Give peace a chance. Saddam isn't such a bad guy once you get to know him...

[orange]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Oh yeah, likely story.

No, DD is right. Both Britain and France enslaved our sailors. I'm surprised war didn't come in 1807.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Which one?

Which one? All of them.

The events you stated might be facts, but they themselves are just excuses, convenient pretexts for war. If excuses weren't/aren't available, it won't stop the US.

Lets look at former Yugoslavia. Ethnic cleansing might have happened, but that's not the reason. If that really was, the US would have been in Rwanda, where some nasty mass killings took place. In fact, that might still be happening today.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Which one? All of them.

Let's take the easy one first. How was the US an aggressor in the War of 1812 given the actions of the British?

[Urban Ranger]

On July 12, 1812, forces under General Hull crosses into Canada at Sandwich. The invasion is quickly stopped, and American forces are forced to withdraw. By August 16, Hull surrenders Detroit.

Apparently, the War Hawks declared war and US forces crossed into Canada. What else do you need to be an aggressor?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What else do you need to be an aggressor?

You need to prove that such actions would have happened independent of Britian's enslaving American sailors as you suggested.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You need to prove that such actions would have happened independent of Britian's enslaving American sailors as you suggested.

No I don't, I was merely refuting your assertion that the impressment of US sailors was a direct cause for war.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
No I don't, I was merely refuting your assertion that the impressment of US sailors was a direct cause for war.

1) That's not what you said earlier.
2) You haven't even attempted to fulfill the new goal you set for yourself.

[orange]

ok, i'll bite. How did what you post refute that?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
1) That's not what you said earlier.
2) You haven't even attempted to fulfill the new goal you set for yourself.

How is the impressment of US sailors by the British a necessary and sufficient cause of War of 1812? Since you made that assertion, you will need to establish that. How would attempts at capturing and holding bits of British North America help?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
How is the impressment of US sailors by the British a necessary and sufficient cause of War of 1812?

How would China react to the US kidnapping her citizens and forcing them to serve in the US military? I assume that they would be miffed, at the very least

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How would China react to the US kidnapping her citizens and forcing them to serve in the US military?

Kidnapping US citizens and forcing them to serve in the Chinese military.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Kidnapping US citizens and forcing them to serve in the Chinese military.

We're more proactive than that. Incidentally, why don't you consider enslaving a portion of your population a valid excuse for conflict?

[Straybow]

Personal comportment is different from national

monkspider, Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers," which is quite different from either appeasers or pacifists. I'm sure you are confused by the "kill em all" analogy, and I'm sure I can only supply you with an argument, not with wisdom to comprehend it.

As for your WWII paragraph:
Versailles was too harsh? The "screw you" attitude of deflating the Mark to pay off the reparations created more problems than the indemnity itself. Depression caused by the hyperinflation? Didn't start until 1919 and ended by 1921. It was no worse than the American depression, and we didn't descend into barbarism.

During the 20s the German economy (in constant currency) grew from end-war levels by more than the punative payments, despite the manetary hyperinflation disaster. That doesn't count outside assistance. It came about equally from German families in America sending money to relatives and from various governments. The total assistance throughout the 20s was also greater in inflation-adjusted value than the Versailles reparations.

Nazism was an internal movement. The German loss was history; it wouldn't have changed if France had decided to be "friendly." The loss was blamed rhetorically on Jews, which wouldn't have changed seeing as France was equally antisemitic. Britain and USA were not far behind, as both nations refused to accept Jewish refugees after the first trickle presaged an unacceptible flood.

The analogy to Iraq is excellent. Basically, the Germans surrendered rather than see American, French and British forces crossing the Rhine. The allies accepted a negotiated surrender rather than pursue the aggressor with prejudice. To many Germans defeat was seen as political rather than military, and some nursed the feeling that they could do better next time. Iraq is indeed WWI and WWII played out on petite mal scale.

[Straybow]

I forgot the other parallel: blame the Zionists.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
We're more proactive than that. Incidentally, why don't you consider enslaving a portion of your population a valid excuse for conflict?

I don't see how an active conflict will help to resolve the situation.

P.S. Didn't orange also mentioned the French grabbing some of your guys? Attacking the Brits definitely wouldn't help there.