1. #81
    [

    1. The Romans didnt pretend all men were equal

    2. I am sure people of Iraq love what America is doing.

    3. I am sure the British thought that what they were doing was in the 'best interests of the Pioneers too, just like Iraq/Afganistan

    4. I think the settlers in the early USA also removed a government it didnt approve of.

    5. America/UK have secured a large oil supply and a base in the Middle East by setting up its own government.

    6. The fighters in Iraq believe wholeheartedly they are fighting an invading power, just like the early settlers in USA vs Britian. USA is hated in the Middle East by the majority and they dont want them there.

    7. Iraq is a colony of the USA in all but name. Look at how many US businesses are taking over the country.

    8. I wish I had never posted in this damn thread now, as I dont really care, its hundreds of years ago.[/QUOTE]

    Hmmm....

    Wonder where you are getting all your "facts?"

    Have you been to the country/region? Have you talked to people there? Have you eaten with them in their homes and heard what they had to say about their situation? Have you witnessed, first hand, their reactions to the so call "freedom fighter" you refer to after an attack on the civilian poplulation...market places, mosques, etc.?

    If you haven't, I recommend you do before just repeating the censored, vetted, excuse for "news" we are fed daily in the media. My experience is they get it wrong more than right. If you can't travel there, I recommend at least getting info from multiple sources before forming an opinion. I read liberal & conservative papers, including (shocking ) non-US sources, have been to both counties as well as a few others in the region several times, and still don't believe I have a good grasp on what's really happening in a certain country or region to say what these folks or those folks really think about the situation.

    Sorry, but terrorists cannot be given the same honor and respect we give freedom fighters or even insurgents.

    I don't agree with our own definitions for terrorists...and we have many. The UN has one definition, different from our State Dept, which has a definition different from our own Dept of Defense, etc. etc. The problem nowadays is that the term terrorist has been watered down to apply to just about anybody we shoot at.

    IMHO, the difference between a terrorist and any other adversary is the target. A terrorist attacks innocent civilians to create an atmosphere of "terror" and causing the civilian populace to lose faith in the govt's ability to protect them (i.e. provide for the common defense).

    I viewed our adversaries in Afghanistan very different from our enemies in Iraq. The Taliban (and some opportunistic Warloards) fought us as the "invaders" and continue to fight an insurgent battle along the eastern border with Pakistan. They rarely attack civilian targets, unless they are civilian contractor convoys headed to resupply our FOBs. I do not consider these folks terrorists. Enemy combatants, yes...terrorists, no.

    OTOH, in Iraq, the enemy targets innocent civilians with the specific goal to kill as many innocents as possible and hope the media splashes the horrific act all over the papers and internet. Thus, earning the title of terrorist.

    These are just my personal definitions and for me, it keeps the lines pretty clear. Don't misunderstand, both receive the same treatment in my sight picture, but one gets the double tap.
    Share this post

  2. #82
    ploughman's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,487
    My sister and her man, a Southern Baptist who used to play 'ball' for Memphis came over last year and I showed them God's capital; York. He stood in front of York Minster, the largest gothic cathedral in Northern Europe an he said;

    "That's a real nice church."

    Bastard.
    Share this post

  3. #83
    Originally posted by Ploughman:....God's capital; York.....
    Is thee a Yorkshireman then Ploughman?
    Share this post

  4. #84
    ploughman's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,487
    Oi have that privilege.

    Although, due to me father been active on the Queen's coin oi was born in Wiltshire.
    Share this post

  5. #85
    Thank God for that. I thought I were the only Yorkie round these parts.
    Share this post

  6. #86
    Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
    hi all,

    A friend of mine who has studied in depth the War of Independence (he is a table-top war-gamer with a massive collection of model soldiers) told me that 90% of British soldiers were American. Can this be right?

    Maybe there was confusion as to who was British and who was American?

    Best Regards,
    MB_Avro.
    There were certainly loyalist American units (including kilted highlanders), but 90% of British forces seems a bit high. Perhaps during certain engagements. Both sides used Native Americans and the British used Hessian mercenaries (as opposed to Hanoverians who would be fighting for the same king as the British). As mentioned, the French sent troops to aid the Colonists, and, of course, to stick one up the British.
    Share this post

  7. #87
    Originally posted by Jester_159th:
    Thank God for that. I thought I were the only Yorkie round these parts.
    Anyone here from Watford?
    Share this post

  8. #88
    ARCHIE_CALVERT's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,448
    Old Mother Shipton said the last thing she saw was Yellow Men followed by fire...
    Share this post

  9. #89
    horseback's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    5,052
    Originally posted by Ploughman:
    Well getting back to the original propostion, I'd just like to thank that small band of committed citizens for kicking out King George all those years ago and creating a nation state comitted to acheiving a more perfect state basded on rational liberal enlightenment ideas that has always been a beacon to the rest of the world and has, in its maturity, seen fit to emerge, from time to time, from it's philosophical and geographical isolation to try and sort things out.

    Which I think means any other time-line that didn't include the USA would probably be one even more fraught than the one in which we live.

    And that concludes my butt nuzzling for this year.
    Butt nuzzling acknowleged, with thanks.

    Please remember to shave next time.

    cheers

    horseback
    Share this post

  10. #90
    Well, if the American Revolution had been postponed even for a few decades, Napolean wouldn't have sold most of the western french holdings to the US. Instead, the French and British would have carried their European conflict to North America. But had the Revolution been postponed, say, only 20 years, then England would have been caught up in the battle just when Napolean was tramping all over Europe. That would bring the French to the US side for certain. England would have been stretched too thinly to fight Napolean and hold the US. Europe would have had to come first and the US would have gotten free much easier.

    I think it would have meant Napolean would have survived and stayed in power.
    Share this post