|
Post by everso on Jan 25, 2009 23:25:11 GMT
Your last sentence is a bit confusing. I can assure you that Britain was NOT involved in the Civil War. You were allied with France, Spain and Holland during the War of Independence. As for the 1812-1815 war, you LOST that one. Ask a Canadian if you don't believe me. You one a single battle but lost all the others and lost the war. In any case Britain was much busier fighting Napoleon at the time because if we'd sent Wellington over you'd have surrendered in 5 minutes! oh, but britain WAS involved in the war of northern aggression. that is what led to the battle of the merrimack and monitor. the iron ships were built to blockade the coast to stop the cotton trade with england. your idea that just because the british burned washington, they won, is ludicrous. you got your butt kicked in that one just as you had 36 years previously. britain's penchant for fighting all over europe wasn't conducive to winning anywhere else I'd agree with you there - I'VE read Gone With The Wind, you know!
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 26, 2009 13:18:05 GMT
Your last sentence is a bit confusing. I can assure you that Britain was NOT involved in the Civil War. You were allied with France, Spain and Holland during the War of Independence. As for the 1812-1815 war, you LOST that one. Ask a Canadian if you don't believe me. You one a single battle but lost all the others and lost the war. In any case Britain was much busier fighting Napoleon at the time because if we'd sent Wellington over you'd have surrendered in 5 minutes! oh, but britain WAS involved in the war of northern aggression. that is what led to the battle of the merrimack and monitor. the iron ships were built to blockade the coast to stop the cotton trade with england. your idea that just because the british burned washington, they won, is ludicrous. you got your butt kicked in that one just as you had 36 years previously. britain's penchant for fighting all over europe wasn't conducive to winning anywhere else Jim, your ignorance of history is quite entertaining. The FACT is that you won ONE battle - New Orleans - and lost all the rest. You tried and failed to conquer Canada and got YOUR butts kicked by troops who were consistently outnumbered, outgeneralled and outweaponed. That's simple reality! As for the Civil War, British merchants traded with both sides but the British government : a) refused to recognise the Confederacy; b) Prince Albert went out of his way to make it clear that not only would Britain NOT intervene but that his own sympathies were ENTIRELY on the Union side; c) British public opinion was overwhelmingly Unionist too. I could say lots more but I suggest you try reading the FACTS instead of the propaganda tracts you've been swallowing!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 26, 2009 14:24:53 GMT
oh, but britain WAS involved in the war of northern aggression. that is what led to the battle of the merrimack and monitor. the iron ships were built to blockade the coast to stop the cotton trade with england. your idea that just because the british burned washington, they won, is ludicrous. you got your butt kicked in that one just as you had 36 years previously. britain's penchant for fighting all over europe wasn't conducive to winning anywhere else Jim, your ignorance of history is quite entertaining. The FACT is that you won ONE battle - New Orleans - and lost all the rest. You tried and failed to conquer Canada and got YOUR butts kicked by troops who were consistently outnumbered, outgeneralled and outweaponed. That's simple reality! As for the Civil War, British merchants traded with both sides but the British government : a) refused to recognise the Confederacy; b) Prince Albert went out of his way to make it clear that not only would Britain NOT intervene but that his own sympathies were ENTIRELY on the Union side; c) British public opinion was overwhelmingly Unionist too. I could say lots more but I suggest you try reading the FACTS instead of the propaganda tracts you've been swallowing! you have gotten quite mixed up. the only time that we were doing any fighting in canada was the french and indian war. that one doesn't even really count. it seems that you have been swallowing the revisionist bs hon. as i said, the primary reason for the ironclads was to stop the british trade. you are correct about prince albert though
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 26, 2009 16:12:28 GMT
Jim, your ignorance of history is quite entertaining. The FACT is that you won ONE battle - New Orleans - and lost all the rest. You tried and failed to conquer Canada and got YOUR butts kicked by troops who were consistently outnumbered, outgeneralled and outweaponed. That's simple reality! As for the Civil War, British merchants traded with both sides but the British government : a) refused to recognise the Confederacy; b) Prince Albert went out of his way to make it clear that not only would Britain NOT intervene but that his own sympathies were ENTIRELY on the Union side; c) British public opinion was overwhelmingly Unionist too. I could say lots more but I suggest you try reading the FACTS instead of the propaganda tracts you've been swallowing! you have gotten quite mixed up. the only time that we were doing any fighting in canada was the french and indian war. that one doesn't even really count. it seems that you have been swallowing the revisionist bs hon. as i said, the primary reason for the ironclads was to stop the british trade. you are correct about prince albert though I'll dig you out some facts, Jim. The plain fact is that you WERE invading Canada (and burnt down the Parliament building in Toronto or York as it was called in those days.) I'll sort them out tonight and post them tomorrow. Actually it's the US - and particularly Hollywood - that goes in for revisionist history. Us Brits are quite big enough to admit our rare defeats.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 26, 2009 16:49:03 GMT
you have gotten quite mixed up. the only time that we were doing any fighting in canada was the french and indian war. that one doesn't even really count. it seems that you have been swallowing the revisionist bs hon. as i said, the primary reason for the ironclads was to stop the british trade. you are correct about prince albert though I'll dig you out some facts, Jim. The plain fact is that you WERE invading Canada (and burnt down the Parliament building in Toronto or York as it was called in those days.) I'll sort them out tonight and post them tomorrow. Actually it's the US - and particularly Hollywood - that goes in for revisionist history. Us Brits are quite big enough to admit our rare defeats. i have nothing against brits except their governments refusal to morally punish criminals. however, i would say that defeats were a little more than rare when it has gone from the sun never setting on the british empire to being lucky is the sun shines on it ten hours a day
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 26, 2009 18:29:44 GMT
I'll dig you out some facts, Jim. The plain fact is that you WERE invading Canada (and burnt down the Parliament building in Toronto or York as it was called in those days.) I'll sort them out tonight and post them tomorrow. Actually it's the US - and particularly Hollywood - that goes in for revisionist history. Us Brits are quite big enough to admit our rare defeats. i have nothing against brits except their governments refusal to morally punish criminals. however, i would say that defeats were a little more than rare when it has gone from the sun never setting on the british empire to being lucky is the sun shines on it ten hours a day So, by your reckoning, 13 of the American states are immoral in their approach to criminal justice also?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 26, 2009 22:55:58 GMT
i have nothing against brits except their governments refusal to morally punish criminals. however, i would say that defeats were a little more than rare when it has gone from the sun never setting on the british empire to being lucky is the sun shines on it ten hours a day So, by your reckoning, 13 of the American states are immoral in their approach to criminal justice also? that's obvious.
|
|