|
|
|
|
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/14/2005 7:52:15 PM | Btw, WWII made the US a superpower, we were hardly a world leader in much before that time. I guess you could saythat Europe's inability to police itself led us to become who we are now, surprise, surprise.
And, the War of 1812 is quite fascinating. The British Navy was abducting US citizens, blocking US trade, and poising British troops on our border. However, we CAN thank the British for defeating Napoleon, who rather than have the Louisiana territory fall into British hands by his defeat, sold it to the US for a great bargain.  | |
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/14/2005 7:54:27 PM |
I can see why the morons....errrr...some people think we did this all for oil....
No, it's about the contracts silly....
Anyone who thinks that ANY war has ANY purpose greater than profit is naive. We live in a capitalist society, for those of you who are a little slow, this means that we are driven by profit. The government has always been the tool of buisness. | |
|
| NO WMD.
Posted: 4/14/2005 8:14:58 PM | oldtoothless
I don't have a problem with Canadians, unlike some here, I see our neighbors as just that, neighbors. Having worked with Canadian peacekeepers, I was impressed with their work.
However, this War of 1812 crap is getting old. That Canada, at the time correctly known as "British North America", managed to resist invasion by us with the worlds greatest land and naval forces supporting them (the British actually were you, in essence) is no great deal. We were barely a nation, with virtually no army or navy, but were forced into a war by British impressment of our citizens into their naval forces.
Also, while Nam was a clusterf*ck, Korea was a DEFENSIVE war, remember?
As for Iraq, only time will tell if their fledgling democracy will take root and grow into their culture, but the elections and appointments made so far are showing promise. When the people get fed up with this terrorist insurgency they will put an end to it, and every day of democracy is one day closer to that time.
Lastly, I admit I am an optimist, but we need a couple of those here at POF just for flavor ;)
MajMike | |
|
| NO WMD.
Posted: 4/14/2005 8:15:12 PM | oldtoothless
I don't have a problem with Canadians, unlike some here, I see our neighbors as just that, neighbors. Having worked with Canadian peacekeepers, I was impressed with their work.
However, this War of 1812 crap is getting old. That Canada, at the time correctly known as "British North America", managed to resist invasion by us with the worlds greatest land and naval forces supporting them (the British actually were you, in essence) is no great deal. We were barely a nation, with virtually no army or navy, but were forced into a war by British impressment of our citizens into their naval forces.
Also, while Nam was a clusterf*ck, Korea was a DEFENSIVE war, remember?
As for Iraq, only time will tell if their fledgling democracy will take root and grow into their culture, but the elections and appointments made so far are showing promise. When the people get fed up with this terrorist insurgency they will put an end to it, and every day of democracy is one day closer to that time.
Lastly, I admit I am an optimist, but we need a couple of those here at POF just for flavor ;)
MajMike | |
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/14/2005 8:29:43 PM | the US was an instant empire. As soon as the nation was founded, we were sending marines to tripoli lybia, imposing our will on other american lands with the monroe doctrine, colonizing the north american continent and invading places. the US has never been anything BUT an empire...
1798-1800 -- Undeclared Naval War with France. This contest included land actions, such as that in the Dominican Republic, city of Puerto Plata, where marines captured a French privateer under the guns of the forts.
1801-05 -- Tripoli. The First Barbary War included the USS George Washington and USS Philadelphia affairs and the Eaton expedition, during which a few marines landed with United States Agent William Eaton to raise a force against Tripoli in an effort to free the crew of the Philadelphia. Tripoli declared war but not the United States.
1806 -- Mexico (Spanish territory). Capt. Z. M. Pike, with a platoon of troops, invaded Spanish territory at the headwaters of the Rio Grande on orders from Gen. James Wilkinson. He was made prisoner without resistance at a fort he constructed in present day Colorado, taken to Mexico, and later released after seizure of his papers.
1806-10 -- Gulf of Mexico. American gunboats operated from New Orleans against Spanish and French privateers off the Mississippi Delta, chiefly under Capt. John Shaw and Master Commandant David Porter.
1810 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). Gov. Claiborne of Louisiana, on orders of the President, occupied with troops territory in dispute east of Mississippi as far as the Pearl River, later the eastern boundary of Louisiana. He was authorized to seize as far east as the Perdido River.
1812 -- Amelia Island and other - parts of east Florida, then under Spain. Temporary possession was authorized by President Madison and by Congress, to prevent occupation by any other power; but possession was obtained by Gen. George Matthews in so irregular a manner that his measures were disavowed by the President.
1813 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). On authority given by Congress, General Wilkinson seized Mobile Bay in April with 600 soldiers. A small Spanish garrison gave way. Thus U.S. advanced into disputed territory to the Perdido River, as projected in 1810. No fighting.
1813-14 -- Marguesas Islands. U.S. forces built a fort on the island of Nukahiva to protect three prize ships which had been captured from the British.
1814 -- Spanish Florida. Gen. Andrew Jackson took Pensacola and drove out the British with whom the United States was at war.
1814-25 -- Caribbean. Engagements between pirates and American ships or squadrons took place repeatedly especially ashore and offshore about Cuba, Puerto Rico, Santo Domingo, and Yucatan. Three thousand pirate attacks on merchantmen were reported between 1815 and 1823. In 1822 Commodore James Biddle employed a squadron of two frigates, four sloops of war, two brigs, four schooners, and two gunboats in the West Indies.
1815 -- Algiers. The second Barbary War was declared by the opponents but not by the United States. Congress authorized an expedition. A large fleet under Decatur attacked Algiers and obtained indemnities.
1815 -- Tripoli. After securing an agreement from Algiers, Decatur demonstrated with his squadron at Tunis and Tripoli, where he secured indemnities for offenses during the War of 1812.
1816 -- Spanish Florida. United States forces destroyed Nicholls Fort, called also Negro Fort, which harbored raiders making forays into United States territory.
1816-18 -- Spanish Florida - First Seminole War. The Seminole Indians, whose area was a resort for escaped slaves and border ruffians, were attacked by troops under Generals Jackson and Gaines and pursued into northern Florida. Spanish posts were attacked and occupied, British citizens executed. In 1819 the Floridas were ceded to the United States.
1817 -- Amelia Island (Spanish territory off Florida). Under orders of President Monroe, United States forces landed and expelled a group of smugglers, adventurers, and freebooters.
1818 -- Oregon. The USS. Ontario dispatched from Washington, landed at the Columbia River and in August took possession of Oregon territory. Britain had conceded sovereignty but Russia and Spain asserted claims to the area.
1820-23 -- Africa. Naval units raided the slave traffic pursuant to the 1819 act of Congress.
1822 -- Cuba. United States naval forces suppressing piracy landed on the northwest coast of Cuba and burned a pirate station.
1823 -- Cuba. Brief landings in pursuit of pirates occurred April 8 near Escondido; April 16 near Cayo Blanco; July 11 at Siquapa Bay; July 21 at Cape Cruz; and October 23 at Camrioca.
1824 -- Cuba. In October the USS Porpoise landed bluejackets near Matanzas in pursuit of pirates. This was during the cruise authorized in 1822.
1824 -- Puerto Rico (Spanish territory). Commodore David Porter with a landing party attacked the town of Fajardo which had sheltered pirates and insulted American naval officers. He landed with 200 men in November and forced an apology. Commodore Porter was later court-martialed for overstepping his powers.
1825 -- Cuba. In March cooperating American and British forces landed at Sagua La Grande to capture pirates.
1827 -- Greece. In October and November landing parties hunted pirates on the islands of Argenteire, Miconi, and Androse.
1831-32 -- Falkland Islands. Captain Duncan of the USS Lexington investigated the capture of three American sealing vessels and sought to protect American interests.
1832 -- Sumatra - February 6 to 9. A naval force landed and stormed a fort to punish natives of the town of Quallah Battoo for plundering the American ship Friendship.
1833 -- Argentina - October 31 to November 15. A force was sent ashore at Buenos Aires to protect the interests of the United States and other countries during an insurrection.
1835-36 -- Peru - December 10, 1835, to January 24, 1836, and August 31 to December 7, 1836. Marines protected American interests in Callao and Lima during an attempted revolution.
1836 -- Mexico. General Gaines occupied Nacogdoches (Tex.), disputed territory, from July to December during the Texan war for independence, under orders to cross the "imaginary boundary line" if an Indian outbreak threatened.
1838-39 -- Sumatra - December 24, 1838, to January 4, 1839. A naval force landed to punish natives of the towns of Quallah Battoo and Muckie (Mukki) for depredations on American shipping.
1840 -- Fiji Islands - July. Naval forces landed to punish natives for attacking American exploring and surveying parties.
1841 -- Drummond Island, Kingsmill Group. A naval party landed to avenge the murder of a seaman by the natives.
1841 -- Samoa - February 24. A naval party landed and burned towns after the murder of an American seaman on Upolu Island.
1842 -- Mexico. Commodore TA.C. Jones, in command of a squadron long cruising off California, occupied Monterey, Calif., on October 19, believing war had come. He discovered peace, withdrew, and saluted. A similar incident occurred a week later at San Diego.
1843 -- China. Sailors and marines from the St. Louis were landed after a clash between Americans and Chinese at the trading post in Canton.
1843 -- Africa -- November 29 to December 16. Four United States vessels demonstrated and landed various parties (one of 200 marines and sailors) to discourage piracy and the slave trade along the Ivory coast, and to punish attacks by the natives on American seamen and shipping.
1844 -- Mexico. President Tyler deployed U.S. forces to protect Texas against Mexico, pending Senate approval of a treaty of annexation. (Later rejected.) He defended his action against a Senate resolution of inquiry.
1846-48 -- Mexican War. On May 13,1846, the United States recognized the existence of a state of war with Mexico. After the annexation of Texas in 1845, the United States and Mexico failed to resolve a boundary dispute and President Polk said that it was necessary to deploy forces in Mexico to meet a threatened invasion.
1849 -- Smyrna. In July a naval force gained release of an American seized by Austrian officials.
1851 -- Turkey. After a massacre of foreigners (including Americans) at Jaffa in January, a demonstration by the Mediterranean Squadron was ordered along the Turkish (Levant) coast.
1851 -- Johanns Island (east of Africa) -- August. Forces from the U.S. sloop of war Dale exacted redress for the unlawful imprisonment of the captain of an American whaling brig.
1852-53 -- Argentina -- February 3 to 12, 1852; September 17, 1852 to April 1853. Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution.
1853 -- Nicaragua -- March 11 to 13. U.S. forces landed to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances.
1853-54 -- Japan. Commodore Perry and his expedition made a display of force leading to the "opening of Japan" and the Perry Expedition.
1853-54 -- Ryukyu and Bonin Islands. Commodore Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa; he also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands with the purpose of securing facilities for commerce.
1854 -- China -- April 4 to June 15 to 17. American and English ships landed forces to protect American interests in and near Shanghai during Chinese civil strife.
1854 -- Nicaragua -- July 9 to 15. Naval forces bombarded and burned San Juan del Norte (Greytown) to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.
1855 -- China -- May 19 to 21. U.S. forces protected American interests in Shanghai and, from August 3 to 5 fought pirates near Hong Kong.
1855 -- Fiji Islands -- September 12 to November 4. An American naval force landed to seek reparations for depredations on American residents and seamen.
1855 -- Uruguay -- November 25 to 29. United States and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo.
1856 -- Panama, Republic of New Grenada -- September 19 to 22. U.S. forces landed to protect American interests during an insurrection.
1856 -- China -- October 22 to December 6. U.S. forces landed to protect American interests at Canton during hostilities between the British and the Chinese, and to avenge an assault upon an unarmed boat displaying the United States flag.
1857 -- Nicaragua -- April to May, November to December. In May Commander C.H. Davis of the United States Navy, with some marines, received the surrender of William Walker, who had been attempting to get control of the country, and protected his men from the retaliation of native allies who had been fighting Walker. In November and December of the same year United States vessels Saratoga, Wabash, and Fulton opposed another attempt of William Walker on Nicaragua. Commodore Hiram Paulding's act of landing marines and compelling the removal of Walker to the United States, was tacitly disavowed by Secretary of State Lewis Cass, and Paulding was forced into retirement.
1858 -- Uruguay -- January 2 to 27. Forces from two United States warships landed to protect American property during a revolution in Montevideo.
1858 -- Fiji Islands -- October 6 to 16. A marine expedition chastised natives for the murder of two American citizens at Waya.
1858-59 -- Turkey. The Secretary of State requested a display of naval force along the Levant after a massacre of Americans at Jaffa and mistreatment elsewhere "to remind the authorities (of Turkey) of the power of the United States."
1859 -- Paraguay. Congress authorized a naval squadron to seek redress for an attack on a naval vessel in the Parana River during 1855. Apologies were made after a large display of force.
1859 -- Mexico. Two hundred United States soldiers crossed the Rio Grande in pursuit of the Mexican bandit Cortina.
1859 -- China -- July 31 to August 2. A naval force landed to protect American interests in Shanghai.
1860 -- Angola, Portuguese West Africa -- March 1. American residents at Kissembo called upon American and British ships to protect lives and property during problems with natives.
1860 -- Colombia, Bay of Panama -- September 27 to October 8. Naval forces landed to protect American interests during a revolution.
1863 -- Japan -- July 16. The USS Wyoming retaliated against a firing on the American vessel Pembroke at Shimonoseki.
1864 -- Japan -- July 14 to August 3. Naval forces protected the United States Minister to Japan when he visited Yedo to negotiate concerning some American claims against Japan, and to make his negotiations easier by impressing the Japanese with American power.
1864 -- Japan -- September 4 to 14. Naval forces of the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands compelled Japan and the Prince of Nagato in particular to permit the Straits of Shimonoseki to be used by foreign shipping in accordance with treaties already signed.
1865 -- Panama -- March 9 and 10. U.S. forces protected the lives and property of American residents during a revolution.
1866 -- Mexico. To protect American residents, General Sedgwick and 100 men in November obtained surrender of Matamoras. After 3 days he was ordered by U.S. Government to withdraw. His act was repudiated by the President.
1866 -- China. From June 20 to July 7, U.S. forces punished an assault on the American consul at Newchwang.
1867 -- Nicaragua. Marines occupied Managua and Leon.
1867 -- Formosa -- June 13. A naval force landed and burned a number of huts to punish the murder of the crew of a wrecked American vessel.
1868 -- Japan (Osaka, Hiolo, Nagasaki, Yokohama, and Negata) -- February 4 to 8, April 4 to May 12, June 12 and 13. U.S. forces were landed to protect American interests during the civil war in Japan over the abolition of the Shogunate and the restoration of the Mikado.
1868 -- Uruguay -- February 7 and 8, 19 to 26. U.S. forces protected foreign residents and the customhouse during an insurrection at Montevideo.
1868 -- Colombia -- April. U.S. forces protected passengers and treasure in transit at Aspinwall during the absence of local police or troops on the occasion of the death of the President of Colombia.
1870 -- Mexico -- June 17 and 18. U.S. forces destroyed the pirate ship Forward, which had been run aground about 40 miles up the Rio Tecapan.
1870 -- Hawaiian Islands -- September 21. U.S. forces placed the American flag at half mast upon the death of Queen Kalama, when the American consul at Honolulu would not assume responsibility for so doing.
1871 -- Korea -- June 10 to 12. A U.S. naval force attacked and captured five forts to punish natives for depredations on Americans, particularly for murdering the crew of the General Sherman and burning the schooner, and for later firing on other American small boats taking soundings up the Salee River.
1873 -- Colombia (Bay of Panama) -- May 7 to 22, September 23 to October 9. U.S. forces protected American interests during hostilities over possession of the government of the State of Panama.
1873 -- Mexico. United States troops crossed the Mexican border repeatedly in pursuit of cattle and other thieves. There were some reciprocal pursuits by Mexican troops into border territory. Mexico protested frequently. Notable cases were at Remolina in May 1873 and at Las Cuevas in 1875. Washington orders often supported these excursions. Agreements between Mexico and the United States, the first in 1882, finally legitimized such raids. They continued intermittently, with minor disputes, until 1896.
1874 -- Hawaiian Islands -- February 12 to 20. Detachments from American vessels were landed to preserve order and protect American lives and interests during the coronation of a new king.
1876 -- Mexico -- May 18. An American force was landed to police the town of Matamoras temporarily while it was without other government.
1882 -- Egypt -- July 14 to 18. American forces landed to protect American interests during warfare between British and Egyptians and looting of the city of Alexandria by Arabs.
1885 -- Panama (Colon) -- January 18 and 19. U.S. forces were used to guard the valuables in transit over the Panama Railroad, and the safes and vaults of the company during revolutionary activity. In March, April, and May in the cities of Colon and Panama, the forces helped reestablish freedom of transit during revolutionary activity.
1888 -- Korea -- June. A naval force was sent ashore to protect American residents in Seoul during unsettled political conditions, when an outbreak of the populace was expected.
1888 -- Haiti -- December 20. A display of force persuaded the Haitian Government to give up an American steamer which had been seized on the charge of breach of blockade.
1888--89 -- Samoa -- November 14, 1888, to March 20, 1889. U.S. forces were landed to protect American citizens and the consulate during a native civil war.
1889 -- Hawaiian Islands -- July 30 and 31. U.S. forces protected American interests at Honolulu during a revolution.
1890 -- Argentina. A naval party landed to protect U.S. consulate and legation in Buenos Aires.
1891 -- Haiti. U.S. forces sought to protect American lives and property on Navassa Island.
1891 -- Bering Strait -- July 2 to October 5. Naval forces sought to stop seal poaching.
1891 -- Chile -- August 28 to 30. U.S. forces protected the American consulate and the women and children who had taken refuge in it during a revolution in Valparaiso.
1893 -- Hawaii -- January 16 to April 1. Marines were landed ostensibly to protect American lives and property, but many believed actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole. This action was disavowed by the United States.
1894 -- Brazil -- January. A display of naval force sought to protect American commerce and shipping at Rio de Janeiro during a Brazilian civil war.
1894 -- Nicaragua -- July 6 to August 7. U.S. forces sought to protect American interests at Bluefields following a revolution.
1894-95 -- China. Marines were stationed at Tientsin and penetrated to Peking for protection purposes during the Sino--Japanese War.
1894-95 -- China. A naval vessel was beached and used as a fort at Newchwang for protection of American nationals.
1894-96 -- Korea -- July 24, 1894 to April 3, 1896. A guard of marines was sent to protect the American legation and American lives and interests at Seoul during and following the Sino-- Japanese War.
1895 -- Colombia -- March 8 to 9. U.S. forces protected American interests during an attack on the town of Bocas del Toro by a bandit chieftain.
1896 -- Nicaragua -- May 2 to 4. U.S. forces protected American interests in Corinto during political unrest.
1898 -- Nicaragua -- February 7 and 8. U.S. forces protected American lives and property at San Juan del Sur.
1898 -- The Spanish--American War. On April 25, 1898, the United States declared war with Spain. The war followed a Cuban insurrection against Spanish rule and the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in the harbor at Havana.
1898--99 -- China -- November 5, 1898 to March 15, 1899. U.S. forces provided a guard for the legation at Peking and the consulate at Tientsin during contest between the Dowager Empress and her son.
1899 -- Nicaragua. American and British naval forces were landed to protect national interests at San Juan del Norte, February 22 to March 5, and at Bluefields a few weeks later in connection with the insurrection of Gen. Juan P. Reyes.
1899 -- Samoa -- February-May 15. American and British naval forces were landed to protect national interests and to take part in a bloody contention over the succession to the throne.
1899--1901 -- Philippine Islands. U.S. forces protected American interests following the war with Spain and conquered the islands by defeating the Filipinos in their war for independence.
1900 -- China -- May 24 to September 28. American troops participated in operations to protect foreign lives during the Boxer rising, particularly at Peking. For many years after this experience a permanent legation guard was maintained in Peking, and was strengthened at times as trouble threatened.
| |
|
| NO WMD.
Posted: 4/14/2005 8:31:36 PM |
DEFENSIVE war, remember?
And there it is.
MOst superpowers HAVE been made out of exactly this.
WW2; both Russia and the US vaulted due to helping, and attacking full out in DEFENCE! | |
|
| NO WMD.
Posted: 4/14/2005 9:02:05 PM | I think that most USA folks on this site are pretty open minded and not so much attached to the USA!! USA!!!USA!!! attitude. The rest of the world laughs when we here that chant. It is too bad that people like you exist in an open conversation like these types of media.
What exactly do you think the USA owns????? They are mired in a war that was considered illegal by the rest of the world, then beg the world to help them pay for it. The American dollar is shrinking. The world is hating the hypocricy more and more every day. Goodness, the USA folks cannot, or will not pay their UN dues for the love of the God that they vow to respect on their own money.
They lost in Vietnam. Korea, and the War of 1812 against Canada of all countries. I am Canadian, and I laugh at that. Iraq is a joke as you cannot even win against a country that has no leadership. Americans invade a country and kill it's people against the world's ideals, and when their soldiers get attacked, they call it terrorism. I am not sure I understand that logic.
The real terroism is the American concept that the world will follow their ideals. Although I do not support killing innocent peoplee (911) it is simply a world reaction to American terrorism. Invading Iraq is pure terrorism!!!!!!!!!!
I like the fact that the USA is our friend. We need to spell something out for the USA folks though. We are a soverign country. We own our own resources, and our own ideals. The fact that we do not follow you into war, or into space war protection does not keep makes us your enemy. You do not protect us like some think. It is the UN that will protect us if someone decides to attack us. The reason for that is in repayment for the amount of peacekeeping we do around the world.
I respect the soldiers in Iraq. I was a member of The Canadian Armed Forces for 10 years. I trust you will return safely. | |
|
| NO WMD.
Posted: 4/14/2005 9:11:56 PM | just so ya know. The war of 1812 was certainly more of a British/American war then anything. The thing is that it was the "Canadiens"( read French) and the Native canadians that fought the war in the trenches. The Metis were a big part of that war (Metis meaning French / Native cross)
The Brit Generals controlled the war true. But it was the Canadian spirit that won the war and pushed the USA folks back. Just like we do in the Hockey World. HA HA HA . It is all about Heart and Spirit that we seem to have, and you folks seem to lack. No offence of course. | |
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/14/2005 9:17:29 PM | Elwood
If fighting pirates (and privateers, same thing), landing in nations to protect American citizens, and fighting against seal poaching is "empire building" then by all means call us an empire. Every time the word pirate/privateer appears it means a justified conflict, as is sending troops to countries to protect American citizens and embassies, so if you listed those to add weight to your 'America is an evil empire' mantra I think you may want to reconsider.
What I see is a mostly glorious history of fighting evil (pirates/privateers), defending our people, and trying to make the world a safer place. Thanks for pointing out even more reasons to be proud to be an American.
MajMike | |
|
| NO WMD.
Posted: 4/14/2005 9:23:18 PM |
The war of 1812 was certainly more of a British/American war then anything.
Yes, that would explain the picture of the Queen on your money.
But it was the Canadian spirit that won the war and pushed the USA folks back.
Not to be too nationalistic, but what did you win? You may recall that the British (CanadiAns) marched into DC and burnt down the White House. They were then promptly pushed back.
Just like we do in the Hockey World. HA HA HA I will gladly post the results of the last 10 Stanley Cup winners. We'll see how many of those teams are based in America. HA HA HA HA. It is all about Heart and Spirit that we seem to have, and you folks seem to lack. No offence of course. I don't take offense when a dog barks, or a cow moos, or when a Frenchman farts. It's just wind past their lips... | |
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/14/2005 9:30:57 PM |
...so if you listed those to add weight to your 'America is an evil empire' mantra I think you may want to reconsider....
If fighting pirates (and privateers, same thing), landing in nations to protect American citizens, and fighting against seal poaching is "empire building" then by all means call us an empire.
"evil" empire?
that's all YOU MajMike... I just said nothing but an empire.
but how about those seizure of Spanish territory?
How about punishing natives for attacking surveyors?
How about landing soldiers in China to go boss the Chinese around?
are you saying we WEREN'T an empire?
Why don't other countries send THEIR military HERE or other places halfway around the world when their "interests" are threatened?
If you're denying we were always an empire, it's a bad joke of an argument you're making. | |
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/14/2005 9:38:58 PM | I said 'evil empire' because of your history here at POF of painting the US as the bad guy in every conflict discussed here.
I am saying we weren't an empire in the late 1700s or early 1800s. Even at the end of the War of 1812 we barely had a navy, and since sea power was 'it' in those days we were in no way an empire.
And other countries do send their troops 'halfway around the world when their interests are threatened', but not here because we would be a wee bit peeved.
MajMike | |
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/14/2005 9:48:47 PM |
And other countries do send their troops 'halfway around the world when their interests are threatened', but not here
Oh yes they do. I think you have MANY countries top families etc learning your country and finding weaknesses etc etc. They just do not do it like in the od day when "the troops go marching in".
I also agree that the US has not been an empire; THAT is what Mr. Bush is currently working on. Give him time, he's trying his hardest; no worries. | |
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/14/2005 9:51:05 PM |
I said 'evil empire' because of your history here at POF of painting the US as the bad guy in every conflict discussed here.
Instead of poisoning the well and talking about MY history, let's not change the subject here MajMike... we're talking about US history.
The US was an empire from the time we stepped on foreign soil to attack... That's just a fact... from 1798 in the Dominican Republican on...the saaaaaaaaaaaame Dominican Republic where Bush sent those thousands of M-16s to the Haitian rebels last year to overthrow democratically elected president Aristide on the other side of the island...all those long lonnnnnnnnnnnng trips to foreign nations to go after pirates, protect surveyors, shipping routes and "protect our interests against native insurgents" were because were were colonizing those areas of the world.
Now, if you think that was "bad", or "evil", you said it. Not me. | |
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/14/2005 9:58:48 PM |
The US was an empire from the time we stepped on foreign soil to attack... That's just a fact...
No, it's not a fact, and saying it more doesn't make it any more true. 'Fighting pirates is preparing to colonize that area of the world', only someone near Berkeley could come up with that.
And there is no need for me to 'poison the well', that ship sailed long ago and it's known to all.
MajMike | |
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/14/2005 10:05:41 PM |
And there is no need for me to 'poison the well', that ship sailed long ago and it's known to all.
(sic)
'Fighting pirates is preparing to colonize that area of the world', only someone near Berkeley could come up with that.
Mike..... you're saying my opinion is something only someone near berkeley could come up with, THUS trying to associate me with a place which has certain types of political opinions... so people will discount what I say.
Here's what I'm accusing YOU of:
"Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.
Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."
During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."
After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."
Examples of Poisoning the Well
"Don't listen to him, he's a scoundrel."
"Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of the university at heart."
You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend's boyfriend is a decadent wastrel. When you meet him, everything you hear him say is tainted."
....so.. it would be like if I said that because YOU are retired army, that everything you say can be discounted because all army guys think alike.
It's fallacious reasoning... not fair and kind of immature for you to think you can get away with it here... | |
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/14/2005 10:14:45 PM | | Doesn't it take more effort to consciously spell like that, than to spell normally? | |
|
| |
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/15/2005 8:04:21 AM | Elwood
I understand what 'poisoning the well' is, what I said was that it was impossible for me to do that because that particular well has had a hazard sign on in for a long time.
The Berkeley comment was stereotypical, but I have to say that 98% of your posts/beliefs fall into the ultra-liberal, 'left coast' mentality folks have come to expect from that region. When the individual is the archtype of the stereotype, it's not fallacious.
I don't think I can 'get away with it', most folks here at POF (even the ones who believe as you) know that reason is wasted on you. Many have (as bdm posted) tried to explain to me the futility of real debate with you, I guess I just keep hoping that by responding to your more outrageous posts you will eventually learn the power of moderation.
One of your (and my) biggest complaints about Mr. Bush is that he refuses to admit that he has made mistakes, but you do the same thing. And when a glaringly obvious mistake is pointed out, you either change the subject or ignore that portion of the previous post without acknowledging any error or overstatement on your part (and/or try to deride the respondent to distract from the argument).
I have strong beliefs too, but I try very hard to really think about the threads/posts here that don't agree with my worldview, for they are the ones that will teach me or cause me to learn something, not the ones I could have written. I try to admit when I make an error and to fix it, because we all make mistakes, but it is only when we refuse to recognize or correct them that they become a real mistake.
MajMike | |
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/15/2005 8:16:40 AM |
I understand what 'poisoning the well' is, what I said was that it was impossible for me to do that because that particular well has had a hazard sign on in for a long time.
The Berkeley comment was stereotypical, but I have to say that 98% of your posts/beliefs fall into the ultra-liberal, 'left coast' mentality folks have come to expect from that region. When the individual is the archtype of the stereotype, it's not fallacious.
Well MajMike, despite the fact that your posts are almost always the exact opposite of mine; I don't make arguments so weak that I have to stereotype you to make my point, as you are doing. I let my opinions stand on their own merit. I have respect enough for your intelligence and the intelligence of others not to do that.
YET, I don't think this should be ignored, because it's part of the right wing politic that sprouts from the HUAC and it's predecessor witch-hunts of early American New England. It's dirty, it's foul and if anything, it's in conflict with the American ideal of tolerance for our differences.
If you can't make arguments without stereotyping, they are weak indeed....
Besides that, your stereotyping of the "left coast" is entirely wrong anyway. Stanford University, just 20 miles from here and the San Francisco peninsula down to San Jose is OVERWHELMINGLY conservative.
Know how conservative?
Herbert Hoover was a Stanford man.
Nixon and Reagan were both Californians, so Phfffffffffffft to your "left coast" argument.
 | |
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/15/2005 8:25:46 AM | And Nixon and Reagan were both the exceptions that prove the rule, plus they are old history, we are talking about the milieu there today.
Your statement that my arguments are weak is ridiculous, they are only weak when one comes from a venue so saturated with anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-everything the so-called 'red states' hold dear that you cannot concieve of anyone who doesn't agree with you. And "California conservative" isn't conservative, it's just not rabidly liberal.
MajMike | |
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/15/2005 8:34:01 AM | Maj Sir: I'm not going to comment on where your politics come from. Your above statement is revealing enough.
Nonetheless, this argument about "exceptions to the rule" is an (other?) episode of your ignoring inconvenient realities that shoot holes in what you're trying to say....
Your point is not made. | |
|
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/15/2005 9:34:12 AM |
yahh may b but if u kan understnd it then whuts the problem
b sides it makes ya think
do u do everything the way ur supposed 2 like sum orthadox kunformist
phonics, and de-training or reverse conditioning at it's finest; I'm sure.
P.S. Why is "phonics" not spelled with an "f"? | |
|
| |
| I agree somewhat with you
Posted: 4/15/2005 10:48:53 AM | ^ I will....ahh..go build a battle canoe or drink some beer or something.
<--understands.
P.S. Great debate everyone. (Thank you for allowing me to watch and contribute)
Be well.
 | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
