World War related bickering

[Ale]

Is that anything like the tons of anti-Americanism spewed by the british ragbloids on a daily basis? Laughing

Could you point us in the direction of some of this then? As a reader of the British media, it is really only the Left Wing Broadsheet media which could reasonably be accused of an anti-american bias. The tabloids might make the occasional dig at Bush but that is humour rather than ‘anti-americanism’.

I would also put a lot of the percieved ‘anti-americanism’ of the UK as a result of many Americans not understanding British humour and taking themselves too seriously.

As to the White House, as pointed out, the sacking of Washington was merely a part of a campaign to prevent the US invading Canada, rather than a specific policy decision. :roll:

[Cuts]

Have to go along with the Pimm’s suggestion there - just like the end of the Agincourt !

[Gen_Sandworm]

@2nd_of_foot

Did not the GOC finish off the very nice dinner that the president did not have time to finish?

The army did. On there way out of Washington the Brits were hit by probably the worst storm in the History of the City. Seriously, look it up. Later on the way to render the same to the city of Baltimore an American sniper shot a well known and favorite British Major General (thru the head i think. Whatever he was dead when he hit the ground.) Honestly IMO we saved Baltimore with one shot. Bad times on both sides.

[Gen_Sandworm]

pdf27…your number 2 statement is a bit to early. That was a doctrine coined during the Jackson administration. FYI

[system]

@pdf27

Indeedy. The war of 1812 was fought to stop the US invading Canada, burning the White House was just a bit of fun as part of the war.

Definately worked though!

What part was the losing part? Was that the bad part?

@Ale

As to the White House, as pointed out, the sacking of Washington was merely a part of a campaign to prevent the US invading Canada, rather than a specific policy decision. :roll:

Part of the campaing to keep America from invading Canada? You are thinking of the British trying to turn the Native Americans in Canada and the western US against the Americans. That was the attempt to keep the Americans from invading Canada.

[reiver]

@IRONMAN

[quote=pdf27]Indeedy. The war of 1812 was fought to stop the US invading Canada, burning the White House was just a bit of fun as part of the war.

Definately worked though!

What part was the losing part? Was that the bad part?

@Ale

As to the White House, as pointed out, the sacking of Washington was merely a part of a campaign to prevent the US invading Canada, rather than a specific policy decision. :roll:

Part of the campaing to keep America from invading Canada? You are thinking of the British trying to turn the Native Americans in Canada and the western US against the Americans. That was the attempt to keep the Americans from invading Canada.[/quote]

[i]Failing in peaceful efforts and facing an economic depression, some Americansbegan to argue for a declaration of war to redeem the national honor. The Congress that was elected in 1810 and met in November 1811 included a group known as the War Hawks who demanded war against Great Britain. These men were all Democratic-Republicans and mostly from the West and South. Among their leaders were John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Henry Clay of Kentucky, and Felix Grundy of Tennessee. They argued that American honor could be saved and British policies changed by an invasion of Canada. The FEDERALIST PARTY, representing New England shippers who foresaw the ruination of their trade, opposed war.
U.S. forces were not ready for war, and American hopes of conquering Canada collapsed in the campaigns of 1812 and 1813. The initial plan called for a three-pronged offensive: from Lake Champlain to Montreal; across the Niagara frontier; and into Upper Canada from Detroit. The attacks were uncoordinated, however, and all failed. In the West, Gen. William HULL surrendered Detroit to the British in August 1812; on the Niagara front, American troops lost the Battle of Queenston Heights in October; and along Lake Champlain the American forces withdrew in late November without seriously engaging the enemy.
American attempts to invade Canada in 1813 were again mostly unsuccessful. There was a standoff at Niagara, and an elaborate attempt to attack Montreal by a combined operation involving one force advancing along Lake Champlain and another sailing down the Saint Lawrence River from Lake Ontario failed at the end of the year. The only success was in the West. The Americans won control of the Detroit frontier region when Oliver Hazard PERRY’s ships destroyed the British fleet on Lake Erie (Sept. 10, 1813). This victory forced the British to retreat eastward from the Detroit region, and on Oct. 5, 1813, they were overtaken and defeated at the battle of the Thames (Moraviantown) by an American army under the command of Gen. William Henry HARRISON. In this battle the great Shawnee chief TECUMSEH, who had harassed the northwestern frontier since 1811, was killed while fighting on the British side.

In 1814 the United States faced complete defeat, because the British, having defeated Napoleon, began to transfer large numbers of ships and experienced troops to America. The British planned to attack the United States in three main areas: in New York along Lake Champlain and the Hudson River in order to sever New England from the union; at New Orleans to block the Mississippi; and in Chesapeake Bay as a diversionary maneuver. The British then hoped to obtain major territorial concessions in a peace treaty. The situation was particularly serious for the United States because the country was insolvent by the fall of 1814, and in New England opponents of the war were discussing separation from the Union. The HARTFORD CONVENTION that met in Connecticut in December 1814 and January 1815 stopped short of such an extreme step but suggested a number of constitutional amendments to restrict federal power.

The British appeared near success in the late summer of 1814. American resistance to the diversionary attack in Chesapeake Bay was so weak that the British, after winning the Battle of Bladensburg (August 24), marched into Washington, D.C., and burned most of the public buildings. President Madison had to flee into the countryside. The British then turned to attack Baltimore but met stiffer resistance and were forced to retire after the American defense of FORT MCHENRY, which inspired Francis Scott KEY to write the words of the “Star-Spangled Banner.”

In the north, about 10,000 British veterans advanced into the United States from Montreal. Only a weak American force stood between them and New York City, but on Sept. 11, 1814, American Capt. Thomas MACDONOUGH won the naval battle of Lake Champlain (Plattsburg Bay), destroying the British fleet. Fearing the possibility of a severed line of communications, the British army retreated into Canada. [/i]

http://gatewayno.com/history/War1812.html

British forces were mainly successful on land, mainly unsuccessful in naval engagements.
The Battle of New Orleans, where the British suffered a disastrous defeat, was fought weeks after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed.
In effect, thousands died for nothing.
This was a War which no one won.

[system]

@reiver

[quote=IRONMAN][quote=pdf27]Indeedy. The war of 1812 was fought to stop the US invading Canada, burning the White House was just a bit of fun as part of the war.

Definately worked though!

What part was the losing part? Was that the bad part?

@Ale

As to the White House, as pointed out, the sacking of Washington was merely a part of a campaign to prevent the US invading Canada, rather than a specific policy decision. :roll:

Part of the campaing to keep America from invading Canada? You are thinking of the British trying to turn the Native Americans in Canada and the western US against the Americans. That was the attempt to keep the Americans from invading Canada.[/quote]

[i]Failing in peaceful efforts and facing an economic depression, some Americansbegan to argue for a declaration of war to redeem the national honor. The Congress that was elected in 1810 and met in November 1811 included a group known as the War Hawks who demanded war against Great Britain. These men were all Democratic-Republicans and mostly from the West and South. Among their leaders were John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Henry Clay of Kentucky, and Felix Grundy of Tennessee. They argued that American honor could be saved and British policies changed by an invasion of Canada. The FEDERALIST PARTY, representing New England shippers who foresaw the ruination of their trade, opposed war.
U.S. forces were not ready for war, and American hopes of conquering Canada collapsed in the campaigns of 1812 and 1813. The initial plan called for a three-pronged offensive: from Lake Champlain to Montreal; across the Niagara frontier; and into Upper Canada from Detroit. The attacks were uncoordinated, however, and all failed. In the West, Gen. William HULL surrendered Detroit to the British in August 1812; on the Niagara front, American troops lost the Battle of Queenston Heights in October; and along Lake Champlain the American forces withdrew in late November without seriously engaging the enemy.
American attempts to invade Canada in 1813 were again mostly unsuccessful. There was a standoff at Niagara, and an elaborate attempt to attack Montreal by a combined operation involving one force advancing along Lake Champlain and another sailing down the Saint Lawrence River from Lake Ontario failed at the end of the year. The only success was in the West. The Americans won control of the Detroit frontier region when Oliver Hazard PERRY’s ships destroyed the British fleet on Lake Erie (Sept. 10, 1813). This victory forced the British to retreat eastward from the Detroit region, and on Oct. 5, 1813, they were overtaken and defeated at the battle of the Thames (Moraviantown) by an American army under the command of Gen. William Henry HARRISON. In this battle the great Shawnee chief TECUMSEH, who had harassed the northwestern frontier since 1811, was killed while fighting on the British side.

In 1814 the United States faced complete defeat, because the British, having defeated Napoleon, began to transfer large numbers of ships and experienced troops to America. The British planned to attack the United States in three main areas: in New York along Lake Champlain and the Hudson River in order to sever New England from the union; at New Orleans to block the Mississippi; and in Chesapeake Bay as a diversionary maneuver. The British then hoped to obtain major territorial concessions in a peace treaty. The situation was particularly serious for the United States because the country was insolvent by the fall of 1814, and in New England opponents of the war were discussing separation from the Union. The HARTFORD CONVENTION that met in Connecticut in December 1814 and January 1815 stopped short of such an extreme step but suggested a number of constitutional amendments to restrict federal power.

The British appeared near success in the late summer of 1814. American resistance to the diversionary attack in Chesapeake Bay was so weak that the British, after winning the Battle of Bladensburg (August 24), marched into Washington, D.C., and burned most of the public buildings. President Madison had to flee into the countryside. The British then turned to attack Baltimore but met stiffer resistance and were forced to retire after the American defense of FORT MCHENRY, which inspired Francis Scott KEY to write the words of the “Star-Spangled Banner.”

In the north, about 10,000 British veterans advanced into the United States from Montreal. Only a weak American force stood between them and New York City, but on Sept. 11, 1814, American Capt. Thomas MACDONOUGH won the naval battle of Lake Champlain (Plattsburg Bay), destroying the British fleet. Fearing the possibility of a severed line of communications, the British army retreated into Canada. [/i]

http://gatewayno.com/history/War1812.html

British forces were mainly successful on land, mainly unsuccessful in naval engagements.
The Battle of New Orleans, where the British suffered a disastrous defeat, was fought weeks after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed.
In effect, thousands died for nothing.
This was a War which no one won.[/quote]

So, you agree then? I can only assume.

I have a tip for you. The first paragraph of an article must state the subject and relative conclusion, otherwise, it simply informs the reader that they are about to enter into a reading endeavour which might take them 10 minutes to discover the subject and conclusion. Please, take a college writing class and rewrite it so I might have my attention grabbed in the first few seconds of your article. Otherwise, I simply have no interest in reading an article that requires me to gather 30 potential points of contention and wait until the end of the article to compile them into a final conclusion.

Rewrite it so I will have an interest in reading it.

Another tip. Don’t post quotations from web sources without quotation marks AND a URL, so that it appears that the author’s words are your own. That is plagarism. It’s not only against the law (in the US) but it reveals that the plagarizer has nothing of their own to say, and that is a very poor argument indeed.

[reiver]

[quote=“IRONMAN”]

@reiver

[quote=IRONMAN][quote=pdf27]Indeedy. The war of 1812 was fought to stop the US invading Canada, burning the White House was just a bit of fun as part of the war.

Definately worked though!

What part was the losing part? Was that the bad part?

@Ale

As to the White House, as pointed out, the sacking of Washington was merely a part of a campaign to prevent the US invading Canada, rather than a specific policy decision. :roll:

Part of the campaing to keep America from invading Canada? You are thinking of the British trying to turn the Native Americans in Canada and the western US against the Americans. That was the attempt to keep the Americans from invading Canada.[/quote]

[i]Failing in peaceful efforts and facing an economic depression, some Americansbegan to argue for a declaration of war to redeem the national honor. The Congress that was elected in 1810 and met in November 1811 included a group known as the War Hawks who demanded war against Great Britain. These men were all Democratic-Republicans and mostly from the West and South. Among their leaders were John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Henry Clay of Kentucky, and Felix Grundy of Tennessee. They argued that American honor could be saved and British policies changed by an invasion of Canada. The FEDERALIST PARTY, representing New England shippers who foresaw the ruination of their trade, opposed war.
U.S. forces were not ready for war, and American hopes of conquering Canada collapsed in the campaigns of 1812 and 1813. The initial plan called for a three-pronged offensive: from Lake Champlain to Montreal; across the Niagara frontier; and into Upper Canada from Detroit. The attacks were uncoordinated, however, and all failed. In the West, Gen. William HULL surrendered Detroit to the British in August 1812; on the Niagara front, American troops lost the Battle of Queenston Heights in October; and along Lake Champlain the American forces withdrew in late November without seriously engaging the enemy.
American attempts to invade Canada in 1813 were again mostly unsuccessful. There was a standoff at Niagara, and an elaborate attempt to attack Montreal by a combined operation involving one force advancing along Lake Champlain and another sailing down the Saint Lawrence River from Lake Ontario failed at the end of the year. The only success was in the West. The Americans won control of the Detroit frontier region when Oliver Hazard PERRY’s ships destroyed the British fleet on Lake Erie (Sept. 10, 1813). This victory forced the British to retreat eastward from the Detroit region, and on Oct. 5, 1813, they were overtaken and defeated at the battle of the Thames (Moraviantown) by an American army under the command of Gen. William Henry HARRISON. In this battle the great Shawnee chief TECUMSEH, who had harassed the northwestern frontier since 1811, was killed while fighting on the British side.

In 1814 the United States faced complete defeat, because the British, having defeated Napoleon, began to transfer large numbers of ships and experienced troops to America. The British planned to attack the United States in three main areas: in New York along Lake Champlain and the Hudson River in order to sever New England from the union; at New Orleans to block the Mississippi; and in Chesapeake Bay as a diversionary maneuver. The British then hoped to obtain major territorial concessions in a peace treaty. The situation was particularly serious for the United States because the country was insolvent by the fall of 1814, and in New England opponents of the war were discussing separation from the Union. The HARTFORD CONVENTION that met in Connecticut in December 1814 and January 1815 stopped short of such an extreme step but suggested a number of constitutional amendments to restrict federal power.

The British appeared near success in the late summer of 1814. American resistance to the diversionary attack in Chesapeake Bay was so weak that the British, after winning the Battle of Bladensburg (August 24), marched into Washington, D.C., and burned most of the public buildings. President Madison had to flee into the countryside. The British then turned to attack Baltimore but met stiffer resistance and were forced to retire after the American defense of FORT MCHENRY, which inspired Francis Scott KEY to write the words of the “Star-Spangled Banner.”

In the north, about 10,000 British veterans advanced into the United States from Montreal. Only a weak American force stood between them and New York City, but on Sept. 11, 1814, American Capt. Thomas MACDONOUGH won the naval battle of Lake Champlain (Plattsburg Bay), destroying the British fleet. Fearing the possibility of a severed line of communications, the British army retreated into Canada. [/i]

http://gatewayno.com/history/War1812.html

British forces were mainly successful on land, mainly unsuccessful in naval engagements.
The Battle of New Orleans, where the British suffered a disastrous defeat, was fought weeks after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed.
In effect, thousands died for nothing.
This was a War which no one won.[/quote]

So, you agree then? I can only assume.

I have a tip for you. The first paragraph of an article must state the subject and relative conclusion, otherwise, it simply informs the reader that they are about to enter into a reading endeavour which might take them 10 minutes to discover the subject and conclusion. Please, take a college writing class and rewrite it so I might have my attention grabbed in the first few seconds of your article. Otherwise, I simply have no interest in reading an article that requires me to gather 30 potential points of contention and wait until the end of the article to compile them into a final conclusion.

Rewrite it so I will have an interest in reading it.

Another tip. Don’t post quotations from web sources without quotation marks AND a URL, so that it appears that the author’s words are your own. That is plagarism. It’s not only against the law (in the US) but it reveals that the plagarizer has nothing of their own to say, and that is a very poor argument indeed.[/quote]

I think you will notice the URL at the bottom of the article, if you open your eyes.

And I don’t remember you posting the URL on “your” anti-british diatribe lifted wholesale from www.usenvy.com

[system]

@reiver

And I don’t remember you posting the URL on “your” anti-british diatribe lifted wholesale from www.usenvy.com

I am not anti-British. You have your wires crossed. I am anti-anti-American. You however, are anti-American so much that it effects your lifestyle, and that is a symptom of neurosis.

You must learn to properly quote other authors, otherwise it is a plagerism.

[reiver]

@IRONMAN

[quote=reiver]And I don’t remember you posting the URL on “your” anti-british diatribe lifted wholesale from www.usenvy.com

I am not anti-British. You have your wires crossed. I am anti-anti-American. You however, are anti-American so much that it effects your lifestyle, and that is a symptom of neurosis.

You must learn to properly quote other authors, otherwise it is a plagerism.[/quote]

As you know, the URL is quite evident.
I am not, and never have been, anti-American, and as I have repeatedly said, I’ve seen little, if any evidence of anti_Americanism posted by anyone on this site.
I have, however, seen a number of unsubstantiated allegations and libels aimed at the British Army.
By you.
You also think, at last count, that I am three people.
Just who has the neurosis?

[system]

The first paragraph of an article must state the subject and relative conclusion, otherwise, it simply informs the reader that they are about to enter into a reading endeavour which might take them 10 minutes to discover the subject and conclusion. Please, take a college writing class and rewrite it so I might have my attention grabbed in the first few seconds of your article. Otherwise, I simply have no interest in reading an article that requires me to gather 30 potential points of contention and wait until the end of the article to compile them into a final conclusion.

FORGET CORROBORATION OR PROOF, JSUT STICK IN AN UNSUPORTED COMMENT SO THAT PEOPLE WITH GOLDFISH SIZED SHORT TERM MEMORIES CAN COPE WITH THE COMPLEX PRINCIPLES INVOLVED.

I am so pleased it wasnt rhetoric when I was assured teh US education system was set slightly lower than ours!

…cue IRONMAN finding a story about text speak in public exams- Without public exams in America I do ownder how many high school sweethearts, memebers of the PTA, Jocks, benefactors, and bullies get through without pass grades, Maybe Im jsut paranoid!)

Bush went to university - Maybe Im not!

[system]

@reiver

[quote=IRONMAN][quote=reiver]And I don’t remember you posting the URL on “your” anti-british diatribe lifted wholesale from www.usenvy.com

I am not anti-British. You have your wires crossed. I am anti-anti-American. You however, are anti-American so much that it effects your lifestyle, and that is a symptom of neurosis.

You must learn to properly quote other authors, otherwise it is a plagerism.[/quote]

As you know, the URL is quite evident.
I am not, and never have been, anti-American, and as I have repeatedly said, I’ve seen little, if any evidence of anti_Americanism posted by anyone on this site.
I have, however, seen a number of unsubstantiated allegations and libels aimed at the British Army.
By you.
You also think, at last count, that I am three people.
Just who has the neurosis?[/quote]

Hogwash. I’ve spoken the truth and posted quotes from people in your own goventment, Nepal’s govenrment, human rights organizations, and the press. You lash out because you hate the truth. I did not generate the subject or the people whose opinions I quoted.

All I hear from you is constant griping about the information you hate so much, and you direct it at the one who shared it after you compelled him to do so! You are a twisted up little fluck, you are.

[Sturmtruppen]

@reiver

And I don’t remember you posting the URL on “your” anti-british diatribe lifted wholesale from www.usenvy.com

I saw that url,it isnt anti british,its anti-anti-american.And anti-french (they`re the same as anti-american)

[system]

@Erwin Schätzer(argentina)

[quote=reiver]And I don’t remember you posting the URL on “your” anti-british diatribe lifted wholesale from www.usenvy.com

I saw that url,it isnt anti british,its anti-anti-american.And anti-french (they`re the same as anti-american)[/quote]

That is true. And I am not anti-British. I do hear a lot of anti-Americanism here though. Some of it is blatant and spoken plainly, much of it is semi-concealed inside seemingly innocent statements.

It’s a shame that this forum does not exist without 4-5 British citizens continuously blathering such trash constantly, like the comment made just 2 days ago in another thread about how the British burned the American White House during the War of 1812. Instead of simply relating the fact during the discussion of that war, they said,

“They did it to stop the Americans from invading Canada. Burning the White House down was just the fun part!”

The fun part? What kind of anti-American trash is that? What would their reaction have been had I said, “They did it to keep the British from capturing Boston. Shooting their officers in the head from 100 yards was just the fun part!”? Can you imagine the resulting parlay of hatred and the ensuing 12 pages of posts that would result?

It is quite typical of the sissified anti-American garbage that constantly spills from the mouths of about 4 or 5 who post here. They even change their signatures to some kind of British nationalistic slogan such as “God save the Queen!” or “Power to the Royal Dragoons!” or some other such crap. But if an American were to do such here, it would make their skin crawl. They would hypoctitically attack you for it.

It’s nothing more than immaturity and hypocricy. It is neither necessary, productive, appreciated, or respectable.

[Sturmtruppen]

@IRONMAN

It is quite typical of the sissified anti-American garbage that constantly spills from the mouths of about 4 or 5 who post here. They even change their signatures to some kind of British nationalistic slogan such as “God save the Queen!” or “Power to the Royal Dragoons!” or some other such crap. But if an American were to do such here, it would make their skin crawl. They would hypoctitically attack you for it.

you have a beautiful sign ironman:

El dios bendice a los que tengan un corazón.

for the people who dont speaks spanish,the sign isnt agressive.

[Man_of_Stoat]

There’s one thing that you’ll never be “google wise” about, ironscam, and that’s the British sense of irony and humour. :lol:

[Sturmtruppen]

@Man_of_Stoat

There’s one thing that you’ll never be “google wise” about, ironscam, and that’s the British sense of irony and humour. :lol:

i have a big sense of irony,the problem is that it`s in spanish :lol:

[system]

@Man_of_Stoat

There’s one thing that you’ll never be “google wise” about, ironscam, and that’s the British sense of irony and humour. :lol:

No, you are wrong. I do understand British humor. I am even a Monty Python fan. Have been for many years. But what you are now trying to pass off as “good humor” is not good humor at all. I hope it can end.

I DON"T LIKE SPAM!!! (Monty Python)

@Erwin Schätzer(argentina)

you have a beautiful sign ironman:

El dios bendice a los que tengan un corazón.

for the people who dont speaks spanish,the sign isnt agressive.

Mucho gracias!

[reiver]

@IRONMAN

[quote=reiver][quote=IRONMAN][quote=reiver]And I don’t remember you posting the URL on “your” anti-british diatribe lifted wholesale from www.usenvy.com

I am not anti-British. You have your wires crossed. I am anti-anti-American. You however, are anti-American so much that it effects your lifestyle, and that is a symptom of neurosis.

You must learn to properly quote other authors, otherwise it is a plagerism.[/quote]

As you know, the URL is quite evident.
I am not, and never have been, anti-American, and as I have repeatedly said, I’ve seen little, if any evidence of anti_Americanism posted by anyone on this site.
I have, however, seen a number of unsubstantiated allegations and libels aimed at the British Army.
By you.
You also think, at last count, that I am three people.
Just who has the neurosis?[/quote]

Hogwash. I’ve spoken the truth and posted quotes from people in your own goventment, Nepal’s govenrment, human rights organizations, and the press. You lash out because you hate the truth. I did not generate the subject or the people whose opinions I quoted.

All I hear from you is constant griping about the information you hate so much, and you direct it at the one who shared it after you compelled him to do so! You are a twisted up little fluck, you are.[/quote]

I spent some time today going back over some of the threads, and I noticed a pattern emerging.
Whenever you are losing an argument, you opt for the “nuclear option”.
We’re all anti-American, that’s the problem.
Well, no, it isn’t.
I have seen, as I have said on more than one occasion, little or no anti-American bias on this site.
Personally, while there are many regimes around the world which I despise, the American nation and people is not one of them, much as I may disagree with some aspects of its current and recent foreign policy.
I also disagree with much of my own Government’s foreign and domestic policies, so that argument doesn’t hold water.
No, it isn’t anti-Americanism.
It’s personal.
So that started me thinking about why a majority of posters with whom you have “debated” would come to dislike you so intensely, and the reasons weren’t too hard to find.

You claim a high intelligence and high IQ.
In my experience, high IQ is characterised by a flexibility of mind, and openness to the ideas of others, even where those ideas are disagreed with.
When hard documentary evidence contradicting their view is produced, the intelligent person accepts they are wrong.
This, of course, does not apply to matters of opinion.
Those are ones own, although an intelligent person is usually open to well argued, reasoned persuasion.
You, on the other hand, actually boast of your closed mind, equating the possibility of being persuaded with being “intimidatable” (sic), as you have stated more than once.

When in trouble with the facts, you reverse direction or take the argument off on a tangent, then claim this fresh, unrelated argument was what you were talking about all along.
(For example, the above quote grew out of a perfectly factual post I made from a site describing the causes of the War of 1812, including America’s attempted invasions of Canada complete, I might say, with URL).
You post-edit, change assumptions, definitions and direction so often that by now you must be suffering from intellectual whiplash.

You claim that the entire American people share your opinions, because “you are an American”.
Well, I’m a Scot, and a Brit, and I’m damn sure my opinions aren’t shared by all Scots, let alone all Brits, or we would have a different Government for a start, and no Parliament building in Edinburgh.
If all Americans share your opinions, your country can save a fortune in future by doing away with elections.
Just ask you for your opinion.
All other Americans will agree; after all, “you’re an American”.

You have the temerity, despite, I suspect, never having travelled outside your own country
(correct me if I err) to claim that American patriotism is somehow of a different order to that of other nations.
It isn’t.
Americans may speak of it more often, or in your case more loudly, but volume and emotion is not the same thing.
Different peoples have different cultural mores, including those things they hold as private to themselves.
I am well aware that the average American has very strong patriotic feelings.
So does the average Finn, Australian, Fijian, Brit, Argentinian or Turk, and some day you must ask a Russian how they feel about the Rodina.

You manage to combine the debating skills of a rather immature high-school freshman with the arrogance of an Ozymandias proclaiming, “ Look at my works, ye Mighty, and despair”.
The difference is that Ozymandias achieved something.

In all of the above, you are no different from many people to be found on Internet forums.
The medium lends itself to ill-informed, self-proclaimed defenders of truth and justice aplenty.
In one area, however, you have distinguished yourself.

You, Sir, are a liar and a coward.

I make no claims that your lack of military service makes you a coward.
That would be hypocritical, since I have not served either.
I considered the Army as a career in my late teens and decided that (a) I probably would not be particularly good at it and (b) I enjoyed my creature comforts far too much.
My interest in matters military is purely familial and academic.

No, you are a moral coward.

You have the absolute right to your own opinions, even where I may disagree with those, or believe them to be misguided.
The views you hold on the recruitment of Gurkhas and their pension arrangements are not the subject of debate, in fact, I largely agree with you with regard to the latter, difficult as it is to resolve simply.
When you make statements, however, in which you denigrate an entire nation, (“It was cowardly of the British”), when you impugn the courage of better men than you will ever be, based on a total lack of knowledge, (“ you don’t like the flak Britain is taking for sending foreigners into war on foot in the Faulklands while British soldiers sat in their air craft carriers by the thousands listening to reports on the COM and playing cards”), and when you then compound your ignorance with unsubstantiated claims of mistreatment by a group of Officers who’s attitude to the men under their command verges, in my experience, on the paternal, (“ Ghurkhas are treated as second-rate people by Britain (often mistreated by british officers)”) , when you make these statements and then are unable to justify them or to offer one shred of hard evidence in defence of your specific and libellous statements, then, Sir, you declare yourself a liar, and a moral coward.
You are also, in your own quiet way a bigot.
Remember this characterisation of the Ghurkhas?
“some non-English subject willing and stupid enough to do the fighting for them.”
Is that how you view the Latino and other immigrants fighting for your military in Iraq too?

You, Sir, are beneath contempt.

(edited for syntax)

[system]

@reiver

Whenever you are losing an argument, you opt for the “nuclear option”. We’re all anti-American, that’s the problem.

Negative.

@reiver

I have seen, as I have said on more than one occasion, little or no anti-American bias on this site.

I’ve seen plenty of it. I am not the only one either.

@reiver

When in trouble with the facts, you reverse direction or take the argument off on a tangent, then claim this fresh, unrelated argument was what you were talking about all along.

You’ve got that backwards. I have never done that. Not once. Others certainly have, and still do.

@reiver

For example, the above quote grew out of a perfectly factual post I made from a site describing the causes of the War of 1812, including America’s attempted invasions of Canada complete, I might say, with URL. You post-edit, change assumptions, definitions and direction so often that by now you must be suffering from intellectual whiplash.

:?: A statement was made of the British attacking Washington and burning down the Whitre House. OK, no problem there. But then they said, that burning down the White House was just “the fun part”, with a smiley. That is simply an anti-American comment slipped into a seemingly innocent comment about an event of the war. It ewas not necessary to say such a thing, and had I said such a thing about Americans butrning down 10 Downing Street (did i get that address right? I am not sure), he and other british posters would have jumped my like a group of starving men making a race for a sandwich. You are attmepting to twist the truth to suit your agenda now.

@reiver

You claim that the entire American people share your opinions, because “you are an American”.

No, but on some issues, because I am an American, I do know what the vibe is here in my nation. I have conversations ith others. I watch the news each day. I hear what others are saying. I am not out of touch with what is happening in my country, as I am sure that you do with yours. That does not mean that I think everyone has the same opinions as I do on everything, and I have never stated such a thing.

@reiver

You have the temerity, despite, I suspect, never having travelled outside your own country (correct me if I err) that American patriotism is somehow of a different order to that of other nations.
It isn’t. Americans may speak of it more often, or in your case more loudly, but volume and emotion is not the same thing. Different peoples have different cultural mores, including those things they hold as private to themselves. I am well aware that the average American has very strong patriotic feelings. So does the average Finn, Australian, Fijian, Brit, Argentinian or Turk, and some day you must ask a Russian how they feel about the Rodina.

Americans have a somewhat unique patriotism. Now please, believe me when I say that my nest comment is not in any way anti-British. I assure you that it is not. It is intended to make this very point, only, and that is my word of honor. Nor am I attempting to pander or wave a flag and create some kind of pro-American sentiment in anyone. Nor am I wishing to offend or demean anyone. Here goes:

I would agree that it is not necessarily greater, but unique. This quality of it is what causes Americans to be more willing than most nations to put it’s young men in harm’s way for the prevention of tyanny in the world. It is why the US was ready and willing to go to war in Iraq the first time, and why the French had to be severely coaxed into it, and once coaxed, they made negative comments about the US, and though they were not in the war with us. This happens with other countries too.

Our nation was borne by defeating (with a bit of help mind you) the most powerful empire in the world at the time that was opressive and spoke of us as 2nd class citizens - like owned cattle - an empire that wanted to tell us that we were not free to practice any religion other than that of the Church of England, that we must pay taxes without representation in Britain’s Parlaiment, that expected us house British soldiers in our homes and feed them and let them oogle our wives and lovely daughters, that wanted to do a number of things that were moderately to considerably oppressive and offensive. We struggled for freedom and earned it in the face of terrible odds against an empire whose navy spanned the entire globe. This cannot be said of every nation. We paid a price for it and earned it at a time when the thought of it was perposterous in light of the might and extent of the British Empire. And we did it with a rag-tag army of poorly trained country folk whose only experience with a firearm was hunting to put meat on the family’s table.

Later events showed us that we not only had the might to free ourselves from oppression, and that freedom from oppression is right, but that we had the might to help free others around the world from oppression, and that it was also right that those people deserved freedom and the right to pass their own laws and be represented in their goventments properly.

This has engrained in Americans a better understanding of how important it is to support their nation than can be found in the people of most other nations. Others posses patriotism, cetainly. But few have quite the sence of the importance of the everyday man, the individual, the farmer, the rancher, the blacksmith who made the weapons, the horse breeders who priovided the transportation. The weavers who made the uniforms and socks. We did not have a professional army or a long-standing military tradition on which to bank. We did it with the will of the individual. It was not a king’s money that provided the means to defeat our oppressors. It was the common man. This concept was relatively rare in the world. It has afforded Americans a somewhat unique vision of freedom and it’s price for mankind. A vision that we as individuals have the power to make the difference.

It has been stated by many historians that the US Constitution is the most important document in the history of mankind because it supports this very vision. I hope my explanation helps you to see that my comment, made in reaction to aggression towards me, is not at all incorrect. I also hope that you do know and believe that I made the above statement solely for the purpose of explanatiion, and without a sliver of anything negative about anyone or for alterior motives. It was the only way that I could attempt to explain to you why my comment was not untrue. I am not anti-British. I admire Britain in many ways, and I am thankful that the free people of Britain are the ally of the US. I have a little Brit in me too!

@reiver

You manage to combine the debating skills of a rather immature high-school freshman with the arrogance of an Ozymandias proclaiming, “ Look at my works, ye Mighty, and despair”. The difference is that Ozymandias achieved something.

In all of the above, you are no different from many people to be found on Internet forums. The medium lends itself to ill-informed, self-proclaimed defenders of truth and justice aplenty. In one area, however, you have distinguished yourself.

You, Sir, are a liar and a coward.

You have moved beyond completely misunderstanding me and making these false statements about me to demeaning yourself now. You do not know enough about me to call be a coward, you are incorrect, and it makes you more of a coward than I to proclaim such a thing of a man you dislike in cyberspace.

@reiver

I make no claims that your lack of military service makes you a coward. That would be hypocritical, since I have not served either.
I considered the Army as a career in my late teens and decided that (a) I probably would not be particularly good at it and (b) I enjoyed my creature comforts far too much. My interest in matters military is purely familial and academic.

Yet in another thread just this very day you ask me repeatedly why I have not joined the military and imply that I am a cward for not doing so? You are indeed being hypacritical, you just lied, and you are using a lie to further your personal agenda.

@reiver

No, you are a moral coward.

It is humerous to me that you do not realize how far you are from the truth with that comment.

The views you hold on the recruitment of Gurkhas and their pension arrangements are not the subject of debate, in fact, I largely agree with you with regard to the latter, difficult as it is to resolve simply.
When you make statements, however, in which you denigrate an entire nation, (“It was cowardly of the British”),

I did not bring up the Gurkhas. I did however, get drawn into a debate about it that caused me to express my opinion of the matter, evensofar as to provide references from others who share it, and become just as defensive as the agressors were agressive in the matter, which I regret. I have no desire to attacking people or making such comments. However, had the agression towards me not been so fervent for expressing my opinion of the subject being debated by others already, I would not have continued to answer the agressions toward me with continued support of my opinion. It could have stopped as soon as you stopped trying to prove that my opinion was wrong and making insults about me for having it. But, the aggression simply would not stop. It still has not, we see.

The rest is drivel that is not worth responding to. Please get a grip on yourself and move on. The only enemy here is your attitude that if you say something that is either false or offensive, I have no right to respond to it. And that’s simply opressive and offensive.