| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 70 years on Barbarossa
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


70 years on Barbarossa

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 05:04
Jas, the fact that he was an American does not give him any more rights than an alien. A soldier in time of war, and is the enemy, we kill him as an enemy combatant. During WW2 we killed many German/Americans and Italian/Americans.

Texas is the only state in the Union that can return to being a country at will. We were at one time The Republic of Texas. On joining with The United States we have a caveat concerning the above.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 05:15

Hello Buckskin

If you read my post you would find that I didn't contest the killing had it happened in Afghanistan for example since it is an active combat zone declared by congress.
 
Awlaki was not, he was in Yemen where there was no active combat zone declared by congress nor authority given to the president to persue criminals there. Awlaki was probably a traitor but even so he had to have his day in court. Taking decisions of life and death from courts and investing them in the president is a dangerous path and only dicatorships follow this path.
 
Today its Awlaki who has no clear ties to any terrorist group (he never was an official member of AQ or its franchises and always denied that), who knows, tomorrow maybe one of the militant Tea partiers, anti-abortionists or radical leftists.
 
As for Texas, I know generals about the history but if I am not mistaken that right to seceed was abbrogated by the civil war and reoccupation. I might be wrong of course so correct me if I am so.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 06:29
Texas did succeed once, and the action deemed appropriate by the federal government was invasion and occupation. It's likely this would be the case again, as a precedent like that could open up all kinds of fault lines in the nation.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 08:01
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello Buckskin

If you read my post you would find that I didn't contest the killing had it happened in Afghanistan for example since it is an active combat zone declared by congress.
 
Awlaki was not, he was in Yemen where there was no active combat zone declared by congress nor authority given to the president to persue criminals there. Awlaki was probably a traitor but even so he had to have his day in court. Taking decisions of life and death from courts and investing them in the president is a dangerous path and only dicatorships follow this path.
 
Today its Awlaki who has no clear ties to any terrorist group (he never was an official member of AQ or its franchises and always denied that), who knows, tomorrow maybe one of the militant Tea partiers, anti-abortionists or radical leftists.

Jas,  Al-Qaeda  has declared a world wide war on The United States and others. There are plenty in Yemen. We will kill them where we find them. Especially those that are a direct threat to us.
 
As for Texas, I know generals about the history but if I am not mistaken that right to seceed was abbrogated by the civil war and reoccupation. I might be wrong of course so correct me if I am so.

Capt V has a good Post on Texas. Check it out.

Cheers, Matt.
 
Al-Jassas
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 13:37
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
So if Americans financed British war effort it was out of the goodness of their heart but if the British did it was for profit?
I echo Graham's points here.
 
 
That doesn't relate to my point at all. You suggested that America was an inferior undeveloped country but for the British altruistic money, it would have been nothing. And that's not true at all
 
  
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 
Ever hear of tactical victory but strategic defeat?
 
Britain (just like the USSR in Afghanistan or the US in Vietnam) won tactically but lost strategically. The British even though they lost a third of their army in Yorktown they still compensated for the loss, added new allies from the natives and former patriots and occupied more land.
 
They basically choked the rebellion but the war was damn to expensive (Britain was technically bankrupt well before Yorktown), too large (belive it or not the theatre of operation was larger than the eastern front of WWII) not to mention deeply unpopular in Britain who saw it as the state attacking fellow Englishmen. The Whigs (who supported the Americans) were the majority in the commons because of the war.
 
And finally if the French won it it was the French who won it not the Americans. The French weren't allies, they were cobelligerants. 
 
 
 
LOL  Cobelligerants... what kind of linguistic travesty is that. THEY WERE ALLIES and British were defeated. And I don't care strategical or tactical it was a defeat PERIOD
 
 
 
 
  
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

Again I echo Graham, what cream exactly? The Royal navy annihilated the USN, Britain was still occupying large swathes of American territory in Michigan and Ohio not to mention New York not to mention the fact that the last battle of the war was a British victory when they took Ft. Bowyer, controlled the mouth of the Miss. river and were preparing for an offensive on Biloxi. When they learned of the peace they left.
 
Plus the units of the battle of New Orleans were largely colonial with little or no experience contrary to veteran American units. 
 
 
The British units at the battle of New Orleans were veterans of the Napoleonic campaigns and with ratio 3 to 1 they were defeated by an inferior American force, huge disgrace and humiliation...
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

The union barely saved itself from catastrophe against ill armed, ill equiped half trained rag tag militias, how on earth they would declare war against Britain let alone win it?
 
LOL Haha, the union overwhelmingly won. It was a complete victory. Experienced Southern commanders were just quite lucky to capitalize on the military culture of the South and inexperienced North. But the success was only termporarily, and in the end the North rolled over the South like steam roller...
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

And by which means?
 
Which meanse... American army perfectly equiped had over 2 million men by 1865. I cannot imagine ever British transporting so much men across the Atlantic to fight the U.S. And a miserable British force which would dare to challenge the US on its own soild would have been decisevely smashed.
 
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 
I echo Graham hear.
 
Plus the French won the war also tactically occupying the entire country in a period much shorter than the Americans 20 years before, against a much fiercer opposition and with less number of troops.
 
Yeah.. But in the end they couldn't achieve anything their eventual result was O. By contrast, if you want to compare with Mexican-American war it was a big success for the U.S. with Mexico soundly defeated and Americancs annexing huge chunks of their terriotry
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

Also the French army wasn't the best. Their performance in Crimea, Italy and the Franco-Prussian war was abysmal however much much better than anything the union would ever be able to throw at them.
 
You may not consider them the best, which would be your own biased and inaccurate opinion, but they were definitely better than the British, which the Crimean war demonstrated very clearly.
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
No its not, once a precedent is done who says others won't follow?
 
They won't follow and how you can make such generalizations based on the example of an extremist involved in plotting terrorist activities against other Americans? That case is really bizzare and it falls out of the norm and cannot serve as a basis for such an overstretched gernaralization.
  
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

No there is. Congress can say whatever it wants as long as it is constitutional. Once it past that then nothing legitimises their rules.
 
 
So, what is wrong with Congress saying something that is constitional?
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 21:43
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

[QUOTE=Al Jassas]

Jas,  Al-Qaeda  has declared a world wide war on The United States and others. There are plenty in Yemen. We will kill them where we find them. Especially those that are a direct threat to us.
Don't forget to look under the bed. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 22:19
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
So if Americans financed British war effort it was out of the goodness of their heart but if the British did it was for profit?
I echo Graham's points here.
 
 
That doesn't relate to my point at all. You suggested that America was an inferior undeveloped country but for the British altruistic money, it would have been nothing. And that's not true at all
And that's not what anyone said. The point is that the US and the UK collaborated for most of the 19th century, they didn't compete as you originally said.
 
Quote
  
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 
Ever hear of tactical victory but strategic defeat?
 
Britain (just like the USSR in Afghanistan or the US in Vietnam) won tactically but lost strategically. The British even though they lost a third of their army in Yorktown they still compensated for the loss, added new allies from the natives and former patriots and occupied more land.
 
They basically choked the rebellion but the war was damn to expensive (Britain was technically bankrupt well before Yorktown), too large (belive it or not the theatre of operation was larger than the eastern front of WWII) not to mention deeply unpopular in Britain who saw it as the state attacking fellow Englishmen. The Whigs (who supported the Americans) were the majority in the commons because of the war.
 
And finally if the French won it it was the French who won it not the Americans. The French weren't allies, they were cobelligerants. 
 
 
 
LOL  Cobelligerants... what kind of linguistic travesty is that. THEY WERE ALLIES and British were defeated. And I don't care strategical or tactical it was a defeat PERIOD.
The point is they weren't defeated by the Americans alone (and for that matter not defeated by inferior numbers).
Quote
   
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

Again I echo Graham, what cream exactly? The Royal navy annihilated the USN, Britain was still occupying large swathes of American territory in Michigan and Ohio not to mention New York not to mention the fact that the last battle of the war was a British victory when they took Ft. Bowyer, controlled the mouth of the Miss. river and were preparing for an offensive on Biloxi. When they learned of the peace they left.
 
Plus the units of the battle of New Orleans were largely colonial with little or no experience contrary to veteran American units. 
 
 
The British units at the battle of New Orleans were veterans of the Napoleonic campaigns and with ratio 3 to 1 they were defeated by an inferior American force, huge disgrace and humiliation...
Most of them took no part in the Napoleonic wars. The 44th did fight in the Peninsula, but it was not the 1st battalion but the 2nd that fought at Waterloo. The main attacking force consisted of four battalions of freed slaves from the West Indies - regiments that never went near Europe until ww1.
 
The 93rd Highlanders saw service only in Cape Colony before shipping to America. There were some attached light companies with the British forces which may have seen service in Europe, including a detachment of the Rifle Brigade (then the 95th Rifles) which was the only part of the entire force that might be considered 'élite'. 
 
As for the 3 to 1 ratio, remember we are talking about a frontal assault on a fortified position with the defence having superior artillery. 3 to 1 isn't particularly good in those conditions.
 
Also, while the tale goes that the British had to withdraw and leave Louisiana, all they in fact did was move into Mississipi, taking Biloxi, and on to Mobile, there to take the town and await reinforcements. But of course the news of peace came before the assault could be renewed, or turned into a siege.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2012 at 01:49
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

[QUOTE=Al Jassas]

Jas,  Al-Qaeda  has declared a world wide war on The United States and others. There are plenty in Yemen. We will kill them where we find them. Especially those that are a direct threat to us.
Don't forget to look under the bed. 

You're so witty Graham. A one man riot in fact. A quick read through your posts and it's a gut buster. Your referencing your $3 book is my favorite. LOL
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2012 at 02:04

[/QUOTE]
Most of them took no part in the Napoleonic wars. The 44th did fight in the Peninsula, but it was not the 1st battalion but the 2nd that fought at Waterloo. The main attacking force consisted of four battalions of freed slaves from the West Indies - regiments that never went near Europe until ww1.
 

Is this guy for real? It was 10,000 of the best the British had to offer. They had their asses kicked by Pirates, African/Americans, Native Americans, and a bunch of Rednecks with Squirrel guns. The British commander had fought Napoleon, as did many of the troops. What's with you Brits that every time you get whipped, it's attempted to be spun into some sort of victory.

As for the 3 to 1 ratio, remember we are talking about a frontal assault on a fortified position with the defence having superior artillery. 3 to 1 isn't particularly good in those conditions.

That's right Graham. Primitively armed third worlders were much easier for ya'al to deal with.
 
Also, while the tale goes that the British had to withdraw and leave Louisiana, all they in fact did was move into Mississipi, taking Biloxi, and on to Mobile, there to take the town and await reinforcements. But of course the news of peace came before the assault could be renewed, or turned into a siege.

Biloxi and Mobile back in the day were not major accomplishments. They went there to lick their wounds after their ass kicking.
[/QUOTE]
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2012 at 03:44
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
So if Americans financed British war effort it was out of the goodness of their heart but if the British did it was for profit?
I echo Graham's points here.
 
 
That doesn't relate to my point at all. You suggested that America was an inferior undeveloped country but for the British altruistic money, it would have been nothing. And that's not true at all
 
 
Yes and I stand by my point. Without the more than $1 trillion in today's money invested by the British in bankrupt America of the 19th century where would the US get the funding?
 
Even France Prussia and Russia would have found it extremely difficult building their rail networks without British capital. 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

  
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 
Ever hear of tactical victory but strategic defeat?
 
Britain (just like the USSR in Afghanistan or the US in Vietnam) won tactically but lost strategically. The British even though they lost a third of their army in Yorktown they still compensated for the loss, added new allies from the natives and former patriots and occupied more land.
 
They basically choked the rebellion but the war was damn to expensive (Britain was technically bankrupt well before Yorktown), too large (belive it or not the theatre of operation was larger than the eastern front of WWII) not to mention deeply unpopular in Britain who saw it as the state attacking fellow Englishmen. The Whigs (who supported the Americans) were the majority in the commons because of the war.
 
And finally if the French won it it was the French who won it not the Americans. The French weren't allies, they were cobelligerants. 
 
 
 
LOL  Cobelligerants... what kind of linguistic travesty is that. THEY WERE ALLIES and British were defeated. And I don't care strategical or tactical it was a defeat PERIOD
 
Its no simple travesty. The US in WWI didn't declare war on the Ottoman empire until the last months of 1918. France fought independently from the US on US territory and even held command over militias and raised their own in America without consent or acknowledgement of the rebels. The rebels themselves were disunited with some states declaring war years after the first states.
 
Plus when we discussed Afghanistan you yourself used the tactical vs. strategic argument, why don't you accept it here when its even more valid?
 
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

  
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

Again I echo Graham, what cream exactly? The Royal navy annihilated the USN, Britain was still occupying large swathes of American territory in Michigan and Ohio not to mention New York not to mention the fact that the last battle of the war was a British victory when they took Ft. Bowyer, controlled the mouth of the Miss. river and were preparing for an offensive on Biloxi. When they learned of the peace they left.
 
Plus the units of the battle of New Orleans were largely colonial with little or no experience contrary to veteran American units. 
 
 
The British units at the battle of New Orleans were veterans of the Napoleonic campaigns and with ratio 3 to 1 they were defeated by an inferior American force, huge disgrace and humiliation...
 
Graham masterfully answered this point. Plus you didn't reply on the Blioxi-Mobile offensive which happened using a force as big as the one in New Orleans after the defeat of New Orleans?
 
There were other equally large offensives in Georgia and Florida all after New Orleans and all British resounding victories.
 
  
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

The union barely saved itself from catastrophe against ill armed, ill equiped half trained rag tag militias, how on earth they would declare war against Britain let alone win it?
 
LOL Haha, the union overwhelmingly won. It was a complete victory. Experienced Southern commanders were just quite lucky to capitalize on the military culture of the South and inexperienced North. But the success was only termporarily, and in the end the North rolled over the South like steam roller...
 
What military culture of the South? The Northern states had just as strong a military culture as the south, much more veterans and nearly all the industrial power. Yet despite that it took them 2 years to check the rebels and worse still, they didn't even have a hand in that victory (Pickett's idiotic charge and the total absense of JEB Stewart). Had the rebels won at Gettysburg they would have took Washington DC and ended the union once and for all.
 
And what steam roller you are talking about, 2 years of savage campaigning that left no rock unturned in the South massacring the population and destroying anything of use to them did just as much damage to the North as it did to the South.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

And by which means?
 
Which meanse... American army perfectly equiped had over 2 million men by 1865. I cannot imagine ever British transporting so much men across the Atlantic to fight the U.S. And a miserable British force which would dare to challenge the US on its own soild would have been decisevely smashed.
 
The British don't need to ship anyone. Just a couple of million rifles, several hundred guns and the RN plus equipment and some real generals from France and a deal to share Mexico between the the imperialists and the republicans with the republicans having New Mexico and California as their new Mexican republic.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 
I echo Graham hear.
 
Plus the French won the war also tactically occupying the entire country in a period much shorter than the Americans 20 years before, against a much fiercer opposition and with less number of troops.
 
Yeah.. But in the end they couldn't achieve anything their eventual result was O. By contrast, if you want to compare with Mexican-American war it was a big success for the U.S. with Mexico soundly defeated and Americancs annexing huge chunks of their terriotry.
 
Do you even know why were they in Mexico in the first place and how many?
 
And the Mexican American war is totally different. The Americans took empty lands from the Mexicans, land that their own Mexican inhabitants wanted to leave Mexico. Plus the Americans took only the capital city and had large forces (much larger than the French). The French occupied the entire country.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

Also the French army wasn't the best. Their performance in Crimea, Italy and the Franco-Prussian war was abysmal however much much better than anything the union would ever be able to throw at them.
 
You may not consider them the best, which would be your own biased and inaccurate opinion, but they were definitely better than the British, which the Crimean war demonstrated very clearly.
 
 
The Crimean war itself is a total mess and all sides (except surprisingly the Turks) were terrible. But the French were equally terrible in Italy 59 and the Franco-Prussian war later on. None the less all were far better than any American army, at least until 1864-1865.
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
No its not, once a precedent is done who says others won't follow?
 
They won't follow and how you can make such generalizations based on the example of an extremist involved in plotting terrorist activities against other Americans? That case is really bizzare and it falls out of the norm and cannot serve as a basis for such an overstretched gernaralization.
 
 
And how may I ask you reached your conclusion that this man was involved in a plot to terrorise civilians? Endorsing terrorism is completely different than actually ordering it and the body of evidence (outside a court of law that is) says Awlaki had nothing to do with terrorism except support.
 
On this all neo-Nazis should be hanged too because the Holocaust is much worse than terrorism and these people not only support it, they want it done today and some terrorist attacks (like the one on the Holocaust center) were widely supported by them.
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

  
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

No there is. Congress can say whatever it wants as long as it is constitutional. Once it past that then nothing legitimises their rules.
 
 
So, what is wrong with Congress saying something that is constitional?
 
Gutting the Bill of Rights is not their job to do, its for a constitutional convention. They break the constitution by endorsing Obama's policies.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2012 at 03:56
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

]
Most of them took no part in the Napoleonic wars. The 44th did fight in the Peninsula, but it was not the 1st battalion but the 2nd that fought at Waterloo. The main attacking force consisted of four battalions of freed slaves from the West Indies - regiments that never went near Europe until ww1.
 

Is this guy for real? It was 10,000 of the best the British had to offer.
That's just plain silly as well as totally untrue. Everything I wrote in that post is checkable from the regimental histories.
 
The post justshows a total lack of knowledge of what was going on in the world at that time. The 'best the British could offer' would be soon facing down Napoleon at Waterloo. Napoleon may have been still in Elba when the battle at New Orleans was fought, but the British army (like the Russian, Prussian, and Austrian one) were all keeping an uneasy eye on one another.
 
And, technically speaking, Edward Pakenham had never fought Napoleon.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2012 at 09:00

[/QUOTE]
That's just plain silly as well as totally untrue. Everything I wrote in that post is checkable from the regimental histories.
 
The post justshows a total lack of knowledge of what was going on in the world at that time. The 'best the British could offer' would be soon facing down Napoleon at Waterloo. Napoleon may have been still in Elba when the battle at New Orleans was fought, but the British army (like the Russian, Prussian, and Austrian one) were all keeping an uneasy eye on one another.
 
Quote

General Sir Edward Pakenham arrived on Christmas Day, 1814, and assumed command of the British expedition. A brother-in-law of the Duke of Wellington, Ned Pakenham distinguished himself in Wellington’s Peninsular Army, fighting the French in Portugal and Spain. He was given the command of the New Orleans expedition in recognition of his success against Napoleon’s forces.

http://www.gonola.com/2011/12/21/nola-history-christmas-battle-of-new-orleans-style.html

His British army counterpart was thirty-three-year-old, black-whiskered Maj. Gen. John Keane, who had served as a brigadier under Arthur Wellesley, duke of Wellington, in Spain, where he had 

http://www.historynet.com/andrew-jackson-leading-the-battle-of-new-orleans.htm

 the 93rd Highlanders took part in the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. They were among the British regiments that had just defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo

http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Scottish_Highland_Regiments

Give it up Graham.



Edited by Buckskins - 01 Mar 2012 at 09:26
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2012 at 14:58
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
Yes and I stand by my point. Without the more than $1 trillion in today's money invested by the British in bankrupt America of the 19th century where would the US get the funding?
 
France
 
 
 
 
  
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 Its no simple travesty. The US in WWI didn't declare war on the Ottoman empire until the last months of 1918. France fought independently from the US on US territory and even held command over militias and raised their own in America without consent or acknowledgement of the rebels. The rebels themselves were disunited with some states declaring war years after the first states.
 
Plus when we discussed Afghanistan you yourself used the tactical vs. strategic argument, why don't you accept it here when its even more valid?
 
I don't accept that it was more valid because unlike in Afghanistan where the Soviet Army never surrendered, capitulated or lost any major battle, in America British were defeated many times and eventually surrendered. Also, the number of the French troops in America during the war of independence never surpassed or even was equal to the number of their American allies.
 
  
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 
Graham masterfully answered this point. Plus you didn't reply on the Blioxi-Mobile offensive which happened using a force as big as the one in New Orleans after the defeat of New Orleans?
 
There were other equally large offensives in Georgia and Florida all after New Orleans and all British resounding victories.
 
Yet, the victory at New Orleans was much more resound and devastating for the British.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 
 
What military culture of the South? The Northern states had just as strong a military culture as the south, much more veterans and nearly all the industrial power. Yet despite that it took them 2 years to check the rebels and worse still, they didn't even have a hand in that victory (Pickett's idiotic charge and the total absense of JEB Stewart).
 
 Please, when you have some time try to do some reading on American civil war. Unlike the North the South had a very militarisic culture, with many men able to handling weapon from the very young age, nothing like that existed in the North...
 
And about idiotic frontal charges, they existed everywhere up until WWI and were very popular even in your favorite British army in the infamous Bour war still in the 20th century.
 
  
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

Had the rebels won at Gettysburg they would have took Washington DC and ended the union once and for all.
 
That is just a fantazy. They might have captured it, but they wouldn't win the war and they never captured it in real life.
 
And what steam roller you are talking about, 2 years of savage campaigning that left no rock unturned in the South massacring the population and destroying anything of use to them did just as much damage to the North as it did to the South.[/QUOTE]
 
I am talking about the industrial military power of the North breaking the back of the South that was not an easy opponent at all.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 
 
The British don't need to ship anyone. Just a couple of million rifles, several hundred guns and the RN plus equipment and some real generals from France and a deal to share Mexico between the the imperialists and the republicans with the republicans having New Mexico and California as their new Mexican republic..
 
 
Not true. Who would fight for the British interests? The Southerners would be defeated. Generals from France were defeated in Mexico... Even British calculated that in case of war Canada will be lost for them. You theory could exist in an imaginable world only.
 
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

  
Do you even know why were they in Mexico in the first place and how many? .
 
I know, but it seems that you don't.
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

And the Mexican American war is totally different. The Americans took empty lands from the Mexicans, land that their own Mexican inhabitants wanted to leave Mexico. Plus the Americans took only the capital city and had large forces (much larger than the French). The French occupied the entire country. .
 
Haha, the American marched through northern Mexico and fought too many battles before the capital was seized and they never suffered anything even close to the humiliation of Puebla.
 
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 
 
The Crimean war itself is a total mess and all sides (except surprisingly the Turks) were terrible.
 
Apparenly, you demonstrate total unfamiliarity with subject. Turks were the weakest party in that war, who got beaten badly and suffered the most casualties, even losing the strongest fortress by the end of the war after the fall of Sevastopol.
 
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

But the French were equally terrible in Italy 59 and the Franco-Prussian war later on. None the less all were far better than any American army, at least until 1864-1865.
 
Facts, contradict your assertions. They couldn't defeat Mexico and even were defeated in open battles by much inferior Mexian forces. They didn't stay a tiny chance against the American army in America in 1865.
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
And how may I ask you reached your conclusion that this man was involved in a plot to terrorise civilians? Endorsing terrorism is completely different than actually ordering it and the body of evidence (outside a court of law that is) says Awlaki had nothing to do with terrorism except support.
 
What evidence you're talking about? There is enough evidence to put him behind plotting the actual attacks.
 
  
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
Gutting the Bill of Rights is not their job to do, its for a constitutional convention. They break the constitution by endorsing Obama's policies.
 
 
It's up to the U.S. Constitutional Court to decide...


Edited by Sarmat - 01 Mar 2012 at 15:01
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2012 at 19:38
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
Yes and I stand by my point. Without the more than $1 trillion in today's money invested by the British in bankrupt America of the 19th century where would the US get the funding?
 
France
 
Not only France's economy half that of the British one (excluding the colonies), and not only France was basically bankrupt until the 1880s, its own rail network and much of its own industry was built by British capital.
 
How on earth can they finance the American one?
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

  
  
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 Its no simple travesty. The US in WWI didn't declare war on the Ottoman empire until the last months of 1918. France fought independently from the US on US territory and even held command over militias and raised their own in America without consent or acknowledgement of the rebels. The rebels themselves were disunited with some states declaring war years after the first states.
 
Plus when we discussed Afghanistan you yourself used the tactical vs. strategic argument, why don't you accept it here when its even more valid?
 
I don't accept that it was more valid because unlike in Afghanistan where the Soviet Army never surrendered, capitulated or lost any major battle, in America British were defeated many times and eventually surrendered. Also, the number of the French troops in America during the war of independence never surpassed or even was equal to the number of their American allies.
 
Neither the British army. The surrender of a couple of generals doesn't mean the surrender of the entire army. Plus as I said Cornwallis had only a third of the British army much of them loyalist militias. The rest of the army was outside wrecking havoc and grabbing more land.
 
And the Red army was defeated several times in Afghanistan. It launched 7 massive campaignes against the Panjshir valley and only one of them was a partial success.
 
Qandahar and Ghazni both fell several times while they were commanded by the Red army. They were eventually recaptured but were later on abandoned just like the British who abandoned New York, Philadelphia and many other great American cities they had control over.
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

  
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 
Graham masterfully answered this point. Plus you didn't reply on the Blioxi-Mobile offensive which happened using a force as big as the one in New Orleans after the defeat of New Orleans?
 
There were other equally large offensives in Georgia and Florida all after New Orleans and all British resounding victories.
 
Yet, the victory at New Orleans was much more resound and devastating for the British.
 
 
There must have been a wormwhole in Louisiana that took the sounds of American victory back in time for the signing of the treaty of Ghent in 1814LOL.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 
 
What military culture of the South? The Northern states had just as strong a military culture as the south, much more veterans and nearly all the industrial power. Yet despite that it took them 2 years to check the rebels and worse still, they didn't even have a hand in that victory (Pickett's idiotic charge and the total absense of JEB Stewart).
 
 Please, when you have some time try to do some reading on American civil war. Unlike the North the South had a very militarisic culture, with many men able to handling weapon from the very young age, nothing like that existed in the North...
 
And about idiotic frontal charges, they existed everywhere up until WWI and were very popular even in your favorite British army in the infamous Bour war still in the 20th century.
  
 
Handling a gun is one thing, using it in a war is another. Plus the North had more rural population than the entire population of the south slave and free and they were just armed, just as militaristic and just as passionate (the NRA was founded in Boston and Vermont and New Hampshire have amongst the most liberal gun laws in the world). They won the pre-war skirmeshes in Kansas and elsewhere and it was they, the northerners who were the majority of pioneers.
 
As for Pickett's charge, I called it idiotic because there was no military reason for it nor the adequet preparations expected for such a charge were taken which speaks volumes on the generalship of Lee.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

  
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

Had the rebels won at Gettysburg they would have took Washington DC and ended the union once and for all.
 
That is just a fantazy. They might have captured it, but they wouldn't win the war and they never captured it in real life.
 
The war was so unpopular in the North that a loss of Washington would doom the war effort and the union. Britain and France would for sure enter the war on the confederacy's side and the union will break up in the Noth too.
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 
 
The British don't need to ship anyone. Just a couple of million rifles, several hundred guns and the RN plus equipment and some real generals from France and a deal to share Mexico between the the imperialists and the republicans with the republicans having New Mexico and California as their new Mexican republic..
 
 
Not true. Who would fight for the British interests? The Southerners would be defeated. Generals from France were defeated in Mexico... Even British calculated that in case of war Canada will be lost for them. You theory could exist in an imaginable world only.
 
The British see interest, the Southerners see sovereignty (the true reason behind the war). Its called mutual interest.
 
And France wasn't defeated in Mexico and its worse generals are better than the best the Americans have. And how will the Americans wrest Canada (which had a population roughly close to that of the Confederacy) from Britain when their own bloody capital was never safe from being captured?
 
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

  
Do you even know why were they in Mexico in the first place and how many? .
 
I know, but it seems that you don't.
I know and I can give you all the numbers, do you know them?
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

And the Mexican American war is totally different. The Americans took empty lands from the Mexicans, land that their own Mexican inhabitants wanted to leave Mexico. Plus the Americans took only the capital city and had large forces (much larger than the French). The French occupied the entire country. .
 
Haha, the American marched through northern Mexico and fought too many battles before the capital was seized and they never suffered anything even close to the humiliation of Puebla.
 
 
You attend too many Cinco de Mayo celebrations.
 
Not only Puebla was the first battle of the war, it was the only Mexican victory against the French in open field. Later on all victories were on company/battalion size french units that faced Mexican divisions but still the French won all the major battles.
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 
 
The Crimean war itself is a total mess and all sides (except surprisingly the Turks) were terrible.
 
Apparenly, you demonstrate total unfamiliarity with subject. Turks were the weakest party in that war, who got beaten badly and suffered the most casualties, even losing the strongest fortress by the end of the war after the fall of Sevastopol.
 
 
I was referring to Turkish performance in the Crimea itself. Otherwise you are right.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

But the French were equally terrible in Italy 59 and the Franco-Prussian war later on. None the less all were far better than any American army, at least until 1864-1865.
 
Facts, contradict your assertions. They couldn't defeat Mexico and even were defeated in open battles by much inferior Mexian forces. They didn't stay a tiny chance against the American army in America in 1865.
 
What facts exactly? You are fixating on Puebla despite the fact that the French occupied the entire country afterwards.
 
And again, other than support troops why would the French send men to America when they have over a million veterans from the South who lack only arms and military clothing?
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
And how may I ask you reached your conclusion that this man was involved in a plot to terrorise civilians? Endorsing terrorism is completely different than actually ordering it and the body of evidence (outside a court of law that is) says Awlaki had nothing to do with terrorism except support.
 
What evidence you're talking about? There is enough evidence to put him behind plotting the actual attacks.
 
 
Again where are they and where in the constitution does it give the president the authority to kill an American citizen (or anyone for that matter) in a place other than a combat zone?
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

  
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
Gutting the Bill of Rights is not their job to do, its for a constitutional convention. They break the constitution by endorsing Obama's policies.
 
 
It's up to the U.S. Constitutional Court to decide...
 
 
SCOTUS interprets the constitution but its decisions are not always correct.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2012 at 21:54
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

That's just plain silly as well as totally untrue. Everything I wrote in that post is checkable from the regimental histories.
 
The post justshows a total lack of knowledge of what was going on in the world at that time. The 'best the British could offer' would be soon facing down Napoleon at Waterloo. Napoleon may have been still in Elba when the battle at New Orleans was fought, but the British army (like the Russian, Prussian, and Austrian one) were all keeping an uneasy eye on one another.
 
General Sir Edward Pakenham arrived on Christmas Day, 1814, and assumed command of the British expedition. A brother-in-law of the Duke of Wellington, Ned Pakenham distinguished himself in Wellington’s Peninsular Army, fighting the French in Portugal and Spain. He was given the command of the New Orleans expedition in recognition of his success against Napoleon’s forces.
Precisely why I wrote 'technically speaking'. Pakenham fought in the Peninsula but not against Napoleon. Napoleon was busy elsewhere. Which your links probably thought everybody would know.
 
When you contest something I write it would be a good idea to check it properly. Doesn 't matter how many other irrelevant links you provide. Do you really think I didn't look up Pakenham's career just to make sure I was right before posting?
 
This one I haven't checked out, it's memory, so have a go at explaining it. Wellington never fought Napoleon before Waterloo, but he did fight Bonaparte.
Quote

His British army counterpart was thirty-three-year-old, black-whiskered Maj. Gen. John Keane, who had served as a brigadier under Arthur Wellesley, duke of Wellington, in Spain, where he had 

http://www.historynet.com/andrew-jackson-leading-the-battle-of-new-orleans.htm

 the 93rd Highlanders took part in the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. They were among the British regiments that had just defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo
Balls again. The Battle of New Orleans was in December 1814/January 1815. Waterloo was nearly six months LATER in June 1815. Nobody who knows anything about the history of the time at all would make such a glaring mistake as that.
Don't try and pass the blame. That article doesn't refer to the 93rd even once. It says the 42nd, 71st, 73rd and 92nd (the Gordons) served at Waterloo, not the 93rd (the Sutherlands). Moreover it does not commit the horrendous mistake of saying Waterloo came before New Orleans. 
Quote
Give it up Graham.

Why? All you've done so far is expose your ignorance once more. Just trying to look up little points of detail while not understanding anything about the period will only lead to your continuing to fall on your face.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2012 at 22:09
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
Yes and I stand by my point. Without the more than $1 trillion in today's money invested by the British in bankrupt America of the 19th century where would the US get the funding?
 
France
Where would France get it from? France couldn't even pay for the Suez Canal, which allowed the British to step in.
Quote  
  
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 Its no simple travesty. The US in WWI didn't declare war on the Ottoman empire until the last months of 1918. France fought independently from the US on US territory and even held command over militias and raised their own in America without consent or acknowledgement of the rebels. The rebels themselves were disunited with some states declaring war years after the first states.
 
Plus when we discussed Afghanistan you yourself used the tactical vs. strategic argument, why don't you accept it here when its even more valid?
 
I don't accept that it was more valid because unlike in Afghanistan where the Soviet Army never surrendered, capitulated or lost any major battle, in America British were defeated many times and eventually surrendered. Also, the number of the French troops in America during the war of independence never surpassed or even was equal to the number of their American allies.
Dpends how you count how many Americans there were actually involved at any one time. There were certainly more French troops at Yorktown than American ones and that was the most decisive land battle. And Yorktown was in effect determined by the outcome of Chesapeake Bay in which there were no Americans involved at all, just French and British. .
Quote  
  
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 
Graham masterfully answered this point. Plus you didn't reply on the Blioxi-Mobile offensive which happened using a force as big as the one in New Orleans after the defeat of New Orleans?
 
There were other equally large offensives in Georgia and Florida all after New Orleans and all British resounding victories.
 
Yet, the victory at New Orleans was much more resound and devastating for the British.
Nonsense. Whatever one may think of the performance of the belligerents at New Orleans, the battle itself made absolutely no difference to anything whatsoever. It hadn't even been heard of when the peace treaty was signed. In fact the whole war was a simple waste of time that could have been better spent by both countries. The US had to finally give up on its plans to annex Canada, but that was about the only result that mattered. The Napoleonic wars were de facto over though the fat lady had yet to sing, so the issue of boarding US vessels didn't matter to the UK any more.
 
Quote  
 Please, when you have some time try to do some reading on American civil war. Unlike the North the South had a very militarisic culture, with many men able to handling weapon from the very young age, nothing like that existed in the North...
In New England maybe not, but in the west and the mid-west there was plenty of tradition of using firearms from an early age. Nowhere in the US was there any strong military tradition or indeed acceptance of military discipline. Conscription had to be introduced to get anyone to fight at all.


Edited by gcle2003 - 01 Mar 2012 at 22:14
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2012 at 02:35
Well you got me again Graham. Skewered again with another rapier like thrust through my posts. 
Oh the pain....The pain....

Ok, I concede, General Sir Edward Pakenham  did not walk up to Napoleon and punch his lights out. He only kicked the crap outta Naps army.

Let me explain something to you. Your name calling, patronizing attitude, and twisting of events impresses me not one iota. It's water off a Ducks back. My discipline is not medicine, but they say when you get older, you get smarter. I can only presume you were born a turnip.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2012 at 04:48
I do so admire people who take defeat graciously.
 
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 02 Mar 2012 at 04:51
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2012 at 06:53

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I do so admire people who take defeat graciously.



Well, defeat is a major part of your heritage Graham, ya'al have lots of practice. It's nice to see you acknowledging my victory.

"The 93rd Highlanders come under fire 750 yards from Andrew Jackson's parapet "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/93rd_%28Sutherland_Highlanders%29_Regiment_of_Foot

No doubt the above will also fall into your definitive historical category of "BALLS"
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2012 at 07:18

Just some more "BALLS" for you Graham.

Battle of New Orleans
January 8, 1815
Order of Battle

93rd Foot (Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders)

http://www.yatcom.com/neworl/history/batnoob.html

So at the Battle of Waterloo the British were actually a minority? What a surprise. Where have we seen this sort of thing before I wonder?

Size of the armies: }}}}23,000 British troops with 44,000 allied troops{{{{{ and 160 guns against 74,000 French troops and 250 guns.

http://www.britishbattles.com/waterloo/waterloo-june-1815.htm




Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2012 at 21:25
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I do so admire people who take defeat graciously.



Well, defeat is a major part of your heritage Graham, ya'al have lots of practice. It's nice to see you acknowledging my victory.
Just aboout every single thing you have written here (and even elsewhere where you jabber about 'EU passports') has been wrong.
 
That the Battle of Waterloo preceded the Battle of New Orleans was a kindergarten error, which you cannot face up to. You then purported to give a link about the 93rd Highlanders which didn't even refer to them at all, far less confirm your idocy in saying they fought at Waterloo and then at New Orleans.
 
And so on and so on. I don't think we've ever had someone here so blissfully ignorant, so cosksure and so unwilling to admit making any kind of error, no matter what the evidence or chronology. 
Quote
"The 93rd Highlanders come under fire 750 yards from Andrew Jackson's parapet "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/93rd_%28Sutherland_Highlanders%29_Regiment_of_Foot

No doubt the above will also fall into your definitive historical category of "BALLS"
Of course it's balls: it's your usual childish attempt at misdirection. The link is accurate, but what is balls is your avoiding the issue that you said they fought at Waterloo (at all, let alone before New Orleans.)
 
Of course they fought at New Orleans. I said that from the beginning, when I also (correctly) said they served earlier in South Africa. What they did NOT do was fight at Waterloo.
 
You are a fool.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2012 at 01:50
Really Graham, enough with the schoolyard name calling. If I were you, I would simply run and announce victory,  just like your troops did in Basra when the insurgents kicked them out.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Mar 2012 at 05:53
Buckskins why not just admit you were totally wrong? Everybody else knows it.
 
As for Basra, Zagros and al Jassas, who know far more about it than you ever will, have already disposed of your argument in the special thread you opened, so don't waste everyones time and patience by bringing it up again here.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2012 at 03:03
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Buckskins why not just admit you were totally wrong? Everybody else knows it.
 
As for Basra, Zagros and al Jassas, who know far more about it than you ever will, have already disposed of your argument in the special thread you opened, so don't waste everyones time and patience by bringing it up again here.

Good morning Graham, nice to read your input once more. Pity it's your usual load of nonsense. 
I have no argument concerning the abysmal performance of the British military in Iraq. Feel free to pursue your opinions in the appropriate thread .

The bottom line to your red herrings is that the British Army was soundly defeated at New Orleans, and their commander was a veteran of the Napoleonic wars. What's so difficult about that? Is it the fact that ya'al were whipped by a bunch of rednecks and ragamuffins. Chin up old chap.


Edited by Buckskins - 04 Mar 2012 at 03:07
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2012 at 05:17
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Buckskins why not just admit you were totally wrong? Everybody else knows it.
 
As for Basra, Zagros and al Jassas, who know far more about it than you ever will, have already disposed of your argument in the special thread you opened, so don't waste everyones time and patience by bringing it up again here.

Good morning Graham, nice to read your input once more. Pity it's your usual load of nonsense. 
I have no argument concerning the abysmal performance of the British military in Iraq. Feel free to pursue your opinions in the appropriate thread .
Of course you have an argument, hopelessly inadequate though it may be. You've just written 'the abysmal performance of the British military' in Iraq. That's an opinion, and, in this sense, an argument. Not only that it's a stupid piece of poppycock. 
 
I thnk it's time you put the cap back on the bottle.
Quote
The bottom line to your red herrings is that the British Army was soundly defeated at New Orleans, and their commander was a veteran of the Napoleonic wars. What's so difficult about that? Is it the fact that ya'al were whipped by a bunch of rednecks and ragamuffins. Chin up old chap.
The bottom line is that you were so abysmally ignorant as to think the battle was fought by veterans of Waterloo.
 
Apart from that, you've obviously have never even read anything about the war of 1812 and how it ended. Children's comics boosting Andrew Jackson as a military hero aren't really a sound foundation for historical understanding.
 
(I appreciate that a British soldier sometime probably stole your girlfriend, which would account for your behaviour and attitudes, but there's no need to vent your spite on the whole army, now and in history.) 


Edited by gcle2003 - 04 Mar 2012 at 05:19
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2012 at 03:36
Well Graham. It would appear my post has been deleted. That's no way to attempt winning a debate sir.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2012 at 03:50
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Well Graham. It would appear my post has been deleted. That's no way to attempt winning a debate sir.
 
I deleted you post to save you. If another staff member had seen it, he/she might have suspended you right away.
 
In ref. to our conversation on PM, I think you can do better than what I deleted so try again.
 
 
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2012 at 03:55
But it's ok for Graham to say. " I appreciate that a British soldier sometime probably stole your girlfriend, which would account for your behaviour and attitudes, but there's no need to vent your spite on the whole army, "

You're a hard man Northman.

PS. Thanks for the save.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2012 at 04:00
There is so much which isn't ok in this debate - I don't think it would benefit anyone if we started counting insults.
Let it slide and stop the pissing contest - now!
 
 
 
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2012 at 04:26
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Buckskins why not just admit you were totally wrong? Everybody else knows it.
 
As for Basra, Zagros and al Jassas, who know far more about it than you ever will, have already disposed of your argument in the special thread you opened, so don't waste everyones time and patience by bringing it up again here.

They did? They never even addressed the topic. Did you delete the entire thread? and for what reason.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.