Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bush JR said a lot of crazy things.

Andrew1975 wrote:I don't want to jack the tread but the British did build confederate ships and operate the blockade runners. .

Ships were built and supplied legitimately under the existing laws of war.

The UK also supplied a significant amount of materiél to the northern states. The UK was one of the world's major industrial powers at the time.

Blockade runners were not operated by the British government. It would have been illegal.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:I don't want to jack the tread but the British did build confederate ships and operate the blockade runners. .

Ships were built and supplied legitimately under the existing laws of war.

The UK also supplied a significant amount of materiél to the northern states. The UK was one of the world's major industrial powers at the time.

Blockade runners were not operated by the British government. It would have been illegal.

Short version

A serious conflict between Britain and the United States erupted over the "Trent Affair" in 1861; it was resolved in a few months. More of a problem was the British shipyard (John Laird and Sons) building two warships for the Confederacy, including the CSS Alabama, over vehement protests from the United States. The controversy continued after the Civil War in the form of the Alabama Claims, in which the United States finally was given $15.5 million in arbitration by an international tribunal for damages caused by British-built warships. The British built and operated most of the blockade runners, spending hundreds of millions of pounds on them; but that was legal and not the cause of serious tension. In the end, these instances of British involvement neither shifted the outcome of the war nor provoked the U.S. into declaring war against Britain

Long version

http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm

Again though, kind of off topic

BuFFo wrote:This is a surprise?

Obama said he would pull troops out of Iraq within 6 months of his presidency, but after being elected, it changed within a few weeks of him taking office to "thinking about removing some troops within 23 months".

Remember, the president is not the man in power. There are far more people working the shadows that dictate things, mainly both political parties (which at the highest level are just a single political party anyway) and the World Bank.

In the end, it doesn't matter who you elect. It is all one political party with agendas not known to the public.

I'm just saying don't blame obama for being a liar, that just comes with the political territory of being a puppet.

So no, it is not your imagination. Just about everything Obama campaigned for turned out to be a lie, but as I said, what president hasn't? What elected official in high seat positions haven't?

It's politics. It's another day.

+1

This is a nugget of truth. I encourage Dakkaites to put their doritos down for a moment and think about it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Warboss wrote: either he supports deployment of US military forces in theatres that are no direct threat to the US or he doesn't.

There are US forces deployed in many theatres that are no direct threat to the US, for example Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. There are strategic reasons for these deployments.

As for intervention, I think it is sensible to take each case on its merits.

you can't seriously be comparing a combat deployment in a hostile warzone to decades long peaceful deployment with the full consent of the host government?!?? that's not apples and oranges but closer to apples and a volvo. i agree that each case should be taken on the merits; i just see the merit in THIS case to be even less worthy than Iraq. we americans do NOT have the right nor the responsibility to take down every repressive regime in the world.

warboss wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Warboss wrote: either he supports deployment of US military forces in theatres that are no direct threat to the US or he doesn't.

There are US forces deployed in many theatres that are no direct threat to the US, for example Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. There are strategic reasons for these deployments.

As for intervention, I think it is sensible to take each case on its merits.

you can't seriously be comparing a combat deployment in a hostile warzone to decades long peaceful deployment with the full consent of the host government?!?? that's not apples and oranges but closer to apples and a volvo. i agree that each case should be taken on the merits; i just see the merit in THIS case to be even less worthy than Iraq. we americans do NOT have the right nor the responsibility to take down every repressive regime in the world.

Of course he can be serious becuase the question you raised was about American military presence in foreign countries in general. You made no distinction about whether they were in warzones or not. You are changing the goal posts after the fact.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The problem with doing something with Gaffy is, what do you do. Even the current action has no explicit goal to oust Gaffy.

It doesn't need one. The goal can be as simple as "prevent Gaddafi from using air power against the rebels" or "force Gaddafi to negotiate with the rebels". Its not as though there are significant contingents of ground troops in Libya.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Then you have to consider what you do after Gaffy is gone. It's a cluster feth.

So a "cluster feth" is now any situation in which you have to think about what you're going to do after something else happens? I never knew that responding to stimuli was such a burden.

In any case, as you've argued before, the US doesn't necessarily need to do anything terrible drastic. It can simply pull out after a transition, or even before one. The beauty of air power is that all the infrastructure that makes ground withdrawals so time consuming is already located out of country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warboss wrote:
you can't seriously be comparing a combat deployment in a hostile warzone to decades long peaceful deployment with the full consent of the host government?!?? that's not apples and oranges but closer to apples and a volvo. i agree that each case should be taken on the merits; i just see the merit in THIS case to be even less worthy than Iraq. we americans do NOT have the right nor the responsibility to take down every repressive regime in the world.

Nor can you compare what has been primarily an air engagement with the full-scale invasion of another country, as your are doing with your comparison to Iraq, without at least mentioning the obvious difference. Moreover, there is a massive difference between "taking down" an oppressive regime, which is what happened in Iraq, and flying air cover for rebel ground forces.

The operation in Libya has far more in common with Kosovo than it does with Iraq, and even then there are major differences vis a vis geography and ground involvement.

Ahtman wrote:Of course he can be serious becuase the question you raised was about American military presence in foreign countries in general. You made no distinction about whether they were in warzones or not. You are changing the goal posts after the fact.

read my whole posts and you'll see how wrong (and that's the nice way of putting it) you are.

warboss wrote:i support the deployment (with the obvious risking of US lives) of US troops when combating something that is an immiment threat to the US (which was the case in afghanistan but not iraq); there is ZERO threat from libya in that regard. ***** he did support a surge in afghanistan but its a hard politcal sell to NOT support the fight against the same organization that actually attacked us. ****** either way, its pretty amazing that someone with his experience is "tweaking" his position once he encounters actual new world conflict; ***** i didn't have too much of a problem when the obama/clinton said they wouldn't put US troops in harm's way **** i certainly do remember a certain campaign stance that his goal was to pull out our troops from wars in muslim countries and not to send them to more

obviously by specifically talking about active warzones and mentioning their names while talking about placing our soldiers directly in harm's way in conflicts, i wasn't talking about the peacetime stationing of troops in allied countries. that's not changing goal posts.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Nor can you compare what has been primarily an air engagement with the full-scale invasion of another country, as your are doing with your comparison to Iraq, without at least mentioning the obvious difference. Moreover, there is a massive difference between "taking down" an oppressive regime, which is what happened in Iraq, and flying air cover for rebel ground forces.

The operation in Libya has far more in common with Kosovo than it does with Iraq, and even then there are major differences vis a vis geography and ground involvement.

i agree that it has more in common with kosovo in that sense (air war SO FAR) but you don't really think there aren't going to be peace keepers or ground troops needed in the end? knocking over kosovo with air power was easy since the entire "country" was the size of a large city and its suburbs; that won't work in libya. joining a war isn't a hobby that we should engage in willy nilly.

warboss wrote:
i agree that it has more in common with kosovo in that sense (air war SO FAR) but you don't really think there aren't going to be peace keepers or ground troops needed in the end?

Well, needs are contingent on wants. If the Libyans want them there, and the UN or some nation wants to put them there, then they'll probably be used. That said, foreign ground troops tend to be pretty unpopular amongst any given domestic population (and often amongst its ruling elites, who are the people that really matter), and the United States has been pretty strong in its opposition to the use of ground forces. In fact, I haven't seen anyone openly consider their use (anyone important), and I've seen quite a few people openly oppose (again, important people), so that certainly speaks to the desires of people outside the UN.

warboss wrote:
knocking over kosovo with air power was easy since the entire "country" was the size of a large city and its suburbs; that won't work in libya. joining a war isn't a hobby that we should engage in willy nilly.

Well, strictly speaking, it wasn't air power alone that ended the Kosovo conflict, not in the normal sense anyway. What happened was that the bombing campaign created a chain reaction that force Milosevic to the negotiating table due to economic losses amongst his supporters. The same thing could be accomplished in Libya without too much trouble ,as the majority of the countries economic centers are concentrated within a relatively small area, and many key figures derive their wealth from a small set of economic interests.

warboss wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Of course he can be serious becuase the question you raised was about American military presence in foreign countries in general. You made no distinction about whether they were in warzones or not. You are changing the goal posts after the fact.

read my whole posts and you'll see how wrong (and that's the nice way of putting it) you are.

Even looking at the other posts it seems that you are criticizing a specific incident (Libya) but also talking about US force projection, which includes both immediately hostile zones as well as non-hostile zones. To criticize one requires at least a recognition of the other. You can't pretend they aren't linked subjects as much of the force in hostile zones are going to be coming from these non-hostile ares, which is generally the point of having military bases on foreign soil. Just becuase your argument is muddled is no reason to be a jackass, and that is as nice as I can put that.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
The problem with doing something with Gaffy is, what do you do. Even the current action has no explicit goal to oust Gaffy.

It doesn't need one. The goal can be as simple as "prevent Gaddafi from using air power against the rebels" or "force Gaddafi to negotiate with the rebels". Its not as though there are significant contingents of ground troops in Libya.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Then you have to consider what you do after Gaffy is gone. It's a cluster feth.

So a "cluster feth" is now any situation in which you have to think about what you're going to do after something else happens? I never knew that responding to stimuli was such a burden.

In any case, as you've argued before, the US doesn't necessarily need to do anything terrible drastic. It can simply pull out after a transition, or even before one. The beauty of air power is that all the infrastructure that makes ground withdrawals so time consuming is already located out of country.

It's usually good policy to have plans BEFORE you start bombing places.

Oh yeah those are real solutions to the issues. My two favorite kinds of intervention costly and ineffective.

1 Were we enforce a no fly zone forever.

or

2 We pull away leaving both sides in a worse position so there is a real blood bath when they finally duke it out, all you have done is ensure that whoever wins will not be friendly.

Good answers. This is why I'm against these meddlesome affairs.

I'd make a joke about how I'm happy you don't make policy, but it looks like your plans are incompetent enough to qualify for the job.

jackass, and that is as nice as I can put that.

Ah Ahtman being civil as usual!

is it my imagination or did Obama campaign to WITHDRAW troops from muslim countries?

Yes.

He also promised to close Gitmo.



All talk. He did however promise 'change' not tell you clearly what the change would be but has feth up pretty much everything he touched as president. I suppose thats one major election promise kept.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Oh yeah those are real solutions to the issues. My two favorite kinds of intervention costly and ineffective.

You can't argue both that the United States shouldn't have to do all the heavy lifting, and that they should do all the heavy lifting; the positions are directly contradictory.

The issue is that there is a conflict in Libya that we, apparently, want the rebels to win. As such, we gave support to the rebels. You can support one side of a conflict without actually going so far as take over its direction from them; which is exactly what a no-fly zone does.

Andrew1975 wrote:
1 Were we enforce a no fly zone forever.

No, that's nonsense. It relies on the idea that the rebels cannot produce a positive outcome without direct US intervention of the ground, which isn't an idea supported by what's actually been happening.

Andrew1975 wrote:
2 We pull away leaving both sides in a worse position so there is a real blood bath when they finally duke it out, all you have done is ensure that whoever wins will not be friendly.

That was already the most likely outcome prior to intervention. Had the rebels won, they would have been, at best, neutral due to the absence of foreign support. Had the rebels lost, Gaddafi's regime would have distanced itself from the West due to the absence of support for his regime; particularly given that there is no real way that any Western government could have avoided taking a stance on the conflict.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Good answers. This is why I'm against these meddlesome affairs.

Because the answers are more complicated than you're willing to take the time to understand?

Andrew1975 wrote:Ah Ahtman being civil as usual!

Andrew1975, cherry picking who he chooses to see as snide as usual. I'm civil until given a reason to not be, and coming from you, this is quite a pot calling the kettle black moment.

warboss wrote:although i didn't vote for him, i certainly do remember a certain campaign stance that his goal was to pull out our troops from wars in muslim countries and not to send them to more.

I would love to read any statement from Obama on 'pulling troops out of muslim countries and not sending them to any more'. The odds of Obama saying anything as awkwardly phrased, politically vague and just plain weird is extremely unlikely.

He certainly campaigned to pull troops out of Iraq much faster. He certainly campaigned to close down Gitmo much faster. He's not lived up to his campaign promises in areas like that.

But the thing you're claiming, I don't think that thing is true. And I don't think you've thought about whether you really believe, because you'd rather complain about the guy you didn't vote for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:It's not a character flaw to change your mind (e.g. Mitt Romney on abortion), but it is a character flaw when it is done for political reaspons (e.g. Obama on Libya).

Hahahahahahaha!

Yeah, the guy committing troops to an overseas operation out of humantarian necessity, when that commitment is poorly understood and quite unpopular at home, is doing so for political gain... but the guy who changed his stance on abortion to bring it into line with overwhelming majority of his political party, that couldn't be for political gain.

You're my favourite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sexiest_hero wrote:Bush Sr. should have beaten Regan. Too bad his son wan't half the man he is.

Bush Sr appears to me to have had a pretty fine mind for running the nation, but a fairly poor mind for playing games of political pandering. Hence his decision to raise taxes, and his inability to play up to the growing evangelical voting bloc.

Bush Sr improved incredibly on his Dad's political ability, showing a keen mind and commitment to key issues among his voting groups. Hence his commitment to lowering taxes, and his ability to win absolute support from conservative evangelicals.

I think this is why Bush Sr was only able to win one term, but at the end of that term left the nation poised for a decade of economic strength. While his son was able to win to terms, but left the nation in a shambolic state.

Well, also the fact that Bush Sr went up against Clinton, who was a very skilled politician, while Bush Jr went up against Kerry, who was not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:It's hard to tell if we judged Bush Sr. too harshly when he was in office, or if we're now romanticizing him overly. Either way, I think he'll go down as a more effective president than his son.

Fair point. I've got a soft spot for him, which may well have been nostalgia. Either way he'll likely be remembered in the context of his son's presidency, which helps somewhat (he can't help but look better in the comparison) but also hurts, because anything he accomplished will always be overshadowed by his son's failures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:The specifics of what was available at the time and what could have happened are very interesting, but meaningless to the debate. I was just saying I'm glad the world didn't send and intervention force. Sure what evil G is doing is vastly different from what transpired in the US Civil war.

Are you glad or saddened that the French intervened in the American Revolution?

Ahtman wrote:Just becuase your argument is muddled is no reason to be a jackass, and that is as nice as I can put that.

interesting... i could have sworn the off-topic forum rules required people to not act like this. when you put your thoughts as eloquently as this, you can't help but be right on the internet!

Orlanth wrote:

is it my imagination or did Obama campaign to WITHDRAW troops from muslim countries?

Yes.

He also promised to close Gitmo.

When did Obama ever promise to withdraw troops from Muslim countries in general?

I recall pretty specifically that he promised to withdraw troops from Iraq, and promised to commit more to Afghanistan. In fact, I'm pretty sure that was 2/3 of his foreign policy position during the campaign, the other 1/3 being "talk to our enemies/Iran".

Orlanth wrote:
He did however promise 'change' not tell you clearly what the change would be but has feth up pretty much everything he touched as president. I suppose thats one major election promise kept.

He also promised healthcare reform which, regardless of whether or not it was a positive change, also happened.

Honestly, I'm always pretty amused by the "Politician X promised X, and lied!" line. Not only do politicians rarely ever promise things (they tend to promise to work on things, or something similar), but when specific promises are fulfilled, people simply forget that they were ever promised in the first place, or fabricate an alternate promise that action X didn't fulfill; like withdrawing from Muslim countries in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Hahahahahahaha!

Yeah, the guy committing troops to an overseas operation out of humantarian necessity, when that commitment is poorly understood and quite unpopular at home, is doing so for political gain... but the guy who changed his stance on abortion to bring it into line with overwhelming majority of his political party, that couldn't be for political gain.

You're my favourite.

I'm also unclear why doing such a thing for political reasons is a character flaw when politicians in representative systems are supposed to strike a balance between acting according to their own judgment, and the desires of their constituents.

warboss wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Just becuase your argument is muddled is no reason to be a jackass, and that is as nice as I can put that.

interesting... i could have sworn the off-topic forum rules required people to not act like this. when you put your thoughts as eloquently as this, you can't help but be right on the internet!

You mean like making off hand remarks like "(and that's the nice way of putting it)" that are trying to be insulting and sly at the same time. This isn't exactly an academic round table and you're not above the criticism you are currently making. Unlike you hiding behind pretense I'm just stating what I feel, and continue to feel, is true: you are being an ass. Will I get modded ofr it? Probably. Does that mean I'm wrong, or even being nearly as blunt and uneducated as you are trying to pretend? Not even close. I'm just not pretending to not be insulting to to someone who is putting on a farce by pretending they are aren't. Even this response here is in poor taste and obliviously meant to be degrading, but it is in a shallow and feckless manner. You are not nearly as clever as you think (a common ailment among gamers). If you were nearly as detached and above it all, as you give the pretense of being, you would have responded differently the first time instead of the way you did. You would have stated something more along the lines of "Perhaps you misunderstood my point. KK isolated a bit out of context and if you go back and read the whole piece you'll see that isn't what I was trying to get at". Instead we get: (and that's the nice way of putting it).

The difference between us is that I'm being up front and you're trying to hide, thinking this somehow gives you the moral high ground. It also helps that I'm right, but that isn't really pertinent to your cowardly insults.

"In another sign of dissension in the ranks, the French and German ambassadors Monday walked out of a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, the alliance's decision-making body, after Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen criticized the French for hampering NATO involvement and Germany for not actively participating."

It looks like we are not the only ones arguing here.

OK i guess i need to clarify. I never thought we (US) should be there. Our NATO allies can do what they want. Now that we (US and Allies) are there lets not make it a complete waste and or make the situation worse than it was before we got there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Ah Ahtman being civil as usual!

Andrew1975, cherry picking who he chooses to see as snide as usual. I'm civil until given a reason to not be, and coming from you, this is quite a pot calling the kettle black moment.

This coming from one of the well known Snark kings. Please.

The issue they're arguing over is involving NATO, which would obligate member states to commit forces to the action. France wants to maintain the action as one of loose coalition so they can reserve the right to exist the operation, while Germany doesn't want NATO involved at all so that they are not obligated to commit forces. All of which is part of a larger debate on the legitimate role of NATO.

Andrew1975 wrote:This coming from one of the well known and loved Snark kings. Please.

Fixed that for you.

dogma wrote:The issue they're arguing over is involving NATO, which would obligate member states to commit forces to the action. France wants to maintain the action as one of loose coalition so they can reserve the right to exist the operation, while Germany doesn't want NATO involved at all so that they are not obligated to commit forces. All of which is part of a larger debate on the legitimate role of NATO.

Oh I know, I posted the thing. I'm just saying let's everyone play nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:This coming from one of the well known and loved Snark kings. Please.

Fixed that for you.

My point exactly

Are you glad or saddened that the French intervened in the American Revolution?

1.The limited role that the French played was not on the same level that US military intervention (usually) takes. One could hardly call it direct military assistance, since the didn't land a sizable army in the continents. Not to degenerate the support they gave, thanks France! Oh wait that France isn't around anymore! Their contribution was mostly material and of course their navy. Consensus seams to be, it would have been won without it, it would have taken much longer though.

2. That worked out really well for the French. Viva la revolution! Well maybe it actually did, but not for the French that planned it. We (the US) should learn from that!


"As of Tuesday, the U.S. military has flown 212 sorties over Libya, while 124 were flown by other coalition forces. A total of 108 strikes have been carried out and 162 Tomahawk missiles have been fired, the U.S. military reported."

Guess there goes the idea of the US not doing the heavy lifting. Thanks for rattling the sabers France! "Hemingway, deal with them!" (yes i know James Joyce was Irish)

Andrew1975 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:This coming from one of the well known and loved Snark kings. Please.

Fixed that for you.

My point exactly

If you wanted a hug all you had to do was ask.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Are you glad or saddened that the French intervened in the American Revolution?

1.The limited role that the French played was not on the same level that US military intervention (usually) takes.

Their role was so limited that we didn't name a ton of places after a French General that volunteered to lead as well as garner materiel and financial support that helped in the war. We then didn't give him a hero's welcome 50 years later. Yup, people hardly noticed becuase they did so little it was barely worth noting.

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:This coming from one of the well known and loved Snark kings. Please.

Fixed that for you.

My point exactly

If you wanted a hug all you had to do was ask.

Don't you know hugs are threats?

Andrew1975 wrote:

Are you glad or saddened that the French intervened in the American Revolution?

1.The limited role that the French played was not on the same level that US military intervention (usually) takes.

Their role was so limited that we didn't name a ton of places after a French General that volunteered to lead as well as garner materiel and financial support that helped in the war. We then didn't give him a hero's welcome 50 years later. Yup, people hardly noticed becuase they did so little it was barely worth noting.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Are you glad or saddened that the French intervened in the American Revolution?

1.The limited role that the French played was not on the same level that US military intervention (usually) takes. One could hardly call it direct military assistance, since the didn't land a sizable army in the continents. Not to degenerate the support they gave, thanks France! Oh wait that France isn't around anymore! Their contribution was mostly material and of course their navy. Consensus seams to be, it would have been won without it, it would have taken much longer though.

2. That worked out really well for the French. Viva la revolution! Well maybe it actually did, but not for the French that planned it. We (the US) should learn from that!

So your claim is that the French did very little (as you appear to claiming that it was less than the US flying bombing raids over Libya), but it spent enough on this aid as to lead to the bankruptcy of the state, and then into revolution. Which is, of course, a ridiculous argument, because you can't argue that aid was simultaneously very small, but enough to bankrupt France.

Andrew, it's funny that you've tried to give Ahtman a lecture on politeness in this thread. Politeness isn't limited to not saying mean things. It includes honesty, and that means you need to really think about what you're claiming, and that you don't just drift from one non-sensical claim to the next. Please do us all the courtesy of thinking about what you're posting.

sebster wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Are you glad or saddened that the French intervened in the American Revolution?

1.The limited role that the French played was not on the same level that US military intervention (usually) takes. One could hardly call it direct military assistance, since the didn't land a sizable army in the continents. Not to degenerate the support they gave, thanks France! Oh wait that France isn't around anymore! Their contribution was mostly material and of course their navy. Consensus seams to be, it would have been won without it, it would have taken much longer though.

2. That worked out really well for the French. Viva la revolution! Well maybe it actually did, but not for the French that planned it. We (the US) should learn from that!

So your claim is that the French did very little (as you appear to claiming that it was less than the US flying bombing raids over Libya), but it spent enough on this aid as to lead to the bankruptcy of the state, and then into revolution. Which is, of course, a ridiculous argument, because you can't argue that aid was simultaneously very small, but enough to bankrupt France.

Andrew, it's funny that you've tried to give Ahtman a lecture on politeness in this thread. Politeness isn't limited to not saying mean things. It includes honesty, and that means you need to really think about what you're claiming, and that you don't just drift from one non-sensical claim to the next. Please do us all the courtesy of thinking about what you're posting.

I said it was less than the level US military intervention (usually) takes. Also I never said the aid was so expensive either and that caused the fall of France. All I said is "That worked out really well for the French". Any assumptions you made from that are yours and yours alone.

This is really typical of your arguing. Now I can be rude and go on a tirade and denigrate your thought process, but that is really your specialty!

But here are some tips.

1. Learn to read.

2. Don't make assumptions and put words in my mouth.

3. Practice what you preach. For someone who is preaching deep thought, your arguments show a severe lack of it!

Honestly you bore me. Hows that for honesty!

This is what I mean by usually you should have a plan BEFORE you attempt to drop bombs.

When you want to have discussions without using denigrating and insulting language feel free to play.

Note: Didn't even have to refer to someone as a jackass.

Andrew1975 wrote:It's still not the same level, it was relatively minor as I've stated before. They never landed large forces in the continent. I'm not saying no one appreciated the help! But on a scale of military assistance its hardly counts as D day.

It isn't really a fair comparison though. You have to remember we are talking about a pre-Industrial Revolution time where troops, ships and supplies were much more difficult to move around. They didn't really have much in the way of troops becuase they didn't need to, but they supplied ships, which considering the time it took to get from Europe to the new world as well as the cost of building, equipping, and manning one of them, was not insignificant. It also had a big impact on morale to get someone on their side. It was a different time and context of the conflict was very different. I don't think it is useful to say they weren't as helpful when they made a difference. I'm not going to diminish someone who helped us out when really the best motivation was to just piss off the British. They didn't have to help at all whereas WWII we had a much bigger interest in the outcome beyond just ticking off Germany.

Andrew1975 wrote:

sebster wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Are you glad or saddened that the French intervened in the American Revolution?

1.The limited role that the French played was not on the same level that US military intervention (usually) takes. One could hardly call it direct military assistance, since the didn't land a sizable army in the continents. Not to degenerate the support they gave, thanks France! Oh wait that France isn't around anymore! Their contribution was mostly material and of course their navy. Consensus seams to be, it would have been won without it, it would have taken much longer though.

2. That worked out really well for the French. Viva la revolution! Well maybe it actually did, but not for the French that planned it. We (the US) should learn from that!

So your claim is that the French did very little (as you appear to claiming that it was less than the US flying bombing raids over Libya), but it spent enough on this aid as to lead to the bankruptcy of the state, and then into revolution. Which is, of course, a ridiculous argument, because you can't argue that aid was simultaneously very small, but enough to bankrupt France.

Andrew, it's funny that you've tried to give Ahtman a lecture on politeness in this thread. Politeness isn't limited to not saying mean things. It includes honesty, and that means you need to really think about what you're claiming, and that you don't just drift from one non-sensical claim to the next. Please do us all the courtesy of thinking about what you're posting.

I said it was less than the level US military intervention (usually) takes. Also I never said the aid was so expensive either and that caused the fall of France. All I said is "That worked out really well for the French". Any assumptions you made from that are yours and yours alone.

This is really typical of your arguing. Now I can be rude and go on a tirade and denigrate your thought process, but that is really your specialty!

But here are some tips.

1. Learn to read.

2. Don't make assumptions and put words in my mouth.

3. Practice what you preach. For someone who is preaching deep thought, your arguments show a severe lack of it!

Honestly you bore me. Hows that for honesty!

This is what I mean by usually you should have a plan BEFORE you attempt to drop bombs.

When you want to have discussions without using denigrating and insulting language feel free to play.

Note: Didn't even have to refer to someone as a jackass.

you said that the french had a small impact on the war and gave a comparatively small amount of aid to the US. Sebster pointed out that that makes very little sense because the aid that the French provided was the major contributor to the subsequent bankruptcy and revolution. The US has never provided so much aid that we bankrupted ourselves

Andrew1975 wrote:I said it was less than the level US military intervention (usually) takes.

Yet here you are complaining about the operations in Libya...

Also I never said the aid was so expensive either and that caused the fall of France. All I said is "That worked out really well for the French". Any assumptions you made from that are yours and yours alone.

So what did you mean when you posted "That worked out really well for the French. Viva la revolution!"? Because the implication I read is the obvious one, and the one any plain reading of your statement would make.

So we're left with two options;
1) You meant something else very clever, that escaped me, and that you'll be along to explain very shortly and put me in my place.
2) You meant to imply that it led to the fall of France, but are now backtracking shamelessly, while trying to throw out as many stupid little digs as possible to protect your ego.

Please do explain your clever, clever meaning...

[qiuote]1. Learn to read.

2. Don't make assumptions and put words in my mouth.

you said that the french had a small impact on the war and gave a comparatively small amount of aid to the US. Sebster pointed out that that makes very little sense because the aid that the French provided was the major contributor to the subsequent bankruptcy and revolution. The US has never provided so much aid that we bankrupted ourselves

Well, I said it has to be one or the other, either the aid was substantial and played a role in bankrupting France, or it was insubstantial and didn't.

For the record Andrew is now pretending he claimed neither, which is just plain odd.

It could technically be both inconsequential and play a role in the bankruptcy of France in that the war may have been won without the aid of the french. Though I have only ever seen a few people argue that the French aid was insubstantial