A
Anonymous
Guest
Redcoat said:Is that RG_Lunatic speak for OK then, it wasn't in the treatylRG_Lunatic said:
In the language of the times it was in the treaty. "Uninversal peace" means no support to foes.
War of 1812
- Thread starter plan_D
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In the language of the times it was in the treaty. "Uninversal peace" means no support to foes.
RG_Lunatic said:
Who said anything about combat skills. I sure did not. I was just refering to a good old fashioned *** whooping that you probably know all about! Heres another yellow card by the way, keep pushing my buttons.
- Thread starter
- #63
It is obvious that there were Americans that wanted parts of Canada. Obvious to everyone but you. What terrority did the U.S capture in the War of 1812, RG? The British forces counter-invaded the U.S and pushed all the way down to New Orleans and before the battle for New Orleans had started, the war was over.
In your mind it implies, to everyone else it's universal peace. No aggression on either side. No where does it state out and out that the British government shall cease supporting Native American [or Indian] tribes.
It's difficult to cross a river, even if you own one side. Do you want to inform people in World War 2 it was easy to cross a river when you own one side?
Your bitterness towards Europe is obvious. The bitterness towards America from Europeans stems from people like you, RG. People who believe that they and the U.S is better than them.
I do not believe that children beat you up because you were American. I've never encountered that here, even though we had Canadians and Americans in my school. They all got on well with everyone.
I imagine you did do something or say something to tick them off. I will admit, that can be little in Britain. Little for everyone because the slightest thing can get you in a fight.
In your mind it implies, to everyone else it's universal peace. No aggression on either side. No where does it state out and out that the British government shall cease supporting Native American [or Indian] tribes.
It's difficult to cross a river, even if you own one side. Do you want to inform people in World War 2 it was easy to cross a river when you own one side?
Your bitterness towards Europe is obvious. The bitterness towards America from Europeans stems from people like you, RG. People who believe that they and the U.S is better than them.
I do not believe that children beat you up because you were American. I've never encountered that here, even though we had Canadians and Americans in my school. They all got on well with everyone.
I imagine you did do something or say something to tick them off. I will admit, that can be little in Britain. Little for everyone because the slightest thing can get you in a fight.
I remember when I had a girlfriend from England and we would go to her home for the weekend, there were these Irish Gypsies that would beat everyone up just for the hell of it. I got in some rounds with them just because I was sitting on a wall that they thought was theres. Once you stood up to them though, they did not mess with you anymore.
- Thread starter
- #65
Yeah you have that everywhere. And then you have the ones that never learn and want to get beat up!
A
Anonymous
Guest
plan_D said:
When the treaty was signed the USA held significant parts of Upper Canada out in the Lake Erie region, and the entire Lake. This was the only land that had changed hands at that point.
plan_D said:
"Universal peace" is a term that clearly means you will not engage in or support agression against the other country. It is quite specific, and was used in quite a few treaties in the 18th and 19th century.
plan_D said:
That is totally different, that is when the war is engaged, and numbers involved are sufficient to fully defend the opposing bank.
The relevant facts are that in 1830 had the USA attacked Canada, there would have been no opposition to a river crossing and the British lacked any ability whatsoever to protect significant stretches of the north bank.
plan_D said:
You misunderstand entirely. I'm just disappointed in how little support most of Europe has given the USA since 911. When Europe was in need, the USA responded in a big way - when the USA was in need, well aside from the Brits...
I just expected more from our European "Allies" - especially the French who really do owe their freedom to the USA.
plan_D said:
Plan, now is a very different time than the early 60's. Resentment against Americans was very prevelant in Britain at that time, for a variety of reasons - but mostly because the British resented that in the post war world the USA, not Britain, was the "super-power".
I was about 4 and a half years old. I went to school my first day, and as soon as the day was done and I was walking through the hallway to where my Mom was to pick me up, when I went around the side of the building I was jumped by a bunch of kids, thrown down on the ground, and kicked and called a "dirty american". A month later when I returned to school, it was only a few days before it happened again. I didn't have a chance to piss anyone off, I didn't say hardly a word that first day other than to give my name and where I was from.
And as a side note: I was a late "talker". When I was 4 and a half years old, I almost never spoke.
I am not touching it.
- Thread starter
- #69
If Britain didn't achieve any land grab in the U.S, what were they doing in New Orleans!?! Did they teleport there?
You don't need equal numbers to hold a river, the defending side can have a vast disadvantage in numbers. Consider a river a vast moat, easily defended!
Also, English troops in Canada would not wait for a confirmation from England to act. They would act on their own initiative and send the word to England.
The U.S doesn't required money or direct military assistance. What the U.S provided in World War 1 and World War 2 was against an obvious enemy. The U.S [and free world] today is under-threat from an invisible enemy, political support to wage war in those countries that are known supporters is all the U.S needs. Military assistance isn't needed!
If European nations don't want to go to war in a country they don't believe is a threat, it's their choice. The U.S saw Germany as a threat in World War 2.
You don't need equal numbers to hold a river, the defending side can have a vast disadvantage in numbers. Consider a river a vast moat, easily defended!
Also, English troops in Canada would not wait for a confirmation from England to act. They would act on their own initiative and send the word to England.
The U.S doesn't required money or direct military assistance. What the U.S provided in World War 1 and World War 2 was against an obvious enemy. The U.S [and free world] today is under-threat from an invisible enemy, political support to wage war in those countries that are known supporters is all the U.S needs. Military assistance isn't needed!
If European nations don't want to go to war in a country they don't believe is a threat, it's their choice. The U.S saw Germany as a threat in World War 2.
I guess my post showing the number of European soldiers that have died in Afghanistan does not mean anything. Tell that to the families of the soldires that died.
A
Anonymous
Guest
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Little hint for you here Adler, upon my return to the USA, from 1st grade on I never started a fight, but I never lost one that I could not reasonably avoid.
You learn how to fight pretty well when you are moving into a new school every 6-9 months. You don't have a choice, especially when you enter a new school in the middle of the year, which I did 7 times by the 5th grade.
The trick is, when they corner you, pretend to be afraid. This way, one of the less tough kids is likely to think its his chance to earn some status. When the moment comes he will usually start by shoving at you rather than punching. At that moment, as quick as possible, let him have it as hard as you can in the solar plexis with a left jab, grab his hair with your right hand and take him down over your left leg onto his back making sure his head does not hit the concrete or asphalt. Once you have him down, jerk is head to the side, put your palm on the side of his forhead, and slide the side of the back of his had hard across the ground. Then put your hand in the resulting pool of blood and wipe them together as you get up and start to stalk the next in line.
Walla! No one will mess with you at that school again!
The difference between my US experiance and my British experiance was that I was only 4 and a half years old in Britain and it was my first school experiance, and I was attacked by 5 or more kids at once. In the USA, its almost always 1 vs. 1 in such fights between kids (probably normally in Britain too unless its an American kid they're beating up).
Well I dont need any hints on how to defend myself.
- Thread starter
- #73
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
That's why you make friends, so you've got 2 or 3 people with you in case you do get jumped
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
plan_D said:
Same in my native New York City - you tend develope an equalizer to deal with the problem. In my neighborhood I was known as "JOEY BATS."
Or in the case of some people, you can not even get anyone to have your back.
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
I prefer not to fight I just run like hell- it works
- Thread starter
- #78
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
plan_D said:Well some of you have seen my choice of weapons in that other thread.
Yep - Also known as "EDUCATION TOOLS"
Nonskimmer
Captain
Even lovely old Halifax has swarmers.
The best defence? Bigger swarmers. A size 12 steel toe helps too.
The best defence? Bigger swarmers. A size 12 steel toe helps too.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
