Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There is a huge drop off after #1. People have no idea how powerful the US military actually is.
Axe dem Afghanis....LOL
And the non-free commie-kong
Only reason the Taliban exists is because we played nice and avoid civilian casualties at all cost.
No, because it is an idea. And those are the hardest things to kill.
I often laugh when people foolishly throw out "Vietnam", especially as the US won that conflict. Won every single battle that was more than a NVA Battalion going against a US Company. The VC was completely destroyed in the Tet Offensive, and disbanded. North Vietnam sued for peace, and in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords we agreed to end the war.
What happened 2 years later was proof that you can not fully trust Marxists to keep their word, and the lack of will in Congress. They defeated only the nation of South Vietnam, after all of their allies turned their backs on them.
The Taliban could be eliminated, but the problem is that you have to replace it with something. Some other ideal or goal to which the people will become attracted and work together to achieve. In Japan and Germany, that was rebuilding, and ensuring they did not go that route again. The problem is, in the end we left nothing for the people of Afghanistan to rally behind.
But once again, that is not a military failure. That was a political failure. And one I am sure we will be paying for in future years.
Again, even in vietnam we mostly avoided civilians (with exceptions of course). If we were willing to carpet bomb, no one would be left to continue any "idea".
Of course, and the US won that war.
Of course, many can not seem to understand that the war ended in 1973, and what happened in 1975 was a completely different war.
The US still had air assets there and troops on the ground in key areas, so we still had guys at risk.
Kind of like Afghanistan now.
There is a huge drop off after #1. People have no idea how powerful the US military actually is.
Axe dem Afghanis....LOL
And the non-free commie-kong
Only reason the Taliban exists is because we played nice and avoid civilian casualties at all cost.
No, because it is an idea. And those are the hardest things to kill.
I often laugh when people foolishly throw out "Vietnam", especially as the US won that conflict. Won every single battle that was more than a NVA Battalion going against a US Company. The VC was completely destroyed in the Tet Offensive, and disbanded. North Vietnam sued for peace, and in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords we agreed to end the war.
What happened 2 years later was proof that you can not fully trust Marxists to keep their word, and the lack of will in Congress. They defeated only the nation of South Vietnam, after all of their allies turned their backs on them.
The Taliban could be eliminated, but the problem is that you have to replace it with something. Some other ideal or goal to which the people will become attracted and work together to achieve. In Japan and Germany, that was rebuilding, and ensuring they did not go that route again. The problem is, in the end we left nothing for the people of Afghanistan to rally behind.
But once again, that is not a military failure. That was a political failure. And one I am sure we will be paying for in future years.
Again, even in vietnam we mostly avoided civilians (with exceptions of course). If we were willing to carpet bomb, no one would be left to continue any "idea".
Of course, and the US won that war.
Of course, many can not seem to understand that the war ended in 1973, and what happened in 1975 was a completely different war.
The US still had air assets there and troops on the ground in key areas, so we still had guys at risk.
Kind of like Afghanistan now.
They had advisors training the South Vietnamese how to use and maintain their equipment.
The "troops on the ground at key areas" were primarily the Marines, who as always are the main defensive force of any US consulate or embassy anywhere in the world.
In January 1975, after PAVN took over Phước Bình, the US started removing all forces not involved in preparation for the fall of South Vietnam. They increased the number of Marines at the embassy, and had some teams go in to remove or destroy critical things they had left behind, like cryptography equipment and other military technology, but by April when the PAVN moved into Saigon, all that was left was the Marines, and some Air Force and Navy assets to support them (and some Army to protect the Air Force).
There is a huge drop off after #1. People have no idea how powerful the US military actually is.
Axe dem Afghanis....LOL
And the non-free commie-kong
Only reason the Taliban exists is because we played nice and avoid civilian casualties at all cost.
No, because it is an idea. And those are the hardest things to kill.
I often laugh when people foolishly throw out "Vietnam", especially as the US won that conflict. Won every single battle that was more than a NVA Battalion going against a US Company. The VC was completely destroyed in the Tet Offensive, and disbanded. North Vietnam sued for peace, and in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords we agreed to end the war.
What happened 2 years later was proof that you can not fully trust Marxists to keep their word, and the lack of will in Congress. They defeated only the nation of South Vietnam, after all of their allies turned their backs on them.
The Taliban could be eliminated, but the problem is that you have to replace it with something. Some other ideal or goal to which the people will become attracted and work together to achieve. In Japan and Germany, that was rebuilding, and ensuring they did not go that route again. The problem is, in the end we left nothing for the people of Afghanistan to rally behind.
But once again, that is not a military failure. That was a political failure. And one I am sure we will be paying for in future years.
Again, even in vietnam we mostly avoided civilians (with exceptions of course). If we were willing to carpet bomb, no one would be left to continue any "idea".
Of course, and the US won that war.
Of course, many can not seem to understand that the war ended in 1973, and what happened in 1975 was a completely different war.
There is a huge drop off after #1. People have no idea how powerful the US military actually is.
Axe dem Afghanis....LOL
And the non-free commie-kong
Only reason the Taliban exists is because we played nice and avoid civilian casualties at all cost.
No, because it is an idea. And those are the hardest things to kill.
I often laugh when people foolishly throw out "Vietnam", especially as the US won that conflict. Won every single battle that was more than a NVA Battalion going against a US Company. The VC was completely destroyed in the Tet Offensive, and disbanded. North Vietnam sued for peace, and in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords we agreed to end the war.
What happened 2 years later was proof that you can not fully trust Marxists to keep their word, and the lack of will in Congress. They defeated only the nation of South Vietnam, after all of their allies turned their backs on them.
The Taliban could be eliminated, but the problem is that you have to replace it with something. Some other ideal or goal to which the people will become attracted and work together to achieve. In Japan and Germany, that was rebuilding, and ensuring they did not go that route again. The problem is, in the end we left nothing for the people of Afghanistan to rally behind.
But once again, that is not a military failure. That was a political failure. And one I am sure we will be paying for in future years.
Again, even in vietnam we mostly avoided civilians (with exceptions of course). If we were willing to carpet bomb, no one would be left to continue any "idea".
Of course, and the US won that war.
Of course, many can not seem to understand that the war ended in 1973, and what happened in 1975 was a completely different war.
It is amazing how many of these stupid uneducated Moon Bats think the North Vietnamese defeated the US.
We got the North Vietnamese to agree to a non Communists South Vietnam at the Paris Peace Accords, which was the military objective all along. We had won the war.
That wasn't acceptable to the Democrats. They wanted the Communists to win. What happen in 1975 was a betrayal by the Democrats (aided by a few weak Republicans). The action in Congress to defund the war was the green light to the Communist to undo the victory by the US and the Democrats let them do it.
There is a huge drop off after #1. People have no idea how powerful the US military actually is.
Axe dem Afghanis....LOL
And the non-free commie-kong
Only reason the Taliban exists is because we played nice and avoid civilian casualties at all cost.
No, because it is an idea. And those are the hardest things to kill.
I often laugh when people foolishly throw out "Vietnam", especially as the US won that conflict. Won every single battle that was more than a NVA Battalion going against a US Company. The VC was completely destroyed in the Tet Offensive, and disbanded. North Vietnam sued for peace, and in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords we agreed to end the war.
What happened 2 years later was proof that you can not fully trust Marxists to keep their word, and the lack of will in Congress. They defeated only the nation of South Vietnam, after all of their allies turned their backs on them.
The Taliban could be eliminated, but the problem is that you have to replace it with something. Some other ideal or goal to which the people will become attracted and work together to achieve. In Japan and Germany, that was rebuilding, and ensuring they did not go that route again. The problem is, in the end we left nothing for the people of Afghanistan to rally behind.
But once again, that is not a military failure. That was a political failure. And one I am sure we will be paying for in future years.
Again, even in vietnam we mostly avoided civilians (with exceptions of course). If we were willing to carpet bomb, no one would be left to continue any "idea".
Of course, and the US won that war.
Of course, many can not seem to understand that the war ended in 1973, and what happened in 1975 was a completely different war.
It is amazing how many of these stupid uneducated Moon Bats think the North Vietnamese defeated the US.
We got the North Vietnamese to agree to a non Communists South Vietnam at the Paris Peace Accords, which was the military objective all along. We had won the war.
That wasn't acceptable to the Democrats. They wanted the Communists to win. What happen in 1975 was a betrayal by the Democrats (aided by a few weak Republicans). The action in Congress to defund the war was the green light to the Communist to undo the victory by the US and the Democrats let them do it.
And they are the ones that sued the US for peace. It was not the other way around.
Some do not like to admit that the US lost the War of 1812, but we did. We are the ones that sued the UK for peace. The US sued, the UK talked it over, and it was granted in the Treaty of Ghent.
The same way that Germany sued for peace after 2 World Wars, and Iraq sued for peace after the Gulf War.
The victor of a conflict is not the one that sues for peace, only the side that loses the war. Otherwise, you have a "Dictated Settlement", where the victors essentially bring them in at gunpoint, and there are no negotiations. Here is what you get, take it or we go back to fighting again. That was the end of the "Second Gulf War". There was no more Iraqi government to sue for peace, so the Coalition forces took over and enacted their own peace.
There is a huge drop off after #1. People have no idea how powerful the US military actually is.
Axe dem Afghanis....LOL
And the non-free commie-kong
Only reason the Taliban exists is because we played nice and avoid civilian casualties at all cost.
No, because it is an idea. And those are the hardest things to kill.
I often laugh when people foolishly throw out "Vietnam", especially as the US won that conflict. Won every single battle that was more than a NVA Battalion going against a US Company. The VC was completely destroyed in the Tet Offensive, and disbanded. North Vietnam sued for peace, and in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords we agreed to end the war.
What happened 2 years later was proof that you can not fully trust Marxists to keep their word, and the lack of will in Congress. They defeated only the nation of South Vietnam, after all of their allies turned their backs on them.
The Taliban could be eliminated, but the problem is that you have to replace it with something. Some other ideal or goal to which the people will become attracted and work together to achieve. In Japan and Germany, that was rebuilding, and ensuring they did not go that route again. The problem is, in the end we left nothing for the people of Afghanistan to rally behind.
But once again, that is not a military failure. That was a political failure. And one I am sure we will be paying for in future years.
Again, even in vietnam we mostly avoided civilians (with exceptions of course). If we were willing to carpet bomb, no one would be left to continue any "idea".
Of course, and the US won that war.
Of course, many can not seem to understand that the war ended in 1973, and what happened in 1975 was a completely different war.
It is amazing how many of these stupid uneducated Moon Bats think the North Vietnamese defeated the US.
We got the North Vietnamese to agree to a non Communists South Vietnam at the Paris Peace Accords, which was the military objective all along. We had won the war.
That wasn't acceptable to the Democrats. They wanted the Communists to win. What happen in 1975 was a betrayal by the Democrats (aided by a few weak Republicans). The action in Congress to defund the war was the green light to the Communist to undo the victory by the US and the Democrats let them do it.
And they are the ones that sued the US for peace. It was not the other way around.
Some do not like to admit that the US lost the War of 1812, but we did. We are the ones that sued the UK for peace. The US sued, the UK talked it over, and it was granted in the Treaty of Ghent.
The same way that Germany sued for peace after 2 World Wars, and Iraq sued for peace after the Gulf War.
The victor of a conflict is not the one that sues for peace, only the side that loses the war. Otherwise, you have a "Dictated Settlement", where the victors essentially bring them in at gunpoint, and there are no negotiations. Here is what you get, take it or we go back to fighting again. That was the end of the "Second Gulf War". There was no more Iraqi government to sue for peace, so the Coalition forces took over and enacted their own peace.
I disagree with you on the War of 1812.
It was dumb for the US to start it. I agree with that and yea, we wanted it to end.
However, there were four campaigns. The score was 3-1.
The invasion of Canada. We got our ass kicked in that one.
The Brit invasion of DC. They burned DC but we actually kicked their ass in that one. Both on land after DC was burned and of course stopped their fleet from taking Baltimore.
The campaign with the Indians in the West. We won that one.
The Brit invasion to take New Orleans and gain control of the Mississippi. We all know what happen to the Brits at New Orleans. It wasn't pretty. If they had won it would have undone the Treaty of Ghent and they would have expanded into the West instead of the US.
There is a huge drop off after #1. People have no idea how powerful the US military actually is.
Axe dem Afghanis....LOL
And the non-free commie-kong
Only reason the Taliban exists is because we played nice and avoid civilian casualties at all cost.
No, because it is an idea. And those are the hardest things to kill.
I often laugh when people foolishly throw out "Vietnam", especially as the US won that conflict. Won every single battle that was more than a NVA Battalion going against a US Company. The VC was completely destroyed in the Tet Offensive, and disbanded. North Vietnam sued for peace, and in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords we agreed to end the war.
What happened 2 years later was proof that you can not fully trust Marxists to keep their word, and the lack of will in Congress. They defeated only the nation of South Vietnam, after all of their allies turned their backs on them.
The Taliban could be eliminated, but the problem is that you have to replace it with something. Some other ideal or goal to which the people will become attracted and work together to achieve. In Japan and Germany, that was rebuilding, and ensuring they did not go that route again. The problem is, in the end we left nothing for the people of Afghanistan to rally behind.
But once again, that is not a military failure. That was a political failure. And one I am sure we will be paying for in future years.
Again, even in vietnam we mostly avoided civilians (with exceptions of course). If we were willing to carpet bomb, no one would be left to continue any "idea".
Of course, and the US won that war.
Of course, many can not seem to understand that the war ended in 1973, and what happened in 1975 was a completely different war.
It is amazing how many of these stupid uneducated Moon Bats think the North Vietnamese defeated the US.
We got the North Vietnamese to agree to a non Communists South Vietnam at the Paris Peace Accords, which was the military objective all along. We had won the war.
That wasn't acceptable to the Democrats. They wanted the Communists to win. What happen in 1975 was a betrayal by the Democrats (aided by a few weak Republicans). The action in Congress to defund the war was the green light to the Communist to undo the victory by the US and the Democrats let them do it.
And they are the ones that sued the US for peace. It was not the other way around.
Some do not like to admit that the US lost the War of 1812, but we did. We are the ones that sued the UK for peace. The US sued, the UK talked it over, and it was granted in the Treaty of Ghent.
The same way that Germany sued for peace after 2 World Wars, and Iraq sued for peace after the Gulf War.
The victor of a conflict is not the one that sues for peace, only the side that loses the war. Otherwise, you have a "Dictated Settlement", where the victors essentially bring them in at gunpoint, and there are no negotiations. Here is what you get, take it or we go back to fighting again. That was the end of the "Second Gulf War". There was no more Iraqi government to sue for peace, so the Coalition forces took over and enacted their own peace.
I disagree with you on the War of 1812.
It was dumb for the US to start it. I agree with that and yea, we wanted it to end.
However, there were four campaigns. The score was 3-1.
The invasion of Canada. We got our ass kicked in that one.
The Brit invasion of DC. They burned DC but we actually kicked their ass in that one. Both on land after DC was burned and of course stopped their fleet from taking Baltimore.
The campaign with the Indians in the West. We won that one.
The Brit invasion to take New Orleans and gain control of the Mississippi. We all know what happen to the Brits at New Orleans. It wasn't pretty. If they had won it would have undone the Treaty of Ghent and they would have expanded into the West instead of the US.
It does not matter if you agree with me or not, facts are facts.
Hell, just look at the timeline, the US knew it was licked, and was about to get crushed (and maybe even absorbed into the UK again).
Remember, the US was throwing all of its resources into a single war, and it only did so well because the UK was already busy fighting in a "World War". Listen to the 1812 Overture sometime, that was not written about the war with the US.
In 1814, the French were largely being routed out of their expansions in Europe. The War of the Sixth Coalition had been a disaster, and the French had been pushed out of Spain, Eastern Europe, and were almost back at their original borders. Experts in both the US and Europe knew the war would be over by 1816. And at that point, what was left to hold back the UK?
In short, nothing. Once Napoleon was defeated, they would have been free to turn their entire might upon the US, and utterly crush it.
So once the Sixth Coalition phase of the Napoleonic Wars was over, the US started smartly broker a peace deal with the UK. And true, they did manage to get favorable conditions (including a sizeable expansion that later became the state of Maine), but the simple fact was the British were literally fighting us with "One hand tied behind their back". We were nothing but a small side-show to them, about like the French and Indian Wars were during the Seven Years War.
If the US had been foolish enough to have not sued for peace, after Napoleon was put down in 1815 the entire might of the British Empire would have turned on the US.
And the Invasion of DC? That was just a raid. The British never wanted DC, it was a horrible place. They just wanted to teach the "Upstarts" that they could not even protect their capitol from them if they really wanted to take it. And indeed, they did exactly that. We did not "kick their ass", they marched in as if they owned it, looted and burned most of it to the ground, then left in an orderly fashion.
True fact, the only major building from before that war remaining in DS is the Marine Headquarters at 8th and I. When the Militia broke and ran, the Marines continued to fight on. Even though they eventually were forced to retreat under the overwhelming might of the British attack, they did so orderly, and continued to put up resistance. This is why when the town and all military emplacements were destroyed by the British, the commander (General Robert Ross) ordered that the Marine Headquarters be spared. Unlike all the Army and Navy facilities that were utterly destroyed, the Marine Headquarters still stand, because even though they lost, they lost fighting and with honor and did not retreat.
Do you really think the US would have won that war, if not for the US putting over 80% of their assets into fighting Napoleon? At the height, the UK only had 45,000 men in North America. The US had 35,000. And another 400,000 in militia, but those would have been almost worthless in that era, as they were not trained and there was no way the US could have assembled them into an Army.
Now imagine a now victorious Duke of Wellington, coming ashore with over 250,000 battle hardened troops, bloodied and experienced after over a decade of fighting Napoleon. Can you say "Utter defeat"? Because that is what it would have been, no doubt about it.
And by the way, the Battle of New Orleans was actually held after the war was over. The cease fire and end of hostilities was signed in December 1814, that battle was fought in January 1815. I thought everybody knew that.
Now imagine if the British had not agreed to stop the fighting in 1814. Then returned to New Orleans in early 1816 with 15,000 men. They would have had the port blockaded, rockets and gunfire from their ships, and over three times the number of forces marching into the town.
There is a huge drop off after #1. People have no idea how powerful the US military actually is.
Axe dem Afghanis....LOL
And the non-free commie-kong
Only reason the Taliban exists is because we played nice and avoid civilian casualties at all cost.
No, because it is an idea. And those are the hardest things to kill.
I often laugh when people foolishly throw out "Vietnam", especially as the US won that conflict. Won every single battle that was more than a NVA Battalion going against a US Company. The VC was completely destroyed in the Tet Offensive, and disbanded. North Vietnam sued for peace, and in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords we agreed to end the war.
What happened 2 years later was proof that you can not fully trust Marxists to keep their word, and the lack of will in Congress. They defeated only the nation of South Vietnam, after all of their allies turned their backs on them.
The Taliban could be eliminated, but the problem is that you have to replace it with something. Some other ideal or goal to which the people will become attracted and work together to achieve. In Japan and Germany, that was rebuilding, and ensuring they did not go that route again. The problem is, in the end we left nothing for the people of Afghanistan to rally behind.
But once again, that is not a military failure. That was a political failure. And one I am sure we will be paying for in future years.
Again, even in vietnam we mostly avoided civilians (with exceptions of course). If we were willing to carpet bomb, no one would be left to continue any "idea".
Of course, and the US won that war.
Of course, many can not seem to understand that the war ended in 1973, and what happened in 1975 was a completely different war.
It is amazing how many of these stupid uneducated Moon Bats think the North Vietnamese defeated the US.
We got the North Vietnamese to agree to a non Communists South Vietnam at the Paris Peace Accords, which was the military objective all along. We had won the war.
That wasn't acceptable to the Democrats. They wanted the Communists to win. What happen in 1975 was a betrayal by the Democrats (aided by a few weak Republicans). The action in Congress to defund the war was the green light to the Communist to undo the victory by the US and the Democrats let them do it.
And they are the ones that sued the US for peace. It was not the other way around.
Some do not like to admit that the US lost the War of 1812, but we did. We are the ones that sued the UK for peace. The US sued, the UK talked it over, and it was granted in the Treaty of Ghent.
The same way that Germany sued for peace after 2 World Wars, and Iraq sued for peace after the Gulf War.
The victor of a conflict is not the one that sues for peace, only the side that loses the war. Otherwise, you have a "Dictated Settlement", where the victors essentially bring them in at gunpoint, and there are no negotiations. Here is what you get, take it or we go back to fighting again. That was the end of the "Second Gulf War". There was no more Iraqi government to sue for peace, so the Coalition forces took over and enacted their own peace.
I disagree with you on the War of 1812.
It was dumb for the US to start it. I agree with that and yea, we wanted it to end.
However, there were four campaigns. The score was 3-1.
The invasion of Canada. We got our ass kicked in that one.
The Brit invasion of DC. They burned DC but we actually kicked their ass in that one. Both on land after DC was burned and of course stopped their fleet from taking Baltimore.
The campaign with the Indians in the West. We won that one.
The Brit invasion to take New Orleans and gain control of the Mississippi. We all know what happen to the Brits at New Orleans. It wasn't pretty. If they had won it would have undone the Treaty of Ghent and they would have expanded into the West instead of the US.
It does not matter if you agree with me or not, facts are facts.
Hell, just look at the timeline, the US knew it was licked, and was about to get crushed (and maybe even absorbed into the UK again).
Remember, the US was throwing all of its resources into a single war, and it only did so well because the UK was already busy fighting in a "World War". Listen to the 1812 Overture sometime, that was not written about the war with the US.
In 1814, the French were largely being routed out of their expansions in Europe. The War of the Sixth Coalition had been a disaster, and the French had been pushed out of Spain, Eastern Europe, and were almost back at their original borders. Experts in both the US and Europe knew the war would be over by 1816. And at that point, what was left to hold back the UK?
In short, nothing. Once Napoleon was defeated, they would have been free to turn their entire might upon the US, and utterly crush it.
So once the Sixth Coalition phase of the Napoleonic Wars was over, the US started smartly broker a peace deal with the UK. And true, they did manage to get favorable conditions (including a sizeable expansion that later became the state of Maine), but the simple fact was the British were literally fighting us with "One hand tied behind their back". We were nothing but a small side-show to them, about like the French and Indian Wars were during the Seven Years War.
If the US had been foolish enough to have not sued for peace, after Napoleon was put down in 1815 the entire might of the British Empire would have turned on the US.
And the Invasion of DC? That was just a raid. The British never wanted DC, it was a horrible place. They just wanted to teach the "Upstarts" that they could not even protect their capitol from them if they really wanted to take it. And indeed, they did exactly that. We did not "kick their ass", they marched in as if they owned it, looted and burned most of it to the ground, then left in an orderly fashion.
True fact, the only major building from before that war remaining in DS is the Marine Headquarters at 8th and I. When the Militia broke and ran, the Marines continued to fight on. Even though they eventually were forced to retreat under the overwhelming might of the British attack, they did so orderly, and continued to put up resistance. This is why when the town and all military emplacements were destroyed by the British, the commander (General Robert Ross) ordered that the Marine Headquarters be spared. Unlike all the Army and Navy facilities that were utterly destroyed, the Marine Headquarters still stand, because even though they lost, they lost fighting and with honor and did not retreat.
Do you really think the US would have won that war, if not for the US putting over 80% of their assets into fighting Napoleon? At the height, the UK only had 45,000 men in North America. The US had 35,000. And another 400,000 in militia, but those would have been almost worthless in that era, as they were not trained and there was no way the US could have assembled them into an Army.
Now imagine a now victorious Duke of Wellington, coming ashore with over 250,000 battle hardened troops, bloodied and experienced after over a decade of fighting Napoleon. Can you say "Utter defeat"? Because that is what it would have been, no doubt about it.
And by the way, the Battle of New Orleans was actually held after the war was over. The cease fire and end of hostilities was signed in December 1814, that battle was fought in January 1815. I thought everybody knew that.
Now imagine if the British had not agreed to stop the fighting in 1814. Then returned to New Orleans in early 1816 with 15,000 men. They would have had the port blockaded, rockets and gunfire from their ships, and over three times the number of forces marching into the town.
What did I say in my little analysis that was wrong? You were wrong when you said the Brits won the war of 1812. That was factually wrong. We won 3-1.
It doesn't make any difference if the Battle of New Orleans was after the Treaty of Ghent. If the Brits had won it would have been hell to pay for the US.
There are so many who delight in War that I have less hope than ever of our being able to make peace. You will perceive by the newspapers that a very great force is to be sent from Bordeaux to the United States, and the order of the day is division of the States and conquest. The more moderate think that when our Seaboard is laid waste and we are made to agree to a line which shall exclude us from the lake; to give up a part of our claim on Louisiana and the privilege of fishing on the banks, etc. peace may be made with us.
There is a huge drop off after #1. People have no idea how powerful the US military actually is.
Axe dem Afghanis....LOL
And the non-free commie-kong
Only reason the Taliban exists is because we played nice and avoid civilian casualties at all cost.
No, because it is an idea. And those are the hardest things to kill.
I often laugh when people foolishly throw out "Vietnam", especially as the US won that conflict. Won every single battle that was more than a NVA Battalion going against a US Company. The VC was completely destroyed in the Tet Offensive, and disbanded. North Vietnam sued for peace, and in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords we agreed to end the war.
What happened 2 years later was proof that you can not fully trust Marxists to keep their word, and the lack of will in Congress. They defeated only the nation of South Vietnam, after all of their allies turned their backs on them.
The Taliban could be eliminated, but the problem is that you have to replace it with something. Some other ideal or goal to which the people will become attracted and work together to achieve. In Japan and Germany, that was rebuilding, and ensuring they did not go that route again. The problem is, in the end we left nothing for the people of Afghanistan to rally behind.
But once again, that is not a military failure. That was a political failure. And one I am sure we will be paying for in future years.
Again, even in vietnam we mostly avoided civilians (with exceptions of course). If we were willing to carpet bomb, no one would be left to continue any "idea".
Of course, and the US won that war.
Of course, many can not seem to understand that the war ended in 1973, and what happened in 1975 was a completely different war.
It is amazing how many of these stupid uneducated Moon Bats think the North Vietnamese defeated the US.
We got the North Vietnamese to agree to a non Communists South Vietnam at the Paris Peace Accords, which was the military objective all along. We had won the war.
That wasn't acceptable to the Democrats. They wanted the Communists to win. What happen in 1975 was a betrayal by the Democrats (aided by a few weak Republicans). The action in Congress to defund the war was the green light to the Communist to undo the victory by the US and the Democrats let them do it.
And they are the ones that sued the US for peace. It was not the other way around.
Some do not like to admit that the US lost the War of 1812, but we did. We are the ones that sued the UK for peace. The US sued, the UK talked it over, and it was granted in the Treaty of Ghent.
The same way that Germany sued for peace after 2 World Wars, and Iraq sued for peace after the Gulf War.
The victor of a conflict is not the one that sues for peace, only the side that loses the war. Otherwise, you have a "Dictated Settlement", where the victors essentially bring them in at gunpoint, and there are no negotiations. Here is what you get, take it or we go back to fighting again. That was the end of the "Second Gulf War". There was no more Iraqi government to sue for peace, so the Coalition forces took over and enacted their own peace.
I disagree with you on the War of 1812.
It was dumb for the US to start it. I agree with that and yea, we wanted it to end.
However, there were four campaigns. The score was 3-1.
The invasion of Canada. We got our ass kicked in that one.
The Brit invasion of DC. They burned DC but we actually kicked their ass in that one. Both on land after DC was burned and of course stopped their fleet from taking Baltimore.
The campaign with the Indians in the West. We won that one.
The Brit invasion to take New Orleans and gain control of the Mississippi. We all know what happen to the Brits at New Orleans. It wasn't pretty. If they had won it would have undone the Treaty of Ghent and they would have expanded into the West instead of the US.
It does not matter if you agree with me or not, facts are facts.
Hell, just look at the timeline, the US knew it was licked, and was about to get crushed (and maybe even absorbed into the UK again).
Remember, the US was throwing all of its resources into a single war, and it only did so well because the UK was already busy fighting in a "World War". Listen to the 1812 Overture sometime, that was not written about the war with the US.
In 1814, the French were largely being routed out of their expansions in Europe. The War of the Sixth Coalition had been a disaster, and the French had been pushed out of Spain, Eastern Europe, and were almost back at their original borders. Experts in both the US and Europe knew the war would be over by 1816. And at that point, what was left to hold back the UK?
In short, nothing. Once Napoleon was defeated, they would have been free to turn their entire might upon the US, and utterly crush it.
So once the Sixth Coalition phase of the Napoleonic Wars was over, the US started smartly broker a peace deal with the UK. And true, they did manage to get favorable conditions (including a sizeable expansion that later became the state of Maine), but the simple fact was the British were literally fighting us with "One hand tied behind their back". We were nothing but a small side-show to them, about like the French and Indian Wars were during the Seven Years War.
If the US had been foolish enough to have not sued for peace, after Napoleon was put down in 1815 the entire might of the British Empire would have turned on the US.
And the Invasion of DC? That was just a raid. The British never wanted DC, it was a horrible place. They just wanted to teach the "Upstarts" that they could not even protect their capitol from them if they really wanted to take it. And indeed, they did exactly that. We did not "kick their ass", they marched in as if they owned it, looted and burned most of it to the ground, then left in an orderly fashion.
True fact, the only major building from before that war remaining in DS is the Marine Headquarters at 8th and I. When the Militia broke and ran, the Marines continued to fight on. Even though they eventually were forced to retreat under the overwhelming might of the British attack, they did so orderly, and continued to put up resistance. This is why when the town and all military emplacements were destroyed by the British, the commander (General Robert Ross) ordered that the Marine Headquarters be spared. Unlike all the Army and Navy facilities that were utterly destroyed, the Marine Headquarters still stand, because even though they lost, they lost fighting and with honor and did not retreat.
Do you really think the US would have won that war, if not for the US putting over 80% of their assets into fighting Napoleon? At the height, the UK only had 45,000 men in North America. The US had 35,000. And another 400,000 in militia, but those would have been almost worthless in that era, as they were not trained and there was no way the US could have assembled them into an Army.
Now imagine a now victorious Duke of Wellington, coming ashore with over 250,000 battle hardened troops, bloodied and experienced after over a decade of fighting Napoleon. Can you say "Utter defeat"? Because that is what it would have been, no doubt about it.
And by the way, the Battle of New Orleans was actually held after the war was over. The cease fire and end of hostilities was signed in December 1814, that battle was fought in January 1815. I thought everybody knew that.
Now imagine if the British had not agreed to stop the fighting in 1814. Then returned to New Orleans in early 1816 with 15,000 men. They would have had the port blockaded, rockets and gunfire from their ships, and over three times the number of forces marching into the town.
What did I say in my little analysis that was wrong? You were wrong when you said the Brits won the war of 1812. That was factually wrong. We won 3-1.
It doesn't make any difference if the Battle of New Orleans was after the Treaty of Ghent. If the Brits had won it would have been hell to pay for the US.
Who sued who for peace?
The fact is, the Americans already knew a force of over 45,000 was prepared to sail out with the intent of capturing New York (again), and this time holding it. And the Duke of Wellington had already been offered command of all forces in Canada, which would be used to march all the way down the Mississippi and cut off the US from the territory gained in the Louisiana Purchase (which they intended to turn into an Indian Nation). They were going to cut up the country into little pieces, taking pretty much everything North and East of Boston, and all the territory around the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River, and the entire Gulf Coast.
And senior diplomat to the UK Reuben Beasley had already warned Secretary of State James Monroe that the hammer was about to fall on the country,
There are so many who delight in War that I have less hope than ever of our being able to make peace. You will perceive by the newspapers that a very great force is to be sent from Bordeaux to the United States, and the order of the day is division of the States and conquest. The more moderate think that when our Seaboard is laid waste and we are made to agree to a line which shall exclude us from the lake; to give up a part of our claim on Louisiana and the privilege of fishing on the banks, etc. peace may be made with us.
The US originally tried to enter the war to try and force concessions from what they saw as a distracted England. But after years of getting thoroughly thrashed, they knew they had to get out of the war as quickly as possible, while they still had a country. They had originally tried to claim most of Canada, and demanded that the UK stop boarding their ships. In the end, they surrendered Florida (which the UK returned to Spain), and were given what the UK thought was worthless land in compensation.
The US barely avoided destruction. The diplomats knew it, that is why they sued for peace. The British simply wanted out of the war, as they were still fighting Napoleon, and did not want the distraction anymore. But were on the verge of entering a phase of "total war", so that the US would never bother them ever again. If we had not, the best we could have hoped for in the end would only be Finlandization.
There is a huge drop off after #1. People have no idea how powerful the US military actually is.
Axe dem Afghanis....LOL
And the non-free commie-kong
Only reason the Taliban exists is because we played nice and avoid civilian casualties at all cost.
No, because it is an idea. And those are the hardest things to kill.
I often laugh when people foolishly throw out "Vietnam", especially as the US won that conflict. Won every single battle that was more than a NVA Battalion going against a US Company. The VC was completely destroyed in the Tet Offensive, and disbanded. North Vietnam sued for peace, and in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords we agreed to end the war.
What happened 2 years later was proof that you can not fully trust Marxists to keep their word, and the lack of will in Congress. They defeated only the nation of South Vietnam, after all of their allies turned their backs on them.
The Taliban could be eliminated, but the problem is that you have to replace it with something. Some other ideal or goal to which the people will become attracted and work together to achieve. In Japan and Germany, that was rebuilding, and ensuring they did not go that route again. The problem is, in the end we left nothing for the people of Afghanistan to rally behind.
But once again, that is not a military failure. That was a political failure. And one I am sure we will be paying for in future years.
Again, even in vietnam we mostly avoided civilians (with exceptions of course). If we were willing to carpet bomb, no one would be left to continue any "idea".
Of course, and the US won that war.
Of course, many can not seem to understand that the war ended in 1973, and what happened in 1975 was a completely different war.
It is amazing how many of these stupid uneducated Moon Bats think the North Vietnamese defeated the US.
We got the North Vietnamese to agree to a non Communists South Vietnam at the Paris Peace Accords, which was the military objective all along. We had won the war.
That wasn't acceptable to the Democrats. They wanted the Communists to win. What happen in 1975 was a betrayal by the Democrats (aided by a few weak Republicans). The action in Congress to defund the war was the green light to the Communist to undo the victory by the US and the Democrats let them do it.
And they are the ones that sued the US for peace. It was not the other way around.
Some do not like to admit that the US lost the War of 1812, but we did. We are the ones that sued the UK for peace. The US sued, the UK talked it over, and it was granted in the Treaty of Ghent.
The same way that Germany sued for peace after 2 World Wars, and Iraq sued for peace after the Gulf War.
The victor of a conflict is not the one that sues for peace, only the side that loses the war. Otherwise, you have a "Dictated Settlement", where the victors essentially bring them in at gunpoint, and there are no negotiations. Here is what you get, take it or we go back to fighting again. That was the end of the "Second Gulf War". There was no more Iraqi government to sue for peace, so the Coalition forces took over and enacted their own peace.
I disagree with you on the War of 1812.
It was dumb for the US to start it. I agree with that and yea, we wanted it to end.
However, there were four campaigns. The score was 3-1.
The invasion of Canada. We got our ass kicked in that one.
The Brit invasion of DC. They burned DC but we actually kicked their ass in that one. Both on land after DC was burned and of course stopped their fleet from taking Baltimore.
The campaign with the Indians in the West. We won that one.
The Brit invasion to take New Orleans and gain control of the Mississippi. We all know what happen to the Brits at New Orleans. It wasn't pretty. If they had won it would have undone the Treaty of Ghent and they would have expanded into the West instead of the US.
It does not matter if you agree with me or not, facts are facts.
Hell, just look at the timeline, the US knew it was licked, and was about to get crushed (and maybe even absorbed into the UK again).
Remember, the US was throwing all of its resources into a single war, and it only did so well because the UK was already busy fighting in a "World War". Listen to the 1812 Overture sometime, that was not written about the war with the US.
In 1814, the French were largely being routed out of their expansions in Europe. The War of the Sixth Coalition had been a disaster, and the French had been pushed out of Spain, Eastern Europe, and were almost back at their original borders. Experts in both the US and Europe knew the war would be over by 1816. And at that point, what was left to hold back the UK?
In short, nothing. Once Napoleon was defeated, they would have been free to turn their entire might upon the US, and utterly crush it.
So once the Sixth Coalition phase of the Napoleonic Wars was over, the US started smartly broker a peace deal with the UK. And true, they did manage to get favorable conditions (including a sizeable expansion that later became the state of Maine), but the simple fact was the British were literally fighting us with "One hand tied behind their back". We were nothing but a small side-show to them, about like the French and Indian Wars were during the Seven Years War.
If the US had been foolish enough to have not sued for peace, after Napoleon was put down in 1815 the entire might of the British Empire would have turned on the US.
And the Invasion of DC? That was just a raid. The British never wanted DC, it was a horrible place. They just wanted to teach the "Upstarts" that they could not even protect their capitol from them if they really wanted to take it. And indeed, they did exactly that. We did not "kick their ass", they marched in as if they owned it, looted and burned most of it to the ground, then left in an orderly fashion.
True fact, the only major building from before that war remaining in DS is the Marine Headquarters at 8th and I. When the Militia broke and ran, the Marines continued to fight on. Even though they eventually were forced to retreat under the overwhelming might of the British attack, they did so orderly, and continued to put up resistance. This is why when the town and all military emplacements were destroyed by the British, the commander (General Robert Ross) ordered that the Marine Headquarters be spared. Unlike all the Army and Navy facilities that were utterly destroyed, the Marine Headquarters still stand, because even though they lost, they lost fighting and with honor and did not retreat.
Do you really think the US would have won that war, if not for the US putting over 80% of their assets into fighting Napoleon? At the height, the UK only had 45,000 men in North America. The US had 35,000. And another 400,000 in militia, but those would have been almost worthless in that era, as they were not trained and there was no way the US could have assembled them into an Army.
Now imagine a now victorious Duke of Wellington, coming ashore with over 250,000 battle hardened troops, bloodied and experienced after over a decade of fighting Napoleon. Can you say "Utter defeat"? Because that is what it would have been, no doubt about it.
And by the way, the Battle of New Orleans was actually held after the war was over. The cease fire and end of hostilities was signed in December 1814, that battle was fought in January 1815. I thought everybody knew that.
Now imagine if the British had not agreed to stop the fighting in 1814. Then returned to New Orleans in early 1816 with 15,000 men. They would have had the port blockaded, rockets and gunfire from their ships, and over three times the number of forces marching into the town.
What did I say in my little analysis that was wrong? You were wrong when you said the Brits won the war of 1812. That was factually wrong. We won 3-1.
It doesn't make any difference if the Battle of New Orleans was after the Treaty of Ghent. If the Brits had won it would have been hell to pay for the US.
Who sued who for peace?
The fact is, the Americans already knew a force of over 45,000 was prepared to sail out with the intent of capturing New York (again), and this time holding it. And the Duke of Wellington had already been offered command of all forces in Canada, which would be used to march all the way down the Mississippi and cut off the US from the territory gained in the Louisiana Purchase (which they intended to turn into an Indian Nation). They were going to cut up the country into little pieces, taking pretty much everything North and East of Boston, and all the territory around the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River, and the entire Gulf Coast.
And senior diplomat to the UK Reuben Beasley had already warned Secretary of State James Monroe that the hammer was about to fall on the country,
There are so many who delight in War that I have less hope than ever of our being able to make peace. You will perceive by the newspapers that a very great force is to be sent from Bordeaux to the United States, and the order of the day is division of the States and conquest. The more moderate think that when our Seaboard is laid waste and we are made to agree to a line which shall exclude us from the lake; to give up a part of our claim on Louisiana and the privilege of fishing on the banks, etc. peace may be made with us.
The US originally tried to enter the war to try and force concessions from what they saw as a distracted England. But after years of getting thoroughly thrashed, they knew they had to get out of the war as quickly as possible, while they still had a country. They had originally tried to claim most of Canada, and demanded that the UK stop boarding their ships. In the end, they surrendered Florida (which the UK returned to Spain), and were given what the UK thought was worthless land in compensation.
The US barely avoided destruction. The diplomats knew it, that is why they sued for peace. The British simply wanted out of the war, as they were still fighting Napoleon, and did not want the distraction anymore. But were on the verge of entering a phase of "total war", so that the US would never bother them ever again. If we had not, the best we could have hoped for in the end would only be Finlandization.
You didn't answer my question. I asked you what was inaccurate in my little summary.
You said the US got its ass kick and you are simply wrong. The US prevailed in three of the four campaigns.
Go read a book on the War of 1812. May I suggest "The Battle of New Orleans: Andrew Jackson and America's First Military Victory" by Robert V. Remini,? It is mostly about the Battle of New Orleans but there is a lot of background info on the war. Remini is an history expert on the period. Start there. After you have read that book I will have other reading assignments for you.
There is a huge drop off after #1. People have no idea how powerful the US military actually is.
Axe dem Afghanis....LOL
And the non-free commie-kong
Only reason the Taliban exists is because we played nice and avoid civilian casualties at all cost.
No, because it is an idea. And those are the hardest things to kill.
I often laugh when people foolishly throw out "Vietnam", especially as the US won that conflict. Won every single battle that was more than a NVA Battalion going against a US Company. The VC was completely destroyed in the Tet Offensive, and disbanded. North Vietnam sued for peace, and in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords we agreed to end the war.
What happened 2 years later was proof that you can not fully trust Marxists to keep their word, and the lack of will in Congress. They defeated only the nation of South Vietnam, after all of their allies turned their backs on them.
The Taliban could be eliminated, but the problem is that you have to replace it with something. Some other ideal or goal to which the people will become attracted and work together to achieve. In Japan and Germany, that was rebuilding, and ensuring they did not go that route again. The problem is, in the end we left nothing for the people of Afghanistan to rally behind.
But once again, that is not a military failure. That was a political failure. And one I am sure we will be paying for in future years.
Again, even in vietnam we mostly avoided civilians (with exceptions of course). If we were willing to carpet bomb, no one would be left to continue any "idea".
Of course, and the US won that war.
Of course, many can not seem to understand that the war ended in 1973, and what happened in 1975 was a completely different war.
It is amazing how many of these stupid uneducated Moon Bats think the North Vietnamese defeated the US.
We got the North Vietnamese to agree to a non Communists South Vietnam at the Paris Peace Accords, which was the military objective all along. We had won the war.
That wasn't acceptable to the Democrats. They wanted the Communists to win. What happen in 1975 was a betrayal by the Democrats (aided by a few weak Republicans). The action in Congress to defund the war was the green light to the Communist to undo the victory by the US and the Democrats let them do it.
And they are the ones that sued the US for peace. It was not the other way around.
Some do not like to admit that the US lost the War of 1812, but we did. We are the ones that sued the UK for peace. The US sued, the UK talked it over, and it was granted in the Treaty of Ghent.
The same way that Germany sued for peace after 2 World Wars, and Iraq sued for peace after the Gulf War.
The victor of a conflict is not the one that sues for peace, only the side that loses the war. Otherwise, you have a "Dictated Settlement", where the victors essentially bring them in at gunpoint, and there are no negotiations. Here is what you get, take it or we go back to fighting again. That was the end of the "Second Gulf War". There was no more Iraqi government to sue for peace, so the Coalition forces took over and enacted their own peace.
I disagree with you on the War of 1812.
It was dumb for the US to start it. I agree with that and yea, we wanted it to end.
However, there were four campaigns. The score was 3-1.
The invasion of Canada. We got our ass kicked in that one.
The Brit invasion of DC. They burned DC but we actually kicked their ass in that one. Both on land after DC was burned and of course stopped their fleet from taking Baltimore.
The campaign with the Indians in the West. We won that one.
The Brit invasion to take New Orleans and gain control of the Mississippi. We all know what happen to the Brits at New Orleans. It wasn't pretty. If they had won it would have undone the Treaty of Ghent and they would have expanded into the West instead of the US.
It does not matter if you agree with me or not, facts are facts.
Hell, just look at the timeline, the US knew it was licked, and was about to get crushed (and maybe even absorbed into the UK again).
Remember, the US was throwing all of its resources into a single war, and it only did so well because the UK was already busy fighting in a "World War". Listen to the 1812 Overture sometime, that was not written about the war with the US.
In 1814, the French were largely being routed out of their expansions in Europe. The War of the Sixth Coalition had been a disaster, and the French had been pushed out of Spain, Eastern Europe, and were almost back at their original borders. Experts in both the US and Europe knew the war would be over by 1816. And at that point, what was left to hold back the UK?
In short, nothing. Once Napoleon was defeated, they would have been free to turn their entire might upon the US, and utterly crush it.
So once the Sixth Coalition phase of the Napoleonic Wars was over, the US started smartly broker a peace deal with the UK. And true, they did manage to get favorable conditions (including a sizeable expansion that later became the state of Maine), but the simple fact was the British were literally fighting us with "One hand tied behind their back". We were nothing but a small side-show to them, about like the French and Indian Wars were during the Seven Years War.
If the US had been foolish enough to have not sued for peace, after Napoleon was put down in 1815 the entire might of the British Empire would have turned on the US.
And the Invasion of DC? That was just a raid. The British never wanted DC, it was a horrible place. They just wanted to teach the "Upstarts" that they could not even protect their capitol from them if they really wanted to take it. And indeed, they did exactly that. We did not "kick their ass", they marched in as if they owned it, looted and burned most of it to the ground, then left in an orderly fashion.
True fact, the only major building from before that war remaining in DS is the Marine Headquarters at 8th and I. When the Militia broke and ran, the Marines continued to fight on. Even though they eventually were forced to retreat under the overwhelming might of the British attack, they did so orderly, and continued to put up resistance. This is why when the town and all military emplacements were destroyed by the British, the commander (General Robert Ross) ordered that the Marine Headquarters be spared. Unlike all the Army and Navy facilities that were utterly destroyed, the Marine Headquarters still stand, because even though they lost, they lost fighting and with honor and did not retreat.
Do you really think the US would have won that war, if not for the US putting over 80% of their assets into fighting Napoleon? At the height, the UK only had 45,000 men in North America. The US had 35,000. And another 400,000 in militia, but those would have been almost worthless in that era, as they were not trained and there was no way the US could have assembled them into an Army.
Now imagine a now victorious Duke of Wellington, coming ashore with over 250,000 battle hardened troops, bloodied and experienced after over a decade of fighting Napoleon. Can you say "Utter defeat"? Because that is what it would have been, no doubt about it.
And by the way, the Battle of New Orleans was actually held after the war was over. The cease fire and end of hostilities was signed in December 1814, that battle was fought in January 1815. I thought everybody knew that.
Now imagine if the British had not agreed to stop the fighting in 1814. Then returned to New Orleans in early 1816 with 15,000 men. They would have had the port blockaded, rockets and gunfire from their ships, and over three times the number of forces marching into the town.
What did I say in my little analysis that was wrong? You were wrong when you said the Brits won the war of 1812. That was factually wrong. We won 3-1.
It doesn't make any difference if the Battle of New Orleans was after the Treaty of Ghent. If the Brits had won it would have been hell to pay for the US.
Who sued who for peace?
The fact is, the Americans already knew a force of over 45,000 was prepared to sail out with the intent of capturing New York (again), and this time holding it. And the Duke of Wellington had already been offered command of all forces in Canada, which would be used to march all the way down the Mississippi and cut off the US from the territory gained in the Louisiana Purchase (which they intended to turn into an Indian Nation). They were going to cut up the country into little pieces, taking pretty much everything North and East of Boston, and all the territory around the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River, and the entire Gulf Coast.
And senior diplomat to the UK Reuben Beasley had already warned Secretary of State James Monroe that the hammer was about to fall on the country,
There are so many who delight in War that I have less hope than ever of our being able to make peace. You will perceive by the newspapers that a very great force is to be sent from Bordeaux to the United States, and the order of the day is division of the States and conquest. The more moderate think that when our Seaboard is laid waste and we are made to agree to a line which shall exclude us from the lake; to give up a part of our claim on Louisiana and the privilege of fishing on the banks, etc. peace may be made with us.
The US originally tried to enter the war to try and force concessions from what they saw as a distracted England. But after years of getting thoroughly thrashed, they knew they had to get out of the war as quickly as possible, while they still had a country. They had originally tried to claim most of Canada, and demanded that the UK stop boarding their ships. In the end, they surrendered Florida (which the UK returned to Spain), and were given what the UK thought was worthless land in compensation.
The US barely avoided destruction. The diplomats knew it, that is why they sued for peace. The British simply wanted out of the war, as they were still fighting Napoleon, and did not want the distraction anymore. But were on the verge of entering a phase of "total war", so that the US would never bother them ever again. If we had not, the best we could have hoped for in the end would only be Finlandization.
You didn't answer my question. I asked you what was inaccurate in my little summary.
You said the US got its ass kick and you are simply wrong. The US prevailed in three of the four campaigns.
Go read a book on the War of 1812. May I suggest "The Battle of New Orleans: Andrew Jackson and America's First Military Victory" by Robert V. Remini,? It is mostly about the Battle of New Orleans but there is a lot of background info on the war. Remini is an history expert on the period. Start there. After you have read that book I will have other reading assignments for you.
OK, go back and read what you had said very slowly. Very slowly indeed.
"US prevailed in 3 of 4 campaigns". Then suggesting I read a book that states that the battle fought after the war was over was the "First military victory". Notice how those can not both be true?
Yes, the British withdrew after failing to take Baltimore. Their commander was killed, and they left in good order. Notice, they did not surrender, they were not routed, the simply decided to leave and return another time. Just because an enemy breaks contact and ends a battle does not mean they were defeated.
Ultimately, I really do not care. Believe what you want to believe, does not matter to me. I am well used to people believing things that are not real, does not bother me one little bit. And you keep harping over and over on our single greatest victory. Which was fought after the war had already ended!
So go ahead, pat yourself on the back, have a cookie, and chant USA! USA! USA!
There is a huge drop off after #1. People have no idea how powerful the US military actually is.
Axe dem Afghanis....LOL
And the non-free commie-kong
Only reason the Taliban exists is because we played nice and avoid civilian casualties at all cost.
No, because it is an idea. And those are the hardest things to kill.
I often laugh when people foolishly throw out "Vietnam", especially as the US won that conflict. Won every single battle that was more than a NVA Battalion going against a US Company. The VC was completely destroyed in the Tet Offensive, and disbanded. North Vietnam sued for peace, and in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords we agreed to end the war.
What happened 2 years later was proof that you can not fully trust Marxists to keep their word, and the lack of will in Congress. They defeated only the nation of South Vietnam, after all of their allies turned their backs on them.
The Taliban could be eliminated, but the problem is that you have to replace it with something. Some other ideal or goal to which the people will become attracted and work together to achieve. In Japan and Germany, that was rebuilding, and ensuring they did not go that route again. The problem is, in the end we left nothing for the people of Afghanistan to rally behind.
But once again, that is not a military failure. That was a political failure. And one I am sure we will be paying for in future years.
Again, even in vietnam we mostly avoided civilians (with exceptions of course). If we were willing to carpet bomb, no one would be left to continue any "idea".
Of course, and the US won that war.
Of course, many can not seem to understand that the war ended in 1973, and what happened in 1975 was a completely different war.
It is amazing how many of these stupid uneducated Moon Bats think the North Vietnamese defeated the US.
We got the North Vietnamese to agree to a non Communists South Vietnam at the Paris Peace Accords, which was the military objective all along. We had won the war.
That wasn't acceptable to the Democrats. They wanted the Communists to win. What happen in 1975 was a betrayal by the Democrats (aided by a few weak Republicans). The action in Congress to defund the war was the green light to the Communist to undo the victory by the US and the Democrats let them do it.
And they are the ones that sued the US for peace. It was not the other way around.
Some do not like to admit that the US lost the War of 1812, but we did. We are the ones that sued the UK for peace. The US sued, the UK talked it over, and it was granted in the Treaty of Ghent.
The same way that Germany sued for peace after 2 World Wars, and Iraq sued for peace after the Gulf War.
The victor of a conflict is not the one that sues for peace, only the side that loses the war. Otherwise, you have a "Dictated Settlement", where the victors essentially bring them in at gunpoint, and there are no negotiations. Here is what you get, take it or we go back to fighting again. That was the end of the "Second Gulf War". There was no more Iraqi government to sue for peace, so the Coalition forces took over and enacted their own peace.
I disagree with you on the War of 1812.
It was dumb for the US to start it. I agree with that and yea, we wanted it to end.
However, there were four campaigns. The score was 3-1.
The invasion of Canada. We got our ass kicked in that one.
Just because an enemy breaks contact and ends a battle does not mean they were defeated.
Because the US has a huge military budget? Maybe this is because the state overpays many times for military orders? And maybe this is because the military-industrial complex can do this?There is a huge drop off after #1. People have no idea how powerful the US military actually is.
I did not grow up in a war era and I am not going to even want to serve under a bum like Biden
Sorry, but I see that as just a lame excuse.
Only biased political individuals that only care about themselves give an answer like that. TO be honest, I doubt if you would ever serve.
I served 16 years in the Marine Corps, we have an all volunteer force and I see no reason to disparage someone for choosing not to serve unless they are talking like they know the military.I did not grow up in a war era and I am not going to even want to serve under a bum like Biden
Sorry, but I see that as just a lame excuse.
Only biased political individuals that only care about themselves give an answer like that. TO be honest, I doubt if you would ever serve.
The largest parts of the DoD budget is pay and personnel. Actual purchasing of other things is not all that big.Because the US has a huge military budget? Maybe this is because the state overpays many times for military orders? And maybe this is because the military-industrial complex can do this?There is a huge drop off after #1. People have no idea how powerful the US military actually is.
