The irony here is hilarious . . .
But most of us miss it entirely.
Setanta wrote:My response to Ican was that he would not be able to support a contention that Napoleon was responsible for the deaths of millions of civilians. I pointed out that he made no distinction between military casualties and civilian deaths--and that military deaths easily ran into the millions. I pointed out that he made no distinction between deaths resulting from military action and pandemic disease. I pointed out that he made no distinction between those deaths for which Napoleon can properly be charged, and those which resulted from the actions of George, Prince Regent, the two Austrian Emperors, the Emperor Alexander and King Friedrich Wilhelm.
Napoleon, caused the Napoleon Wars.
A consequence of Napoleon's Wars was the deaths of 4 to 6.5 million people, some of whom were civilians. Therefore, Napoleon was responsible for the deaths of 4 to 6.5 million people ... some of whom were civilians ... that were caused by Napoleon's Wars. If it were not
millions of civilians that were killed in Napoleon's Wars, then pray tell how many civilians were killed in Napoleon's Wars.
While I sincerely hope I'm wrong, I anticipate that you will find it difficult to avoid further libeling of me, and easy for you to avoid answering my question. However, please make your best effort to avoid further libeling of me, and do answer my question.
Now this could be ironic ...
ican711nm wrote:Napoleon, caused the Napoleon Wars.
A consequence of Napoleon's Wars was the deaths of 4 to 6.5 million people, some of whom were civilians. Therefore, Napoleon was responsible for the deaths of 4 to 6.5 million people ... some of whom were civilians ... that were caused by Napoleon's Wars. If it were not
millions of civilians that were killed in Napoleon's Wars, then pray tell how many civilians were killed in Napoleon's Wars.
While I sincerely hope I'm wrong, I anticipate that you will find it difficult to avoid further libeling of me, and easy for you to avoid answering my question. However, please make your best effort to avoid further libeling of me, and do answer my question.
It is just amazing. The answer to your claptrap was in the paragraph you quoted. You cannot reasonably assert that no wars would have taken place if Napoleon had not come to power. You cannot reasonably assert that Napoleon is responsible for the actions of the armies of those who opposed him. You cannot reasonably assert that Napoleon was responsible for pandemic disease.
You just don't get it. No Hitler, no death camps. No Pol Pot, no death camps. But there were no death camps with Napoleon, and the wars which resulted from the French Revolution were not started by him, and would have continued without him in power. You just don't get it.
By the way, Ican, you should focus on Stalin, he was by far history's greatest blood soaked murderer. Hell, you could even trot out your ridiculous little analogy by comparing Hussein to Stalin. Of course, it would be just as silly with that comparison, but just think of the drama ! ! !
From NAPOLEON_FOREVER: "Napoleon wrote: "We need a European code, a European court of appeals, a universal currency, a uniform system of weights and measeres, a code of laws. I must forge the peoples of Europe into one people." But the kings and Emperors of Europe were quick to see the danger to their thrones.
Although Napoleon Bonaparte fought many wars against his enemies, which brought destruction and death, he imposed, wherever he went, the benefits of the Civil Code. Those who accuse him of militarism conveniently "forget" one fact: the army under the Directory represented 4.2% of the population of France. Under Napoleon the militarist, in 1814 it represented only 2.9%. In 1805 the ratio of male active population under arms, was as follow:
France: 1 in 14 of male active population, Austria: 1 in 14, Russia: 1 in 14, England: 1 in 10, and in Prussia: 1 in 10 of male active population.
Feudalism, system of financial and judicial privileges for the aristocracy, was common in Europe at the beginning of Napoleon's reign, and was practically non-existent at the end. Napoleon also:
- improved educational system
- improved administartion
- granted freedom of worship for all denominations
- encouraged industrialization
- encouraged and sponsored the sciences and arts
- brought the smallpox vaccination to the continent
- encouraged the use of gas lighting
- serfdom was abolished even in countries allied with Napoleon, like Duchy of Warsaw
- opened careers to talented people, not caring if they were peasant or noble- instituted the metric system, which has had a profound influence on the world
Napoleon's selling Louisiana for USA has had a big impact for our country (USA)
In the countries he conquered or the states he created, Napoleon granted constitutions, introduced law codes, abolished feudalism, created efficient governments and fostered education, science, literature and the arts."
CI Writes
Quote:In the countries he conquered or the states he created, Napoleon granted constitutions, introduced law codes, abolished feudalism, created efficient governments and fostered education, science, literature and the arts
Yes, and Mussolini made the trains run on time. What I remember of that period of history is that it is true that Napoleon did not start the French Revolution nor did he start all of the so-called Napoleonic 'wars'. But it is undeniable that he did initiate some and escalated and extended most, and it was his presence in a strong and politically despised France that prompted many of the hostilities. Napoleon had little or no lasting legacy in conquered territories however, and it is undeniable that many thousands died unnecessarily on his watch, by his hand, and/or by his order.
So everybody posting on this subject had at least some of it pretty much right I think. Just one or two were particularly obnoxious in their attempt to try to make others look inferior to his/their own inflated image.
Couldn't forgo the snide comment, could you Fox. Now that the conservative intellectual heavy-weight has offered us the assessment from on high, i guess we can return this discussion to thread number 9, known as version 8.0, where it all began. I wonder if Ican brought it up here because he can no longer keep the threads straight in his mind, or because mentioning it here would make it difficult for others to access the posts in which he first offered this specious theory.
heehee - napoleon may have failed to hold Europe - but he's doing a damn fine job of keeping an iron grip on this thread.
Now - if he could just introduce the rule of law here.....
Actually, the whole Napoleon bruhaha was brought here from Version 8.0. I have already taken notice of my suspicions as to why Ican might have done that.
Who was this neopolitan bloke anyway, and why has he upset ican?
er no....
I didnt really ask that
Of course invading Iraq, sorry Afghanistan, had nothing to do with oil.
Craig Murray was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan until my mate the minister fired him.
He writes in today's Guardian
"The airbase opened by the US at Khanabad is not essential to operations in Afghanistan, its claimed raison d'être. It has a more crucial role as the easternmost of Donald Rumsfeld's "lily pads" - air bases surrounding the "wider Middle East", by which the Pentagon means the belt of oil and gas fields stretching from the Middle East through the Caucasus and central Asia. A key component of this strategic jigsaw fell into place this spring when US firms were contracted to build a pipeline to bring central Asia's hydrocarbons out through Afghanistan to the Arabian sea. That strategic interest explains the recent signature of the US-Afghan strategic partnership agreement, as well as Bush's strong support for Karimov."
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Who was this neopolitan bloke anyway, and why has he upset ican?
er no....
I didnt really ask that
I believe he was descended from Genoese scoundrels of some sort . . . claimed to have been nobility, and got ol' Boney a berth at Brienne and the
École militaire . . . Our Dear Wabbit has come to the conclusion that Boney has taken over Iraq, based on the evidence of this and the other thread. But i have it on good authority that the Iron Duke has been cloned, and will soon set matters right . . .
Thank goodness for that. We shall all sleep well in our beds...
Meanwhile
When asked if Britain would support an opposition movement, he (Jack Straw British Foreign Secretary) said: "It's for the people to decide on a change of regime, not outsiders."
But how do the people of Uzbekistan do that Mr Straw?
Craig Murray again :-
"This is not Georgia, Ukraine or even Kyrgyzstan. There, the opposition parties could fight elections. The results were fixed, but the opportunity to propagate their message brought change. In Uzbek elections on December 26, the opposition was not allowed to take part at all."
You have to admire the steadfastness of the British Government. Having helped change the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq for oil, the regime in Uzbekistan is to be supported for the same reason. But, and this is where my chest nearly bursts with pride, the British Government has said shooting 500 unarmed protestors dead was WRONG.
Had they been shot until not quite dead, would Mr. Straw have been content with that outcome?
Such matters are regularly discussed in the Foreign Office as to what exactly constitutes Britain's "Ethical foreign policy".
I would think shooting them not quite dead is perfectly acceptable, providing you dont boil them afterwards.
Foxfyre wrote:So everybody posting on this subject had at least some of it pretty much right I think. Just one or two were particularly obnoxious in their attempt to try to make others look inferior to his/their own inflated image.
High points for diplomacy there, Fox. I would have used far more fecal imagery.
Let's see ... the author has once again insulted those with dissenting opinions, the usual cynical participants have re-assembled, the earth is no longer wobbling on its axis, gloom and doom prevails ... sounds like a fresh new week in LiberalLand.
Time for me to turn off this thread, too.
<<Setanta: Before you again log in with that hilarious comment about not letting the door hit me in the @ss, (are liberals
ever funny??) let me leave you with one intriguing visual -- You and Ann Coulter alone in a room. Regarding @sses, I'm pretty sure who would be leaving the room with his in a pompous little box. :wink: >>
Oh, yes ... interesting news today out of the Newsweek offices regarding that waterlogged Quran.
Seems as if another straw man has been shot dead ... or half dead ... you wits will have to determine that. Only thing for sure is all those rioters who got whipped into a frenzy over the bogus story are definitely dead.
Is any price too high for a little liberal misinfo and a chance to take a shot at Bush?
