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

"J A" <ae@re.com> wrote in message 
news:wOudnYguHKxhxpbVnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> "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.

That,  I'm afraid,  is colonial warfare.

It was all a long time ago.  Try not to get emotionally involved.

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

My understanding is that the limit of encouragement was the giving of arms 
to people who wished to defend their homes.

>>> 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.

An internal matter.

That was a problem for the US government and not the British Empire

>> 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.

And still is.

It is usually called 'divide and rule'.  The British Empire was very good at 
it.

So what?

>
> Britain even had hopes of regaining America.

Now for that I'd want to see some sort of evidence.

And I do mean in 1812.

I think you'll find HMG had other things on their collective minds.

You know,  the invasion of France,  stuff like that...

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.