motivation for a much more serious invasion along the US-Canadian borders.
                          I don't really know what you mean in that paragraph. Seems to say that If all the conditions of North America were the same as in Europe, including geography, then North America might have seen European wars. Well duh, if my aunt had balls then...

                          So far as the 19th Century goes, North America had its' full share of wars:
                          • War of 1812 (1812-1815)
                          • Mexican - American War (1846-1848)
                          • American Civil War (1861–1865)
                          • Spanish-American War (1898)
                          It is true that there was a lack of commitment to the war of 1812 as New England and New York were mostly against it. To dismiss the four different invasion attempts over three years as not serious isn't really accurate though. What is definitely true is many on the USA side miscalculated the ease of taking over Canada making the mistake that the inhabitants, particularly the French, wanted to be liberated. That was the reasoning behind Jefferson's famous quote "the conquest of Canada will be a mere matter of marching".

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X