General, here’s a really contentious thought for you 
If the American Rebellion 
had never taken place, it could be reasonably argued that neither would the American Civil War, since slavery, the putative cassus belli for the latter war, had been outlawed in British colonies in 1833.
Since it’s historically obvious that America would have received it’s Independence anyway, albeit later, as did Canada etc., it can be argued that the USA would have been better served not by losing the War of Independence, but by never fighting it at all.
After all, the USA lost more men in the Civil War than in all her wars since.
I’ve not had one of the 416s in my sweaty mitts yet, but making it piston operated weapon á la the AR18 would seem to me to be one of the most
sensible mods that could be made to the weapon.
At least then it wouldn’t shit where it eats !
H&K wouldn’t be the first to have done this, Leitner-Wise have been making these for the USMC M4s after comments about premature wear and failures
in the sandpit.
Damn good test results too, 50,000 rds without maintenance or cleaning.
The only failure was the extractor spring, but that can be considered normal.
Gas system assembled
Gas parts removed - static piston visible
Now if the gas was made adjustable…
Well, it seems to have worked reasonably well - the US hasn’t tried to “liberate” Canada since (one of the major reasons for starting the war of 1812 - “manifest destiny” showing through?), and the peace treaty signed was a return to the status quo ante. Incidentally, the attack on New Orleans happened some time afte the peace treaty was signed.[/quote]
Im Sure the Canadians were really happy that America didnt “liberate” Canada! ( )
Well, it seems to have worked reasonably well - the US hasn’t tried to “liberate” Canada since (one of the major reasons for starting the war of 1812 - “manifest destiny” showing through?), and the peace treaty signed was a return to the status quo ante. Incidentally, the attack on New Orleans happened some time afte the peace treaty was signed.[/quote]
Im Sure the Canadians were really happy that America didnt “liberate” Canada! ( )[/quote]
yup, i am so happy i am not under bush (yes the corrupt liberal and paul martin is still better than bush)
I was drunk the other night and dont remember if I sent you a PM on this or not but anyhow…
I would love to think that the American Civil War was solely based on Slavery. But the fact is, as most foriegners dont know and most Americans have forgotten, is that this was not the major reason. Slavery was an issue in the war just as much as Jewish oppression was in WW2. The allies did not go to war with Germany because of Jewish oppression. The real issue of the American Civil was State’s Rights. Slavery was just the issue on hand at the time that sent it into a downward spiral. What the CSA (Confederate States of America) was fighting for independence because they believed that the states had the right to make their own decisions on what was best for their area of the country. Most people in the North (where the majority of the population lay) were somewhat against slavery. Some states had even abolished slavery at their own will. However they were pushing congress to pass legislation to make it illegal in all states. Here lies the real problem. If one state can abolish slavery why cant another abolish it in its own time. This was the stance of the southern part of the US at the time. They succedded from the Union under President Buchanan’s admisitration about 4 months before he left office. (Probably one of the worst US presidents ever. Dont care what you think about Dubya he doesnt hold a candle to this ass) James Buchanan did absolutly nothing about the crisis that had come. Abraham Lincoln (Republican-COMPROMISE candidate) inherited a White House in termoil. Lincoln was not the man most think. He was not a big fan of the blacks but however did believe that they should be treated as normal people even thou he didnt really believe they were. The famous Emancipation Proclamation didnt come untill later in his presidency. Read it here:
http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html
So you can see that the war was not fought solely on Slavery but however was a factor. The Civil war still could have happened over a different issue. Actually there were blacks that fought for the south that were not forced too.
Personally im happy that the morally just cause won but sad that the South lost. Because they were right. Ever since then the states have continually rested power to the Federal government. Is it wrong to say that the People of Indiana know what is best for Indiana? I think not. Today states cant do much but adjust speed limits. Example, for sometime the legal drinking age in Louisana was 18 but the Federal Government said fine you can do that but we are not going to give you any more funding for roads if you dont bump it to 21. So you see now they have the states by the balls. If the Civil war where to happen today I would fight for the South.
Insofar as Lincoln. He is the American Icon of every voice being heard. If you are a bunch of pissed of people in the US and you want to make a Statement you stand before the Lincoln monument and make your claim. (Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech for example) Lincoln’s legecy stands for the true sprit of America. Although I have to say that if you went back in time and brought back a civil war southerner and showed him todays America he would most likely say “might as well be called the United STATE of America and just disregard those borders”
So to your original claim that every thing might have been hunky dorey. I think not If slavery had be the sole issue I think you would have seen many riots in the British colonies in 1833. But that wasnt the case was it. Futhermore the American War of Independence was a great moment in history. Good and Bad. Helped countries rest power from their monarchs but also sparked a “real” revolution in France. Which in my opinion led to the real First World War. The Napoleonic Wars. Think about that for a sec. We might be better off calling this a WW3 forum.
Anyhow bla bla bla…im done. 
General, I was being deliberately provocative
I do realise that slavery was simply the spark, rather than the cause of the Civil War (in my post I did call it the “putative” cause).
The fact remains, however, that it’s absence as a bone of contention, particularly one which could be tuned to appeal to the masses on both sides, may have given the states, particularly had Lincoln still been elected, a better chance to thrash out their differences in a political rather than military fashion.
I don’t know that I can entirely agree with your view of the Revolution as being a great moment in History.
It did produce the greatest political document in History, your Constitution, but as for wresting power from the Monarchy ( who wasn’t actually to blame for the situation anyway, check out the Whig ruling party in the UK at the time), I would suggest, as I have elsewhere in debate with Ironman, that the Founding Fathers quite knowingly and deliberately chose for their country a model of Elective Monarchy, as practised by many ancient Greek city states.
In the event, they invested, in the person of the President, far greater powers than were held, even then, by the British Crown.
In effect, all they dispensed with was the principle of Hereditary Monarchy.
It was also their intention to limit the right to elect the President to a small elite group, the Electoral College. Their original intention was never a universal suffrage to elect the ruler.
I would wholeheartedly agree that the Napoleonic Wars were the first World War, with virtually only the Far East not being involved (ie China and Japan).
Actually chaps, the first world war was in fact the seven years war, fighting took place in the Americas, India, Europe, Africa,and the Philipines, European nations fought each other around the world to wrest their colonies from one another, and was incidently the war which launched Britain as a world power.
WOW !!! :shock:
Yeah, a lot of people tought about such modding…
Seems and sounds great !!!
Thanks for info and pic !!!
Fair point.
ah, the wonders of doing a degree in War Studies.
Mine’s in English Lit : It’s Cry God for Harry, England and St George!
d’oh! i feel so stupid :oops:
Anyhow :roll:
Back to the subject. Have you all see some of the new stealh ships. The Americans and British are jointly working on many designs.
Example
There are many ships that are not completely stealthy at sea that have greatly reduced their radar signature. Destroyers…Frigates and such.
Here is a pick of one of our real Stealth ships. Absolutely hideous yet stealthy.
Please dont make me regret this statement. But when the HMS Sheffield was sunk during the Falklands Conflict the US knew that they would have to hit this project hard in order to better protect their ships. (I think the British knew all to soon) I have a popular mechanics issue around here somewhere that talks about some of the recent work. Naval vessels of the future might look drastically different.
I believe the ugly US ship i posted works off of sometype of hydro-electromagnetic proplusion. Please post some info if you know more.
I think the fins or Swedish came up with the idea first. I have seen a number of pictures of angular ships.
http://www.marinen.mil.se/article.php?id=2596
this has more info
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/diverse/miltech/stealthships.html
Following the exocet attacks a number of companies saw an opening in the market. Bofor had a 40mm shell for this task but I think the most popular defence has been the Phalanx and goalkeeper systems.
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1996.html
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1993.html
They used to have a video of it firing.
Getting back on topic…well a bit…does anyone know what we did with Saddam??? Uh guess i should know since im an American but honestly havent heard any news on it. :?
He was pictured in the sun newspaper over here (it made tv news because apparently he may sue and it breaks the Geneva convention) - one of your squaddies took a few photos of him in his underwear washing and sold them to the scum, which being the rag that it is but them on the front page. Don’t know where he is until the trial though.
Probably hanging out with Solabadabadon Milosavich. :lol: :lol: :lol:
never heard of that one. Do you know if you could retrieve some pictures for us? No news that I watch/read has any recent information on him. He seemed to have disapeared from the face of the earth.
Sorry Gen. Sandworm.
Mind you, it’s enormously tough to discuss anything when one contributor argues that the actual meaning of words doesn’t matter.
Back on topic:
The US Marine Corps make excellent use of the Harrier, and both the RAF and USMC are benefitting from the improvements made to the aircraft on both sides of the Atlantic. Hopefully that’s not too inflammatory.
Not inflamatory at all. The US has contracted with the British to build the Harrier in the US if I am not mistaken. Is that true? It is a remarkable machine. I have hear though, that because it is capable of VTOL is is not as agile as other fighters. Do you know if that is true as well? And yes, I do know that Britain makes other excellent fighters that are indeed agile.
On the note of VTOL aircraft. It was the US I think that developed the Osprey, which was a cool idea, but has proven to be a poor application of the concept. There have been a few Osprey disasters, one recently I think which cost the lives of it’s crew. I saw video of it on the “tele”.