"Step away from the candy and come with me, kid"

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

First of all, I apologise if you think I became personal, it was unintentional. We're probably a too bit attached to our own systems of government, I do sometimes get a bit emotional.

In 1997 Bernie Ecclestone, head of Formula 1, was forced to take back political donations to the Labour party, after Blair exempted Formula 1 from the ban on tobacco advertising. After Bush got into office, he seemed to reward those who bankrolled his campaign with impunity. That's the sort of thing that stands out over here when we think about American politics.

Look, let's agree to differ on this, both systems have good and bad points. I do get a bit miffed when I think that you're highlighting just the negative aspects of our system. Maybe I'm seeing stuff that's not there. If so I apologise.

Over here the 7 years war is seen as a time when American colonists were threatened by the French. The American Revolution is seen as part of the wider conflict with the French. Since the invasion of 1066, and the Norman occupation, English foreign policy has been focussed on ensuring that it never happened again.
When Dave goes on about his good vs evil bollocks regarding the revolution it makes my blood boil. There are two sides to every story.
I wasn't fantasising about going back in time to kill his ancestors.

I must have missed that post; I shoud go back n take another look.

Not fantasizing, huh ???

David

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You talk about all this with rose tinted spectacles. In 1763 American colonists were protected from French by British troops at the British taxpayers expense. You sold us out, you colluded with a hostile nation whose intention was the invasion of mainland Britain. And now you want to go back and help the French finish the job off.

You forget that, except for Virginia and Georgia, all of the colonists came here to escape religious and political intolerance in England. Their whole purpose was to create an independent local entity. They had long since abandoned most of your assumed allegiance to England when the Seven Years War began. They saw the War correctly as a struggle between competing imperial powers that, apart from immediate questions of personal safety, didn't involve them at all. The Iriquois Indians who allied themselves to the English were correctly seen by many of the colonists as a danger just as great as that posed by the Hurons who were allied with the French.

There was no betrayal as you describe it. The British viewpoint you describe is based on the illusion that the colonists were ever "theirs" - the same illusion that gripped George III and his advisors.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I would take the loyalists' side in a heartbeat. I relish the thought that all of North America could be united today, under a political system similar to Canada's. The benefit of abolishing slavery decades earlier would be well worth a few tax increases to me. And if our favorite team today was called "The New York Tories", and if it played cricket rather than baseball---so what?

Then why did you emigrate from Germany to the USA and not Canada?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Then why did you emigrate from Germany to the USA and not Canada?

I prefer the US's warmer climate. Man does not live on politics alone.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Or even principally, I hope...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Mussolini was not expected to be loyal to the UK, but his actions at the beginning of WW2 were as opportunistic as Americas in 1812.

The British Navy's actionsin 1812 were not dissimilar to Kennedy's during the Cuban missile crisis.

It's not all black and white.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You forget that, except for Virginia and Georgia, all of the colonists came here to escape religious and political intolerance in England.

Weren't those the same puritans who helped Cromwell put down Ireland? What about the Mormons who fled religious persecution on the East Coast? Whose side are you own Bob?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I wasn't fantasising about going back in time to kill his ancestors.I must have missed that post; I shoud go back n take another look.

Not fantasizing, huh ???

David

How would you describe going back in time to turn machine guns on British soldiers then?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

We saved u from the Germen 2ice: 1ce in 1918 and again in 1944.

It has never occurred to me that the English shoud be subjugated
under the French.

Your allegations are false (not to say demented).

My grandfather came from a place called "Devon Shire, England" in the 18OOs.

David

You didn't save us, you were bombed by the Japanese. Roosevelt was unable to enter the war prior to Pearl Harbour because of the attitudes of Republicans like Lindbergh. If you'd wanted to save us you would have entered the war in 1940.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

We saved u from the Germen 2ice: 1ce in 1918 and again in 1944.

It has never occurred to me that the English shoud be subjugated
under the French.

Your allegations are false (not to say demented).

My grandfather came from a place called "Devon Shire, England" in the 18OOs.

David

izzythepush wrote:

You didn't save us,

I guess that 's Y Churchill REJECTED us
as soon as we arrived, right ??

izzythepush wrote:

you were bombed by the Japanese.
Roosevelt was unable to enter the war prior to Pearl Harbour
because of the attitudes of Republicans like Lindbergh.

That 's true; the Demos also. He was an isolationist.

izzythepush wrote:

If you'd wanted to save us you would have entered the war in 1940.

I have a 9mm German Luger P-'08 from 1940,
with visible handwear on it; all matching serial numbers.
It must have an interesting provenance.

Well, u know, we don 't owe u allegiance.
Better late than never; ( I imagine that Churchill thawt so).

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Mussolini was not expected to be loyal to the UK, but his actions at the beginning of WW2 were as opportunistic as Americas in 1812.

The British Navy's actionsin 1812 were not dissimilar
to Kennedy's during the Cuban missile crisis.

It's not all black and white.

Please explain, with better specificity ??
(For the record: I have always held the Kennedys in abhorrence.)

David

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I wasn't fantasising about going back in time to kill his ancestors.
I must have missed that post; I shoud go back n take another look.

Not fantasizing, huh ???

David

izzythepush wrote:

How would you describe going back in time
to turn machine guns on British soldiers then?

I describe it as defending American personnel and supplies
from being taken prisoner by the English.

U starved a lot of them to death, in your care.
U killed fewer Americans on the battlefield than that.
I 'd stop that, if I were able to do so.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Well, u know, we don 't owe u allegiance.

We don't owe you allegiance either. Mussolini declared war after Hitler, to grab some of the spoils of war. I don't think his actions were that different from America's in 1812. We had seen the 'Terror,' in revolutionary France, and did not want it on our shores.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Well, u know, we don 't owe u allegiance.

izzythepush wrote:

We don't owe you allegiance either. Mussolini declared war after Hitler, to grab some of the spoils of war.
I don't think his actions were that different from America's in 1812.

HOW?? Where did we go rong?
What is your objection?

izzythepush wrote:

We had seen the 'Terror,' in revolutionary France, and did not want it on our shores.

Obviously not; Y do u imply that we were on the rong side?

America did not support the French Revolution.
America did NOTHING to inflict that upon the English; u imply the contrary.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

What about the British POWs that died in American custody?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

What about the British POWs that died in American custody?

Other than Major Andre, WERE there any??

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Mussolini was not expected to be loyal to the UK, but his actions at the beginning of WW2 were as opportunistic as Americas in 1812.

The British Navy's actionsin 1812 were not dissimilar to Kennedy's during the Cuban missile crisis.

It's not all black and white.

What the Hell was opportunistic about taking on the largest navy in the world--are you just arguing now for atgument? How do you allege the Royal Navy acted in 1812 as the United States did in 1962? Did you smoke something recreational this morning. The United States did not suddenly import weapons of mass destruction onto an island with in a hundred miles of England, necessitating a naval blockade.

It's not only not all black and white, it appears to be awfully opaque to you. Not only was the American declaration of war not opportunistic, it was clearly a foolish thing to do, done by a nation driven to desparation by the abuses and usurpations of an arrogant and hubristic nation.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

We were stopping the invasion of the UK by France. That may not be that important to you, but it was very important to us. America tried to break the blockade, in the same way the Russians tried to prevent the blockade of Cuba. If you want an example of hubris, look at the way John Bolton spoke to the UN.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

That's a tu quoque fallacy--whether or not John Bolton was hubristic has no relevance for the arrogance and hubris of the Royal Navy between 1793 and 1815. The United States wasn't "trying to break the blockade." They followed the principle that neutral ships make neutral goods. Even so, before 1805, the Royal Navy would leave neutral shipping unmolested, although they might stop them to look for contraband. It was Grenville's government which changed the rule on stopping neutrals at sea, and what constituted contraband. This was not something which was negotiated, it was a pure case of "because we say so," based on the principle of might makes right. The English would not sit down under such an imposition, but you want to claim the Americans should have done? Once again, after 1805, there was no threat of invasion, and even a threat of invasion didn't justify pressing seamen from American ships illegally stopped at sea, and didn't justify firing into U.S.S. Chesapeake because she refused to allow the Royal Navy to search her. That is something else the English would not have tolerated. Your view is seriously skewed by what must be the anti-American propaganda which has been incorporated into the history of the period as it is taught in England.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Our troops were fighting Napoleon in Spain and Portugal. Maybe our interpretation of history does not reflect the American view. Then again you all seem to be more concerned with patting yourselves on the back than anything else.

America is not under threat of invasion from Iran. That does not mean that the US Navy would not stop a North Korean cargo ship en route to Iran. Is that hubris as well?

2 Replies

"Step away from the candy and come with me, kid"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know