Text 43249, 100 rader
Skriven 2006-11-26 11:38:12 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 43136 av LEE LOFASO (1:123/140)
Ärende: JFK on Hitler
=====================
23 Nov 06 14:52, LEE LOFASO wrote to ROY WITT:

 LL> Hello Roy,

 >>RC> Just like the war of 1812, no winner or loser,the difference
 >>RC> between it and Korea, is both sides mutually agreed to end the war
 >>RC> completely, no one surrendered.

 >>LL> Tell that to Andy Jackson, who accepted the British surrender in
 >>LL> the Battle of New Orleans.

 >>RW> That was a battle, not the entire war.

 >>LL> It was the entire war, given the result.

 RW>> No, that was a fuck up. The battle at Baltimore was the decisive
 RW>> one.

 LL> Had the Battle of New Orleans been won by the Brits, the Battle of
 LL> Baltimore would have been meaningless.

Circular arguement...not worth persuing, as you're not any authority on
the subject.


 >>LL> In fact, the Battle of New Orleans had been a holiday until fairly
 >>LL> recently.  Had it not been for Jackson's victory, the British would
 >>LL> have failed to recognize the United States' independence,

 >>RW> Wrong.

 >>LL> Had the British won the Battle of New Orleans, the treaty would
 >>LL> have been ignored.

 RW>> Nope. They had already had their ass' handed to them at Balitimore.

 LL> You really should take a course in History 101.  Especially the
 LL> section dealing with the Battle of New Orleans.

 >>LL> and continued the war until the United States had surrendered.

 >>RW> The war was over two weeks before the Battle of NO...The treaty at
 >>RW> Ghent, NL although not ratified until later, was signed in
 >>RW> December, 1814. BoNO was fought in January, 1815, as the news of
 >>RW> the treaty hadn't reached either side at NO.

 >>LL> Doesn't matter.  The Brits would have ignored the treaty and
 >>LL> maintained their presence indefinitely.

 RW>> They weren't equipped to stay indefinately. Those who could get war
 RW>> materials and troops there had the upper hand. I think America was
 RW>> closer than Britain...not to mention that British ships would have
 RW>> had to fight off every ship on the seas to get war supplies there.

 LL> The Brits would have controlled the seas, as well as all the ports.
 LL> The United States would not have had a navy, given that there would
 LL> be no United States.  Well, maybe a United States as part of the
 LL> British Commonwealth, but not an independent United States of
 LL> America.

 >>LL> IOW, all of the lands from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes
 >>LL> and westward to the Pacific would have been made part of the
 >>LL> British Empire.

 RW>> Bullshit. You're discounting the already entrenched Spanish.

 LL> The Spanish sold their possessions to the French.  The French sold
 LL> their possessions to the Americans.  The Brits wanted to take the
 LL> entire area by force.

 >>LL> That is assuming the Brits would have allowed the East Coast to
 >>LL> remain independent.

 RW>> Seems to me that they had no choice after getting their ass' kicked
 RW>> by 'irregulars'

 LL> Andy Jackson was no "irregular", and was a master at the game of war.
 LL> Jean Lafitte was a mercenary who also was a master at the game of
 LL> war. Their combined forces made the Battle of New Orleans a turkey
 LL> shoot, the Brits having nary a chance.

 RW>> ... pretty shameful for an army that defeated Nepoleon.

 LL> The Napoleon at Waterloo was an imposter, the real Napoleon having
 LL> been accidentally shot by his wife (she mistook him for a burglar).

 LL> --Lee


 LL>  * SLMR 2.1a * Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot.
 LL> --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 LL>  * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)

               R\%/itt




--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)