Re: Barak Flip-Flops On The American Flag Pin On Lapel

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:fufkss$2s0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "J A" <ae@re.com> wrote in message 
> news:JtudnZU5rpQZyZbVnZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>
>> "William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message 
>> news:fuf9g0$m1o$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> "J A" <ae@re.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:hsudnSyzQIaBFJfVnZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>>
>>>> "William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message 
>>>> news:fue0rt$deq$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>>
>>>>> "J A" <ae@re.com> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:w_CdnWDZ75s06pfVnZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> As for terrorists, the next go around (War of 1812) was largely about 
>>>>>> the Crown instigating Indian tribes to murder American settlers' 
>>>>>> families.
>>>>>
>>>>> And here was me thinking it was all a nasty US plot to steal Canada 
>>>>> while the British were busy saving the world from the tyranny of 
>>>>> Napoleon.
>>>>
>>>> As usual, you got it ass backwards.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You mean Nappy was trying to save the world from Perfidious Albion?
>>
>> You're admitting Britain encouraged the tribes to commit terrorism 
>> against American settlers on the frontier.
>
> It wasn't called 'terrorism' then.  You're using modern terms and modern 
> morality on an event far away in history.

They were killing women and children. Torturing people to death, etc.

Whatever it was called back then, you're agreeing that Britain was 
encouraging Indians to wage war on American frontier settlers.

>> If there had been any serous plans to do that, they would have had the US 
>> military in a state of readiness instead of neglect, going into the War 
>> of 1812.
>
> Well no.
>
> The 'war party' was also against the expansion of the US military.
>
> It's an odd thing but the infant US Navy discovered that if people were 
> 'for' the war they'd also be for the contraction of the US Navy...

The US military was depleted and disorganized becasue Jefferson (President: 
1801–1809) didn't believe in a standing military, or in wars, or even a 
strong central government.

If there had been a strong intent in America to seize Canada, then it would 
have had to express itself in getting the US military ready for a war on 
land and sea.

In fact, we had almost no navy, and land forces were meager and there wasn't 
even a command structure that would determine whether state or Federal 
commanders were in charge, in any particular campaign.


> What,  of course,  you are quite wilfully forgetting is that Britain was 
> fully engaged in fighting what today would be considered a world war, and 
> what the US was doing was a cynical land grab while the 'cat' was 
> otherwise occupied.
>
> Do you honestly think the British government would start a war with the 
> USA when fully engaged on the European continent?
>
> Do you honestly think that a British Empire,  and the largest and most 
> powerful navy in the world, with nothing else on its mind would be 
> troubled by a small power on the fringes of civilisation?

Britain had been involved in balance of power conflicts for a long time, 
even all the way through the American Revolution.

Britain even had hopes of regaining America.

Stick to flaming barbeques...