QuotePhilip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, is due to outline cuts of up to 20,000 regular troops.
The government argues the changes, drawn up by Lieutenant General Nick Carter, will provide the basis of a smaller but more flexible Army in the future.
The cuts in Army 2020 will be the biggest reforms to the Service since 1904 reducing it to 82,000 men, its smallest size since the Napoleonic Wars.
Five infantry and two cavalry regiments will be lost in the cuts.
Retired infantry officer Charles Heyman said there will be thousands of disappointed soldiers as their regiments "are being assigned to oblivion".
He said nobody wanted to see this reorganisation but there was a "horrible reality" behind the cuts and the army has to "cut its cloth" to what the country could really afford.
List of Regiments to be cut
3rd Bn The Yorkshire Regiment (Duke of Wellington's)
The "Dukes" originally formed in 1808 and were the first to be named after a commoner, Arthur Wellesley, who became the first Duke of Wellington. The regiment has served with distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan and suffered five killed when a Warrior tank was blown up in Helmand in March.
2nd Bn Royal Regiment of Fusiliers
The Fusiliers produced the most battalions for frontline service during the First World War.
Six soldiers famously won VCs "before breakfast" at Gallipoli. It took part in both the 1991 and 2003 Iraq wars. Soldiers wear a red and white hackle in their beret.
Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, the 5th Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. (reduced to ceremonial duites)
Formed as 91st Regiment of Foot in 1759. Most notable for their reoccupation of the rebel held "Crater" area in Aden in 1967 under their CO, Lt Col Colin "Mad Mitch" Mitchell.
2nd Bn The Royal Welsh
Trace their roots to South Wales Borderers who won enduring fame and VCs at Rorke's Drift in 1879. First troops into Belfast in 1969. Have a goat as mascot. The Queen is Colonel in Chief.
3rd Bn The Mercian Regiment
Formerly known as the Staffordshire Regiment tracing their history back to 1705. Led the British force in the 1991 Gulf War covering 180 miles in 100 hours in their Warrior armoured vehicles. Prince of Wales is Colonel in Chief.
Queen Royal Lancers
Etched forever in history as the 'Death or Glory Boys' from the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimea War. Cap badge still carries skull and cross bones. Fought in nearly every campaign since Blenheim.
9th/12th Lancers
Prevailed in the last ever lance-on-lance charge in the First World War at Moncel in 1914
Nicknamed 'The Delhi Spearmen' after the Indian Mutiny. Currently deployed in Helmand. Served in the Second Afghan War of 1878.
2nd Royal Tank Regiment
Formed in 1916 when Britain secretly introduced the tank onto the Somme battlefield and has been at the forefront of heavy tank action ever since. Its colours of brown, red green signify unofficial motto of "through mud, blood and the green fields beyond".
Thoroughly disgusting. And I'm not even about to discuss the current state of the Royal Navy, as that affront to history speaks for itself.
THE TIME TO STRIKE IS NOW BUENOS AIRES
This is what it's like watching a former great power sink into history.
:yeah:
Wish we would follow suit.
So does Russia and China.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2012, 01:27:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 01:21:26 PM
THE TIME TO STRIKE IS NOW BUENOS AIRES
:D
The US would have to intervene. You owe them for Iraq.
We could send Hillary to make a strongly worded statement.
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2012, 01:40:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2012, 01:27:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 01:21:26 PM
THE TIME TO STRIKE IS NOW BUENOS AIRES
:D
The US would have to intervene. You owe them for Iraq.
We could send Hillary to make a strongly worded statement.
I'm honored you think so highly of me, but I'm not sure what I could do :unsure:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2012, 01:39:59 PM
So does Russia and China.
If what Russia's recent history is any indication we could cut our army down to five guys with slingshots and still be more than a match for them.
Quote from: HVC on July 13, 2012, 01:41:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2012, 01:40:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 01:38:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2012, 01:27:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 01:21:26 PM
THE TIME TO STRIKE IS NOW BUENOS AIRES
:D
The US would have to intervene. You owe them for Iraq.
We could send Hillary to make a strongly worded statement.
I'm honored you think so highly of me, but I'm not sure what I could do :unsure:
Sorry, girl, but there is only one Hillary in my life.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 01:38:23 PM
The US would have to intervene. You owe them for Iraq.
We don't fight colonial wars.
They'd call upon the Commonwealth anyway; hell, I think the Canuckistani Navy is larger than the RN now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 01:38:23 PM
The US would have to intervene. You owe them for Iraq.
We don't fight colonial wars.
You've done it before, although that was to colonize in your own right.
Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2012, 01:41:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2012, 01:39:59 PM
So does Russia and China.
If what Russia's recent history is any indication we could cut our army down to five guys with slingshots and still be more than a match for them.
They proved a bit more capable in the second Chechen war, the Dagistan thing, and the invasion of Georgia.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 01:38:23 PM
The US would have to intervene. You owe them for Iraq.
We don't fight colonial wars.
You've done it before, although that was to colonize in your own right.
Link, plz.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 02:04:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 01:38:23 PM
The US would have to intervene. You owe them for Iraq.
We don't fight colonial wars.
You've done it before, although that was to colonize in your own right.
Link, plz.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zcache.com%2Fremember_the_maine_poster-r0a7abc3d01174dc7926a17c3b32e1aba_0p5_400.jpg&hash=8cf42c5a5208fca45d26234062c005f426b9f92c)
That was a credible and proportionate response to terrorism.
To hell with Spain :angry:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 01:38:23 PM
The US would have to intervene. You owe them for Iraq.
We don't fight colonial wars.
They'd call upon the Commonwealth anyway; hell, I think the Canuckistani Navy is larger than the RN now.
:lol:
No, it isn't.
And that's the Royal Canuckistani Navy to you, bub. :contract:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2012, 02:03:22 PM
They proved a bit more capable in the second Chechen war, the Dagistan thing, and the invasion of Georgia.
Actually they proved completely incompetent and devoid of discipline. A mob really.
Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2012, 04:23:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2012, 02:03:22 PM
They proved a bit more capable in the second Chechen war, the Dagistan thing, and the invasion of Georgia.
Actually they proved completely incompetent and devoid of discipline. A mob really.
But they won, and victory counts for everything. No style points are awarded for defeat. The unruly Russian mob conquered northern and western Georgia, while the modern, disciplined Americans got chased out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
:huh:
You guys act as if this is something new, the last lots of labour and conservative governments have been ineptly gutting the armed forces for 30 odd years.
IMHO the post war British armed forces reached their high watermark of capabilities vs commitments in the late 70s. The retreat from empire was all but complete and we were prepared to do out bit if the cold war went hot.
Also iirc at the time the best part of 30,000 troops were in Northern Ireland.
The British Army of the Rhine. :wub:
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 13, 2012, 05:38:40 PM
The British Army of the Rhine. :wub:
B.A.O.R. :bowler:
Yeah I've know quite a few people who'd have had rather short lives if the Soviet had come over those plains.
And the plans for the Territorials to go over and occupy interlinking fortified anti-tank villages were rather nifty. :bowler:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 01:21:26 PM
QuotePhilip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, is due to outline cuts of up to 20,000 regular troops.
The government argues the changes, drawn up by Lieutenant General Nick Carter, will provide the basis of a smaller but more flexible Army in the future.
The cuts in Army 2020 will be the biggest reforms to the Service since 1904 reducing it to 82,000 men, its smallest size since the Napoleonic Wars.
Five infantry and two cavalry regiments will be lost in the cuts.
Retired infantry officer Charles Heyman said there will be thousands of disappointed soldiers as their regiments "are being assigned to oblivion".
He said nobody wanted to see this reorganisation but there was a "horrible reality" behind the cuts and the army has to "cut its cloth" to what the country could really afford.
List of Regiments to be cut
3rd Bn The Yorkshire Regiment (Duke of Wellington's)
The "Dukes" originally formed in 1808 and were the first to be named after a commoner, Arthur Wellesley, who became the first Duke of Wellington. The regiment has served with distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan and suffered five killed when a Warrior tank was blown up in Helmand in March.
2nd Bn Royal Regiment of Fusiliers
The Fusiliers produced the most battalions for frontline service during the First World War.
Six soldiers famously won VCs "before breakfast" at Gallipoli. It took part in both the 1991 and 2003 Iraq wars. Soldiers wear a red and white hackle in their beret.
Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, the 5th Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. (reduced to ceremonial duites)
Formed as 91st Regiment of Foot in 1759. Most notable for their reoccupation of the rebel held "Crater" area in Aden in 1967 under their CO, Lt Col Colin "Mad Mitch" Mitchell.
2nd Bn The Royal Welsh
Trace their roots to South Wales Borderers who won enduring fame and VCs at Rorke's Drift in 1879. First troops into Belfast in 1969. Have a goat as mascot. The Queen is Colonel in Chief.
3rd Bn The Mercian Regiment
Formerly known as the Staffordshire Regiment tracing their history back to 1705. Led the British force in the 1991 Gulf War covering 180 miles in 100 hours in their Warrior armoured vehicles. Prince of Wales is Colonel in Chief.
Queen Royal Lancers
Etched forever in history as the 'Death or Glory Boys' from the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimea War. Cap badge still carries skull and cross bones. Fought in nearly every campaign since Blenheim.
9th/12th Lancers
Prevailed in the last ever lance-on-lance charge in the First World War at Moncel in 1914
Nicknamed 'The Delhi Spearmen' after the Indian Mutiny. Currently deployed in Helmand. Served in the Second Afghan War of 1878.
2nd Royal Tank Regiment
Formed in 1916 when Britain secretly introduced the tank onto the Somme battlefield and has been at the forefront of heavy tank action ever since. Its colours of brown, red green signify unofficial motto of "through mud, blood and the green fields beyond".
Thoroughly disgusting. And I'm not even about to discuss the current state of the Royal Navy, as that affront to history speaks for itself.
THE TIME TO STRIKE IS NOW BUENOS AIRES
Aside from the Queen Royal Lancers, I detect a distinct contra-competency bias. Maybe they're finally buying into a united Europe?
QuoteArgyll and Sutherland Highlanders, the 5th Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. (reduced to ceremonial duites)
Formed as 91st Regiment of Foot in 1759. Most notable for their reoccupation of the rebel held "Crater" area in Aden in 1967 under their CO, Lt Col Colin "Mad Mitch" Mitchell.
:(
Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2012, 04:23:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2012, 02:03:22 PM
They proved a bit more capable in the second Chechen war, the Dagistan thing, and the invasion of Georgia.
Actually they proved completely incompetent and devoid of discipline. A mob really.
Compare the Russian conduct in the first Chechen war to the second. They really got their act together. The invasion of Georgia was conducted with alarming speed. There are some interesting reforms going on in the Russian army now. They are shifting to a more Western professional force rather then a conscript army.
Pretty sad for the dying tradition but fuck the army. Its an oudated, cold war era, waste of money. From a practical POV the cuts make sense.
I hear these cuts are better than prior ones too. Rather than tiptoing about and slicing little bits from every regiment threatening to make them all useless they've instead done the sensible thing and got rid of some wholesale.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 13, 2012, 05:38:40 PM
The British Army of the Rhine. :wub:
The last British troops will move out of Germany by 2020.
QuoteBFG personnel receive careful briefings in the care
of the local ecology, flora and fauna in all areas
used for training and in the need to abide by
German environmental laws.
:bowler:
Quote from: Zanza on July 14, 2012, 01:09:02 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 13, 2012, 05:38:40 PM
The British Army of the Rhine. :wub:
The last British troops will move out of Germany by 2020.
QuoteBFG personnel receive careful briefings in the care
of the local ecology, flora and fauna in all areas
used for training and in the need to abide by
German environmental laws.
:bowler:
Maneuver damage.... :lmfao:
Quote from: Tyr on July 13, 2012, 11:19:44 PM
Pretty sad for the dying tradition but fuck the army. Its an oudated, cold war era, waste of money. From a practical POV the cuts make sense.
I hear these cuts are better than prior ones too. Rather than tiptoing about and slicing little bits from every regiment threatening to make them all useless they've instead done the sensible thing and got rid of some wholesale.
Okay fine. Then don't bitch about anyone else's foreign policy. You get rid of the military, you abdicate any responsibility and say in international affairs. Don't complain when another country throws around its weight in ways you think are unfair, or there is a war, or an injustice, or a genocide. You've washed your hands of the whole business. You want to secede from the world, fine. Just don't hold little protests, or bitch about war and injustice. Don't bother the rest of the world with your impotent whining.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2012, 11:05:59 PM
Compare the Russian conduct in the first Chechen war to the second. They really got their act together. The invasion of Georgia was conducted with alarming speed. There are some interesting reforms going on in the Russian army now. They are shifting to a more Western professional force rather then a conscript army.
Wrong, Razzie.
Their over-reliance on Airborne and Special Forces to conduct the lion's share of combat action, combined with their extended ramp up in trying to scrape together first-echelon forces to even reach 40,000 troops, tells you how much they suck balls.
And still relying on Soviet-era tactics got the 58th Army punched square in the fucking mouth by the Georgians. Those boys were smoked.
Not to mention their air operations were less than stellar, considering how one-sided it was.
In short, they're a far cry from their days of being able to shoot the Fulda Gap with the 3rd Shock. The best they can do is bully a Georgia.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2012, 03:26:33 AM
Okay fine. Then don't bitch about anyone else's foreign policy. You get rid of the military, you abdicate any responsibility and say in international affairs. Don't complain when another country throws around its weight in ways you think are unfair, or there is a war, or an injustice, or a genocide. You've washed your hands of the whole business. You want to secede from the world, fine. Just don't hold little protests, or bitch about war and injustice. Don't bother the rest of the world with your impotent whining.
I think it's interesting a nation like England, who conducts 95% of its commerce by sea, would decide to go without a Navy for more than a decade. They have more flag officers than active frigates and destroyers combined. Thank God Nelson is dead, so he doesn't have to see that.
They are disbanding my brother's regiment. The bastards. Farewell, the Green Howards. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2012, 04:36:30 AM
In short, they're a far cry from their days of being able to shoot the Fulda Gap with the 3rd Shock. The best they can do is bully a Georgia.
They said the same about Sherman, too. :hmm:
Quote from: Warspite on July 14, 2012, 06:22:10 AM
They are disbanding my brother's regiment. The bastards. Farewell, the Green Howards. :(
Yeah, very sad to see such famous regiments passing into history :(
But the budget is,,,,,,,what?........a mere £50bn for all 3 services? I can't see that going up till we manage to get the economy off the floor, so harsh decisions were inevitable.
I talked to some Royal Marines at the Farnborough Airshow last week. From their point of view, most of the cuts will be by natural attrition but they're upset at historical regiments being lost.
They're OK with the Territorial Army taking a more active role as most members are ex-Service anyhow and would know what they're doing (they were getting on a bit so looking to their own futures). However, whereas many employers were happy to take them on when it only involved two weeks' training a year, knowing they're definitely going to the front line three months a year is going to make getting a job very difficult.
They're also pissed off at being called on to do security at the Olympics as LOCOG and G4S cocked up the numbers. Last time they had to cover civilian duty during the fire service strike, some troops came straight off of a year's deployment, having seen their colleagues blown limb from limb, straight into training without having seen their family.
I have an idea. Keep the old unit names, but apply them to companies. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2012, 03:26:33 AM
Okay fine. Then don't bitch about anyone else's foreign policy. You get rid of the military, you abdicate any responsibility and say in international affairs. Don't complain when another country throws around its weight in ways you think are unfair, or there is a war, or an injustice, or a genocide. You've washed your hands of the whole business. You want to secede from the world, fine. Just don't hold little protests, or bitch about war and injustice. Don't bother the rest of the world with your impotent whining.
err....the entire point of the military changes is to make Britain better at intervening when crap goes down in third world countries. Its only our ability to fight world war 2 all over again which is being removed as ww3 isn't going to happen.
Quote from: Tyr on July 14, 2012, 08:05:20 PM
err....the entire point of the military changes is to make Britain better at intervening when crap goes down in third world countries. Its only our ability to fight world war 2 all over again which is being removed as ww3 isn't going to happen.
I'm sure the Royal Marines will appreciate British Airways' charter service to whatever hellhole they need to be deployed for duty. Since there's really no navy to take them anymore.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2012, 08:07:54 PM
Quote from: Tyr on July 14, 2012, 08:05:20 PM
err....the entire point of the military changes is to make Britain better at intervening when crap goes down in third world countries. Its only our ability to fight world war 2 all over again which is being removed as ww3 isn't going to happen.
I'm sure the Royal Marines will appreciate British Airways' charter service to whatever hellhole they need to be deployed for duty. Since there's really no navy to take them anymore.
Of course there is. :huh:
Especially considering the navy is in the middle of big upgrades at the moment.
Quote from: Tyr on July 14, 2012, 08:23:07 PM
Of course there is. :huh:
Especially considering the navy is in the middle of big upgrades at the moment.
Yeah, but there's a reason why it's called "2020". Unfortunately, this is still 2012.
Don't worry, we'll cover your sea lanes for you for the next 8 years. Just like we do for every other free rider in NATO.
Even as the navy stands now we've all the transport ships we need for overseas deployment. The French have us covered for carriers if need be.
But the main hope is nothing happens in the next few years so we don't have to blow money on it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2012, 08:35:19 PM
Quote from: Tyr on July 14, 2012, 08:23:07 PM
Of course there is. :huh:
Especially considering the navy is in the middle of big upgrades at the moment.
Yeah, but there's a reason why it's called "2020". Unfortunately, this is still 2012.
Don't worry, we'll cover your sea lanes for you for the next 8 years. Just like we do for every other free rider in NATO.
Its not really difficult though..........get a positive ID on the bearded fanatic and then blow him up with a drone.....................not exactly the battle of the Atlantic :hmm:
Quote from: Tyr on July 14, 2012, 08:05:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2012, 03:26:33 AM
Okay fine. Then don't bitch about anyone else's foreign policy. You get rid of the military, you abdicate any responsibility and say in international affairs. Don't complain when another country throws around its weight in ways you think are unfair, or there is a war, or an injustice, or a genocide. You've washed your hands of the whole business. You want to secede from the world, fine. Just don't hold little protests, or bitch about war and injustice. Don't bother the rest of the world with your impotent whining.
err....the entire point of the military changes is to make Britain better at intervening when crap goes down in third world countries. Its only our ability to fight world war 2 all over again which is being removed as ww3 isn't going to happen.
Yes, Britain demonstrated that in Libya. Was barely able to participate.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2012, 12:04:21 AM
Yes, Britain demonstrated that in Libya. Was barely able to participate.
1: That was with the old outdated military that these cuts are working towards fixing.
2: Britain was one of the biggest contributers....
Quote from: Tyr on July 15, 2012, 12:41:55 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2012, 12:04:21 AM
Yes, Britain demonstrated that in Libya. Was barely able to participate.
1: That was with the old outdated military that these cuts are working towards fixing.
2: Britain was one of the biggest contributers....
It had to bum off supplies from the US...
Yeah, but that's the British strategy. It's not the 19th century anymore. Britain isn't a leader and won't ever go it alone.
At least the UK regiments aren't very old. Swedish regiments OTOH...
Did Britain run out of bombs in Libya too? I never saw a report which specified the countries that did.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2012, 02:16:42 PM
Did Britain run out of bombs in Libya too? I never saw a report which specified the countries that did.
Considering the RAF's contribution were only 8 aircraft, then 4 more after the US withdrew their strike aircraft, I'm pretty sure there were enough bombs to go around.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2012, 04:41:28 PM
Considering the RAF's contribution were only 8 aircraft, then 4 more after the US withdrew their strike aircraft, I'm pretty sure there were enough bombs to go around.
That's a comparable contribution to other members of Teh Coalition of Countries Other Than Germany, yet presumably *someone* ran out of bombs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2012, 04:41:28 PM
Considering the RAF's contribution were only 8 aircraft, then 4 more after the US withdrew their strike aircraft, I'm pretty sure there were enough bombs to go around.
12 planes, but 1300 sorties (second to the US with 153 planes and 2000 sorties).
QuoteThat's a comparable contribution to other members of Teh Coalition of Countries Other Than Germany, yet presumably *someone* ran out of bombs.
Denmark, I think. British and French aircraft don't, from what I understand, work with American munitions.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 15, 2012, 05:16:48 PM
Denmark, I think.
Oh well. Can't give Denmark too much shit.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 15, 2012, 05:16:48 PM
Denmark, I think. British and French aircraft don't, from what I understand, work with American munitions.
I find that difficult to believe, given that the whole point of NATO was for the European allies to use American munitions, because they were economically weak and were going to have their ability to produce weapons destroyed by the Soviets anyways.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 15, 2012, 05:16:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2012, 04:41:28 PM
Considering the RAF's contribution were only 8 aircraft, then 4 more after the US withdrew their strike aircraft, I'm pretty sure there were enough bombs to go around.
12 planes, but 1300 sorties (second to the US with 153 planes and 2000 sorties).
Just imagine if they offered twice, or three times, as many strike aircraft. Just imagine if they had a real strike carrier, and a real fleet air arm, instead of the
Ocean. Oh, wait they did. It was called the
Ark Royal.
And the principal reason they out-sortied the French with strikes is that the French were running substantial CAP, as they brought fighters to the party.
I applaud the plucky Brits for kicking in when they can, but you know damned well the SDSR and the 2020 model is right royal poo-poo.
At least Libya was within range of allied bases. The question the UK needs to answer is, what happens when the next hot spot isn't?
The answer is easy. The UK just won't get involved.
The world is within range of Trident. And what more do you really need?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 01:38:23 PM
The US would have to intervene. You owe them for Iraq.
We don't fight colonial wars.
They'd call upon the Commonwealth anyway; hell, I think the Canuckistani Navy is larger than the RN now.
no aircraft carrier and no submarine able to dive. Well, actually, they can do the diving. It's the 'coming back to the surface' thing they have problem with.
Quote
ve done it before, although that was to colonize in your own right.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 02:04:24 PM
Link, plz.
Mexican-American war
Spanish-American war
Indian wars.
And I suppose one could make an argument for Vietnam war being a continuation of the French Indochina colonial war, though that's a muddy issue.
Quote from: viper37 on July 15, 2012, 11:36:41 PM
Quote
ve done it before, although that was to colonize in your own right.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 02:04:24 PM
Link, plz.
Mexican-American war
Spanish-American war
Stop supporting slavery and/or exploitation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2012, 09:58:32 PMI applaud the plucky Brits for kicking in when they can, but you know damned well the SDSR and the 2020 model is right royal poo-poo.
I agree entirely, but that's not got much to do with the British contribution to Libya.
QuoteThe answer is easy. The UK just won't get involved.
Yes we will. I can't imagine likely circumstances where the US would get involved in a conflict that we wouldn't try to join in.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 16, 2012, 12:01:17 AM
Quote from: viper37 on July 15, 2012, 11:36:41 PM
Quote
ve done it before, although that was to colonize in your own right.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2012, 02:04:24 PM
Link, plz.
Mexican-American war
Spanish-American war
Stop supporting slavery and/or exploitation.
:lol:
I love this subject, you Americans get so defensive on what is crystal clear: the wars with Mexico, and later Spain were blatant imperialist conquests.
Quote from: Tamas on July 16, 2012, 04:35:38 AM
:lol:
I love this subject, you Americans get so defensive on what is crystal clear: the wars with Mexico, and later Spain were blatant imperialist conquests.
The population of the territories conquered in the Mexican-American War were granted full citizenship. If you're going to call that an imperial conquest (or colonization, as it was earlier) then the terms lose most of their meaning.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 04:50:44 AM
The population of the territories conquered in the Mexican-American War were granted full citizenship. If you're going to call that an imperial conquest (or colonization, as it was earlier) then the terms lose most of their meaning.
How so?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 05:06:30 AM
How so?
Colonization and imperialism both have strong connotations of subject peoples with inferior rights. An Algerian couldn't run for president of France, an Indian couldn't run for Prime Minister of Great Britain, a Lesbian couldn't vote in the Athenian Senate.
It's obviously a little different if the colonizing power is an absolute monarchy, because then all subjects are, uh, subjects, whether they live in the metropole or not.
The nearest analogy I can think of in Europe is the German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine. One day they were French citizens, the next they were German citizens. Would you describe that as colonization?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 05:16:39 AMColonization and imperialism both have strong connotations of subject peoples with inferior rights. An Algerian couldn't run for president of France, an Indian couldn't run for Prime Minister of Great Britain, a Lesbian couldn't vote in the Athenian Senate.
The Athenians didn't have a Senate. Indians could run for PM, as in they could become MPs. There's lots of obstacles to any of that happening but they were for the most part social and territorial. I take your point on the social equality, to an extent. But did these areas automatically become American states or did they become American territories (that were somewhat settled) and later become states?
QuoteThe nearest analogy I can think of in Europe is the German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine. One day they were French citizens, the next they were German citizens. Would you describe that as colonization?
No. But it would also be my prime example of an imperial conquest. Like the Mexican-American war, the Spanish-American war was colonial.
You mean there were no legal obstacles to Gandhi running for British PM? That doesn't sound right.
I think Texas entered as a state, but that's an odd case. California might have gotten statehood right away, not sure. Maybe fast-tracked.
edit: And regardless of whether or not Gandhi could run for office, he certainly couldn't vote for himself.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 05:40:38 AM
You mean there were no legal obstacles to Gandhi running for British PM? That doesn't sound right.
No, if he was an MP which he could become. We never had a colour bar and one of the problems the post-war Labour government had was immigration from the British Empire. They couldn't refuse Caribbean immigrants moving to the UK because they were British Empire subjects. The only solution they could think of was of creating effectively a second passport of limited travel for non-whites, but they didn't do it because that would have made their prejudice quite explicit and revealed the lie of the British Empire.
The first Asian MP (who could have become PM) was in the 1890s, Jinnah was one of his assistants and he was later President of the Indian National Congress.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 05:40:38 AM
edit: And regardless of whether or not Gandhi could run for office, he certainly couldn't vote for himself.
Why not?
Quote from: Tamas on July 16, 2012, 04:35:38 AM
:lol:
I love this subject, you Americans get so defensive on what is crystal clear: the wars with Mexico, and later Spain were blatant imperialist conquests.
I can't defend much of the Mexican War, other than it was right in its righteousness, and the Spanish-American War was a response to international terrorism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 03:26:01 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 15, 2012, 09:58:32 PMI applaud the plucky Brits for kicking in when they can, but you know damned well the SDSR and the 2020 model is right royal poo-poo.
I agree entirely, but that's not got much to do with the British contribution to Libya.
Except that it stretched capacities, particularly with the Royal Navy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 05:51:01 AM
Why not?
I assume it's because he lived in the wrong place. Anyway Shelf, it's interesting to learn that colonial England had no legal color bars.
Would you happen to know if the same was true of France? Could an Algerian or Vietnamese vote if they were living in France?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 05:59:32 AMI assume it's because he lived in the wrong place. Anyway Shelf, it's interesting to learn that colonial England had no legal color bars.
As I say the obstacles were territorial and social. It's a very British approach to racism to make it implicit and lace it through the entire system. The other thing, especially with India was the use of other princes. Lots of British colonial subjects were actually subject to a local ruler so they wouldn't be legally British subjects.
QuoteWould you happen to know if the same was true of France? Could an Algerian or Vietnamese vote if they were living in France?
My understanding is that an Algerian could even vote in Algeria if he opted to accept French citizenship but that meant rejecting all customary and Islamic law - even on things like family law - so almost no-one did. I'd assume they could given the rhetoric of the French Empire.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 05:54:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 16, 2012, 04:35:38 AM
:lol:
I love this subject, you Americans get so defensive on what is crystal clear: the wars with Mexico, and later Spain were blatant imperialist conquests.
I can't defend much of the Mexican War, other than it was right in its righteousness, and the Spanish-American War was a response to international terrorism.
didn't you have your newspapers and such going all jingo on spain before that incident?
Quote from: Tamas on July 16, 2012, 06:13:35 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 05:54:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 16, 2012, 04:35:38 AM
:lol:
I love this subject, you Americans get so defensive on what is crystal clear: the wars with Mexico, and later Spain were blatant imperialist conquests.
I can't defend much of the Mexican War, other than it was right in its righteousness, and the Spanish-American War was a response to international terrorism.
didn't you have your newspapers and such going all jingo on spain before that incident?
I don't recall, I wasn't there. Ask grumbler.
Quote from: Tamas on July 16, 2012, 06:13:35 AM
didn't you have your newspapers and such going all jingo on spain before that incident?
We had our newspapers going all jingo about the unpleasant Spanish suppression of a Cuban revolt.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 06:19:50 AM
We had our newspapers going all jingo about the unpleasant Spanish suppression of a Cuban revolt.
A couple blocks south of Johns Hopkins Hospital, in a median on Broadway, there's a little statue dedicated to Jose Marti. For years, it was left alone, and somebody only recently refurbished it.
Actually, we have a couple of Marti statues in town.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 06:23:29 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 06:19:50 AM
We had our newspapers going all jingo about the unpleasant Spanish suppression of a Cuban revolt.
A couple blocks south of Johns Hopkins Hospital, in a median on Broadway, there's a little statue dedicated to Jose Marti. For years, it was left alone, and somebody only recently refurbished it.
Actually, we have a couple of Marti statues in town.
Great, Mart is going think those are about him now. His ego will explode over this place like a glitter bomb.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 16, 2012, 06:25:15 AM
Great, Mart is going think those are about him now. His ego will explode over this place like a glitter bomb.
Meh, we've got a bad ass monument dedicated to Pulaski. He'll have to be satisfied with that.
Fun fact: We have the only other monument dedicated to William Wallace outside the UK.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.monumentalcity.net%2Foddsends%2Fdruidhill%2Fparkdrui_wallacea.jpg&hash=088d6fd51e5b9d07f3cc436391957fcf610e48a0)
FREEEE DUM
America was just as imperialist as any other 19th century country. Not just its wars with Mexico and Spain, its take over of native American lands clearly counts as well.
Just because its empire, like Russia's, was largely landbased rather than overseas and they followed a model of direct integration rather than self-government doesn't make it any less colonial.
Quote from: Tyr on July 16, 2012, 06:35:59 AM
America was just as imperialist as any other 19th century country. Not just its wars with Mexico and Spain, its take over of native American lands clearly counts as well.
You're not going to make me cry like the end of
Dances With Wolves, dammit. :mad:
Quote from: Tyr on July 16, 2012, 06:35:59 AM
America was just as imperialist as any other 19th century country. Not just its wars with Mexico and Spain, its take over of native American lands clearly counts as well.
Just because its empire, like Russia's, was largely landbased rather than overseas and they followed a model of direct integration rather than self-government doesn't make it any less colonial.
Apart from the Dominions, which British colonies were self-governing?
The US established self-government in The Phillipines something like 20 years after annexation. Which European colonizer did the same?
The US made it illegal for Americans to purchase property in The Phillipines. Which European colonizer did the same?
The US granted The Phillipines independence about 40 years after annexation. Which European colonizer did the same?
Other than those things, I agree. Exactly the same.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 06:45:05 AM
The US established self-government in The Phillipines something like 20 years after annexation. Which European colonizer did the same?
The US made it illegal for Americans to purchase property in The Phillipines. Which European colonizer did the same?
The US granted The Phillipines independence about 40 years after annexation. Which European colonizer did the same?
Other than those things, I agree. Exactly the same.
The literacy rate of the Phillipines also skyrocketed under the first 20 years of US annexation in comparison to European holdings. I posted the exact statistics on EUOT once, gotta find them.
Okay but I think you protest too much. I mean the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars were attacked at the time by many Americans as imperialist.
Also you did get the Philippines in 1898. So those years sound impressive, but the truth is they became self-governing in the 1930s and got independence in the 1940s. That just puts them in line with many other colonially ruled states. European countries generally got them earlier. I think that reflects more the changed circumstances and ideologies of the period than American benevolence. For example the easy answer to this 'the US granted The Phillipines independence about 40 years after annexation. Which European colonizer did the same?' is Italy and Libya. By just measuring the years the British presence in Iraq was positively benign.
Also as Tyr's point makes clear the Russian model shows you don't need overseas territory to be colonising.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 05:54:06 AMthe Spanish-American War was a response to international terrorism.
Mr. Hearst, I thought you were long dead!
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 06:53:53 AM
Okay but I think you protest too much. I mean the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars were attacked at the time by many Americans as imperialist.
Also you did get the Philippines in 1898. So those years sound impressive, but the truth is they became self-governing in the 1930s and got independence in the 1940s. That just puts them in line with many other colonially ruled states. European countries generally got them earlier. I think that reflects more the changed circumstances and ideologies of the period than American benevolence. For example the easy answer to this 'the US granted The Phillipines independence about 40 years after annexation. Which European colonizer did the same?' is Italy and Libya. By just measuring the years the British presence in Iraq was positively benign.
Also as Tyr's point makes clear the Russian model shows you don't need overseas territory to be colonising.
France and Britain granted independence when faced with an exhausting series of colonial wars right after a devestating, bankrupting World War. That's a different set of changed circumstances and ideologies than what prompted the US to grant independence. The US had already set the timetable for eventual independence before entering WWII.
Quote from: The Larch on July 16, 2012, 06:58:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 05:54:06 AMthe Spanish-American War was a response to international terrorism.
Mr. Hearst, I thought you were long dead!
We smoked those evildoers out of their holes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 06:53:53 AMAlso you did get the Philippines in 1898.
And Puerto Rico and Guam.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 07:02:47 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 16, 2012, 06:58:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 05:54:06 AMthe Spanish-American War was a response to international terrorism.
Mr. Hearst, I thought you were long dead!
We smoked those evildoers out of their holes.
:lol:
George CountdeMoney Bush. I like this Seedy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 06:45:05 AM
Apart from the Dominions, which British colonies were self-governing?
Most of them.
Dominion status was just the unification of several pre-existing colonies. A recognition they were more important than mere colonies and via being unified were on a better path to full independence.
Quote
The US established self-government in The Phillipines something like 20 years after annexation. Which European colonizer did the same?
1: Largely because the US couldn't hold the Phillipines.
2: There are a few examples of Britain and France doing the same.
Quote
The US made it illegal for Americans to purchase property in The Phillipines. Which European colonizer did the same?
No idea. Sounds a bit mad.
Quote
The US granted The Phillipines independence about 40 years after annexation. Which European colonizer did the same?
Britain and France.
Quote
Other than those things, I agree. Exactly the same.
The Phillipines really aren't the prime example of American imperialism. That would be the US' conquest of the continental US.
Quote1: Largely because the US couldn't hold the Phillipines.
:lol:
You're not even trying Squeeze. :(
Quote from: Tyr on July 16, 2012, 07:09:25 AM
1: Largely because the US couldn't hold the Phillipines.
:lol: For a couple years in the 1940s? Funny, I don't recall many Euros holding on to their shit then, either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 07:00:18 AMFrance and Britain granted independence when faced with an exhausting series of colonial wars right after a devestating, bankrupting World War. That's a different set of changed circumstances and ideologies than what prompted the US to grant independence. The US had already set the timetable for eventual independence before entering WWII.
That's not very accurate. I don't think it's true that there was a different set of ideologies, I think there was a move against colonialism in that arc of history bending towards justice way. What wars were they faced with?
France fought a couple of exhausting colonial wars immediately after the World War it didn't stop the thirty glorious years, it also inaccurately explains French decolonisation everywhere but Indochina and Algeria or de Gaulle in Brazzaville.
Similarly the UK passed the Government of India Act which granted far wider self-government in India in the 30s, Congress were successful in India and in changing the debate in the UK throughout the 30s and I believe all parties agreed to Indian independence in the 1945 election. Your description doesn't accord at all with British decolonisation in Africa either. All British governments after 1945 planned independence for all African colonies - it happened far quicker than they envisioned - but that was the policy goal.
In general it's the areas where there was potential for conflict, or actual fighting, that colonial powers stayed in the longest - normally until the Americans could take over because Communists were involved.
I'm not defending European imperialism but I'm struggling to see the significant difference between much European colonisation (as in imperial Canada, Australia, Argentina etc) and what Americans did in their own country. Or between what the US did in 1898 with any number of European colonial wars. My view on the Mexican-American war is simply that of Grant and the Whigs that it was a nasty expansionist war, as imperial as carving up Poland or seizing Alsace-Lorraine.
Its a very widespread historical misunderstanding that Indian independance just magically came about because of Ghandi and Britain being exhausted after WW2.
Indian independence was an evolutionary process. The history of British rule in India is one of ever more reform towards democratic independance.
It is so often forgotten that the reason Churchill was out in the political cold in the 30s was that he was a backwards racist bigot who wouldn't stop ranting about the Indians being incapable of ruling themselves when it was clear to everyone else that India becoming a dominion at the least was just around the corner.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 07:13:16 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 16, 2012, 07:09:25 AM
1: Largely because the US couldn't hold the Phillipines.
:lol: For a couple years in the 1940s? Funny, I don't recall many Euros holding on to their shit then, either.
Not at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine–American_War
Quote from: Tyr on July 16, 2012, 06:35:59 AM
America was just as imperialist as any other 19th century country. Not just its wars with Mexico and Spain, its take over of native American lands clearly counts as well.
Just because its empire, like Russia's, was largely landbased rather than overseas and they followed a model of direct integration rather than self-government doesn't make it any less colonial.
I love it when the Brits try to draw bullshit analogies about Imperialism to make themselves feel better about what Britain was engaged in! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2012, 07:16:07 AM
I love it when the Brits try to draw bullshit analogies about Imperialism to make themselves feel better about what Britain was engaged in! :lol:
That makes no sense.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 07:13:43 AM
I'm not defending European imperialism but I'm struggling to see the significant difference between much European colonisation (as in imperial Canada, Australia, Argentina etc) and what Americans did in their own country.
This I agree with.
QuoteOr between what the US did in 1898 with any number of European colonial wars.
This I don't, for the reasons I laid out before.
Quote from: Tyr on July 16, 2012, 07:20:22 AM
That makes no sense.
I'm sure if you show it to the barman at your local, he can explain it to you.
I thought the chapter in Barbara Tuchman's "The Proud Tower" that dealt with the domestic ramifications of acquiring the Philippines as a colony was very interesting.
Quote from: Tyr on July 16, 2012, 07:15:15 AM
Its a very widespread historical misunderstanding that Indian independance just magically came about because of Ghandi and Britain being exhausted after WW2.
Indian independence was an evolutionary process. The history of British rule in India is one of ever more reform towards democratic independance.
It is so often forgotten that the reason Churchill was out in the political cold in the 30s was that he was a backwards racist bigot who wouldn't stop ranting about the Indians being incapable of ruling themselves when it was clear to everyone else that India becoming a dominion at the least was just around the corner.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 07:13:16 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 16, 2012, 07:09:25 AM
1: Largely because the US couldn't hold the Phillipines.
:lol: For a couple years in the 1940s? Funny, I don't recall many Euros holding on to their shit then, either.
Not at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine–American_War
Nigga, please. You're going to use an insurrection that didn't even take anything?
Yi's right; you're not even trying.
Bet you think the Brits lost the Zulu Wars, too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 07:13:43 AM
I'm not defending European imperialism but I'm struggling to see the significant difference between much European colonisation (as in imperial Canada, Australia, Argentina etc) and what Americans did in their own country.
At least you're not jumping on Tyr's wagon. It's like talking to Mongers, circa 2004.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2012, 11:26:50 PM
The world is within range of Trident. And what more do you really need?
Anything. Trident is of significantly less value as a weapon than a slingshot, although it's valuable from a political standpoint.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 06:53:53 AM
Okay but I think you protest too much. I mean the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars were attacked at the time by many Americans as imperialist.
Also you did get the Philippines in 1898. So those years sound impressive, but the truth is they became self-governing in the 1930s and got independence in the 1940s. That just puts them in line with many other colonially ruled states. European countries generally got them earlier. I think that reflects more the changed circumstances and ideologies of the period than American benevolence. For example the easy answer to this 'the US granted The Phillipines independence about 40 years after annexation. Which European colonizer did the same?' is Italy and Libya. By just measuring the years the British presence in Iraq was positively benign.
Also as Tyr's point makes clear the Russian model shows you don't need overseas territory to be colonising.
I was under the impression that the loss of Libya was not the desire of the Italian government, and that British and French presence in Iraq and Syria were not colonies but mandates. The US had planned to set the Philippines free before WII. In 1945 I believe. The colonization of the continental US can be fair game, but should be compared not to European overseas holdings but to integral parts of their country. Like France in Occitan and the UK in Yorkshire. These territories had all the rights as any other part of the US as soon as then attained statehood (which they did as quickly).
The US also has a lack of famines that wracked European colonies like India and Ireland. I mean millions died in In British India from famine. You'd be hard pressed to find such a thing in California.
At any rate, June 7, 1960 was the Day the Music Died for the British armed forces, so to speak.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 07:13:16 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 16, 2012, 07:09:25 AM
1: Largely because the US couldn't hold the Phillipines.
:lol: For a couple years in the 1940s? Funny, I don't recall many Euros holding on to their shit then, either.
All of metropolitan France is a colony. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2012, 10:46:01 AMThe colonization of the continental US can be fair game, but should be compared not to European overseas holdings but to integral parts of their country. Like France in Occitan and the UK in Yorkshire. These territories had all the rights as any other part of the US as soon as then attained statehood (which they did as quickly).
The comparison I'm making is between the colonisation of Canada, Australia or the similar process of wiping out natives in Argentina. The comparison with Yorkshire would be absurdly facile if you gave it just a minute's thought.
QuoteI mean millions died in In British India from famine. You'd be hard pressed to find such a thing in California.
Don't misunderstand me European imperialism was a monstrous wrong, but I don't see famine over other forms of death matters. Surely millions died to expand to California?
What I find odd, though, is what Tamas pointed out. Americans are getting sensitive of probably two of the most controversial conflicts the US has ever been involved in (Mexican-American and Spanish-American) despite the fact that, from what I can tell about half of Americans at the time considered them wrong and imperialist conflicts.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 06:38:13 PM
Surely millions died to expand to California?
Millions? Total casualties in the Mexican-American War were under 30,000.
Quotefrom what I can tell about half of Americans at the time considered them wrong and imperialist conflicts.
Here's what President Grant said about it in his Memoirs:
QuoteGenerally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.
Surely one can disagree with the assertion that American colonialization was exactly the same as European colonializaton with "getting sensitive."
Or without it! D'oh!
Quote from: dps on July 16, 2012, 06:52:22 PM
Here's what President Grant said about it in his Memoirs:
Not to mention a certain transcendentalist that made his name going to jail in protest. Granted, it was one night, but still. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 06:54:46 PM
Surely one can disagree with the assertion that American colonialization was exactly the same as European colonializaton with "getting sensitive."
Yes, and evidence of dissenting opinions within Ameican society at the time (such as the Grant quote above) is also not particularly good evidence that American expansionism was of the same nature as European expansionism. IMO the American westward expansion was more akin to the Spanish reconquista or the pushing of France's eastern border to the Rhine than, say, the French takeover of Indochina. OTOH, I think that it's not unreasonable to see the aquisition of the Phillipines as somewhat different than expansion into Oregon or California.
It had to be done.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 06:54:46 PM
Surely one can disagree with the assertion that American colonialization was exactly the same as European colonializaton with "getting sensitive."
Well they're not exactly the same. In fact I don't think anyone but viper and Tyr's said anything close to that. Tamas has said that the Mexican and Spanish American wars were imperial conquests - I agree, as did the Whigs, Grant and, say, Twain - and I don't see the difference between the Spanish-American war and any European colonial war, like over Morocco.
The only comparison I've made with colonisation is with Australia, Canada or what Argentina did.
Quote from: dps on July 16, 2012, 07:02:10 PMIMO the American westward expansion was more akin to the Spanish reconquista or the pushing of France's eastern border to the Rhine than, say, the French takeover of Indochina. OTOH, I think that it's not unreasonable to see the aquisition of the Phillipines as somewhat different than expansion into Oregon or California.
I'm making three comparisons:
Mexican-American war - imperial aggrandisement, like Prussia taking Alsace-Lorraine.
The internal colonisation of America - like what happened in Australia, Canada or Argentina.
Spanish-American war - basically the same as any inter-Euro colonial war.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 07:07:18 PM
Mexican-American war - imperial aggrandisement, like Prussia taking Alsace-Lorraine.
I think this is a very apt comparison. Both sides itching for a fight, one side getting their face pounded, one side gaining territory which was incorporated into the metropole.
But I also don't recall reading many commentaries about the immorality of Prussia in that war.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 07:13:00 PM
But I also don't recall reading many commentaries about the immorality of Prussia in that war.
You've read the wrong commentaries :blink:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 07:39:21 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 07:13:43 AM
I'm not defending European imperialism but I'm struggling to see the significant difference between much European colonisation (as in imperial Canada, Australia, Argentina etc) and what Americans did in their own country.
At least you're not jumping on Tyr's wagon. It's like talking to Mongers, circa 2004.
And you think I've changed. :hmm:
Quote from: dps on July 16, 2012, 07:02:10 PM
OTOH, I think that it's not unreasonable to see the aquisition of the Phillipines as somewhat different than expansion into Oregon or California.
That is very true, and there are plenty of court cases (including at least one USSC case) that made such a distinction clear.
However, there is an equal difference between the US "acquisition" of the Philippines and the British acquisition of most of India. The US effort was explicitly temporary and explicitly aimed at granting the PI its independence as soon as was practical. Cuba, "acquired" in the exact same war and in the exact same way, was granted its independence almost immediately.
Did Britain grant (or at least offer to grant) independence to, say, Quebec when Britain "acquired" it?
The US certainly had its imperialist moments and movements, but the US was, in general, not interested in playing the imperial game. The argument that Colorado or California is the equivalent of the Bengal Presidency or Cape Colony is absurd; the US was interested in acquiring territories that would become fully equal states. The results of the Spanish-American War somewhat muddy the field, in the several different types of territories resulted (those given immediate independence, those that were established as proto-independent states, and those that got citizenship but not statehood), but none of these resemble European imperial gains.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 07:16:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 07:13:00 PM
But I also don't recall reading many commentaries about the immorality of Prussia in that war.
You've read the wrong commentaries :blink:
Or you are. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 07:13:00 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 07:07:18 PM
Mexican-American war - imperial aggrandisement, like Prussia taking Alsace-Lorraine.
I think this is a very apt comparison. Both sides itching for a fight, one side getting their face pounded, one side gaining territory which was incorporated into the metropole.
But I also don't recall reading many commentaries about the immorality of Prussia in that war.
I am suprised that you think it is an apt comparison, or that you aren't aware of such commentaries.
American "colonization" was in areas that were sparsely populated and generally high quality land. I have a hard time envisioning scenarios at the dawn of the 19th century where we today would be huddled together on the east coast while the buffalo would be pursued by virtual hunter gatherers in the great plains.
My take on the Mexican American War: Mexico was dysfunctional, the US was not. The US was experiencing rapid population growth and Texas was almost empty. A bunch of Americans moved there, and were predictably dissatisfied with the government they received. Hence a sequence of events that led to their independence and incorporation into the US. Quite different than the Franco Prussian War.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 06:38:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2012, 10:46:01 AMThe colonization of the continental US can be fair game, but should be compared not to European overseas holdings but to integral parts of their country. Like France in Occitan and the UK in Yorkshire. These territories had all the rights as any other part of the US as soon as then attained statehood (which they did as quickly).
The comparison I'm making is between the colonisation of Canada, Australia or the similar process of wiping out natives in Argentina. The comparison with Yorkshire would be absurdly facile if you gave it just a minute's thought.
QuoteI mean millions died in In British India from famine. You'd be hard pressed to find such a thing in California.
Don't misunderstand me European imperialism was a monstrous wrong, but I don't see famine over other forms of death matters. Surely millions died to expand to California?
What I find odd, though, is what Tamas pointed out. Americans are getting sensitive of probably two of the most controversial conflicts the US has ever been involved in (Mexican-American and Spanish-American) despite the fact that, from what I can tell about half of Americans at the time considered them wrong and imperialist conflicts.
Did million die to expand to California? Probably not. At least not in the hands of US, and probably not at all. You have to understand that the population density of North America was extremely low. For the most part these people live in hunter-gather bands or tribes of a few thousand. There were a few Urban cultures but these had mostly been wiped out before there was a US.
Since the survivor peoples became US citizens, they
are us.
There is nothing odd about Americans being sensitive about wars that were controversial at the time. The US was probably in the wrong both times. The Mexican war was fought at the behest the slaver owners. Rest assured the US suffered a decade later because of what it did. The Spanish American war quickly proved the US really didn't want to stomach European style Colonialism.
Treating European-style colonialism as monolithic is a mistake. There were many flavours, from British colonialism (the most enlightened form of government the world has ever seen), to the particular stylings of the French, the half-hearted German attempts, and then there's the Belgian killing fields.
Calling the US spread throughout the continent into what was formerly "native" lands "colonialism" is confusing expansionism with colonialism.
I guess you can call it colonialism and empire building, as long as you make those terms mean nothing beyond "any expansion of one human society into the geographic space occupied by another". It is colonialism in the same sense than the Bantu tribesmen pushing out the Pygmies in central Africa was colonialism.
It really cheapens the dialogue, since it confuses two very different phenomenons that have very different social, economic, and demographic drivers and calls them the same thing. To what purpose?
Personally, I don't really even understand why anyone would want to even use it as the kind of reactionary defense mechanism, as we see here. It is transparently false to anyone who has a more than passing interest in history and doesn't really mean anything anyway - so what that many nations engaged in colonialism in the past? I don't even understand the guilt that would drive people to become so defensive. If I was British, say, I would not feel a singel iota of guilt about my nations colonial and imperial past. It was a phase in human history that modern nations went through - pretty much all of them who were at the requisite level of political and technological development at that time did their best to do the same thing, so it's not like it is some kind of failing that some particular country happened to be better at it than others.
Frankly, from what I know of most hunter-gatherer societies, it wasn't much of a picnic before the nasty Europeans showed up anyway.
Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2012, 10:25:30 PM
Treating European-style colonialism as monolithic is a mistake. There were many flavours, from British colonialism (the most enlightened form of government the world has ever seen), to the particular stylings of the French, the half-hearted German attempts, and then there's the Belgian killing fields.
I think the rest of Europe must shoulder the blame for Belgium's killing fields...namely for allowing Belgium to exist at all.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 06:59:05 PM
Quote from: dps on July 16, 2012, 06:52:22 PM
Here's what President Grant said about it in his Memoirs:
Not to mention a certain transcendentalist that made his name going to jail in protest. Granted, it was one night, but still. :lol:
Man didn't pay his taxes. I wish they'd shot him.
Wait, this was before the end of slavery. Nevermind! Thoreau's okay. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 07:16:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2012, 07:13:00 PM
But I also don't recall reading many commentaries about the immorality of Prussia in that war.
You've read the wrong commentaries :blink:
The entry into war by itself, or the Siege of Paris?
Although now that I think of it Bismarck does get some shit for doing everything he could to bring the French to war as part of his long-term plan of binding the German states to the Prussian crown.
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2012, 11:38:59 PM
Calling the US spread throughout the continent into what was formerly "native" lands "colonialism" is confusing expansionism with colonialism.
I guess you can call it colonialism and empire building, as long as you make those terms mean nothing beyond "any expansion of one human society into the geographic space occupied by another". It is colonialism in the same sense than the Bantu tribesmen pushing out the Pygmies in central Africa was colonialism.
It really cheapens the dialogue, since it confuses two very different phenomenons that have very different social, economic, and demographic drivers and calls them the same thing. To what purpose?
Personally, I don't really even understand why anyone would want to even use it as the kind of reactionary defense mechanism, as we see here. It is transparently false to anyone who has a more than passing interest in history and doesn't really mean anything anyway - so what that many nations engaged in colonialism in the past? I don't even understand the guilt that would drive people to become so defensive. If I was British, say, I would not feel a singel iota of guilt about my nations colonial and imperial past. It was a phase in human history that modern nations went through - pretty much all of them who were at the requisite level of political and technological development at that time did their best to do the same thing, so it's not like it is some kind of failing that some particular country happened to be better at it than others.
Frankly, from what I know of most hunter-gatherer societies, it wasn't much of a picnic before the nasty Europeans showed up anyway.
This is absurd. You could hand wave away any crime because it's was just a phase the country went through.
Not what Berkut is saying. He is saying that it is inappropriate to, for example, blame me for the British role in the slave trade and for me to then defend it or mitigate it as if I was a defendant in the dock. As people with a purported interest in history we should instead discuss what actually happened and why it happened that way.
As the shining retard on the hill America cannot be judged like common countries.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 17, 2012, 01:42:22 AM
Not what Berkut is saying. He is saying that it is inappropriate to, for example, blame me for the British role in the slave trade and for me to then defend it or mitigate it as if I was a defendant in the dock. As people with a purported interest in history we should instead discuss what actually happened and why it happened that way.
But that is where he and the other yanks here are mistaken and get defensive - we (well, me and Sheilbh for sure) are not handing out blame or saying that the US was doing extraordinarily evil things.
We are saying that they have done similar stuff as any other great power at the time, and pretending otherwise is incorrect, and pretentious.
Oh, wait, we were the country with slavery in the Mexican-American War.
I really don't get the idea that because the US planned on directly incorporating its colonial aquisitions it somehow makes them less imperialist. Russia incorporated a lot of its expansion as regular parts of Russia (yeah, not that there really was a one size fits all rule in Russia). France saw Algeria and (still sees) other places as integral parts of France.
In fact one could make the argument that this is a less desirable proposition than e.g. British India where there was never any question that India would no longer be India and that it would be British forever more. Direct incorporation is really showing that the conquest is forever and there will never be independence (should everything go according to plan :degaul:).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 07:39:21 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 16, 2012, 07:13:43 AM
I'm not defending European imperialism but I'm struggling to see the significant difference between much European colonisation (as in imperial Canada, Australia, Argentina etc) and what Americans did in their own country.
At least you're not jumping on Tyr's wagon. It's like talking to Mongers, circa 2004.
What wagon?
QuoteNigga, please. You're going to use an insurrection that didn't even take anything?
Yi's right; you're not even trying.
Bet you think the Brits lost the Zulu Wars, too.
No. I don't see the logical leap there at all.
The Phillipine-American war showed the US that long term holding down the Phillipines was untenable. The Fillipinos (never got why that becomes an F...) wanted independence and were willing to fight for it.
Quote from: Tamas on July 17, 2012, 02:15:13 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 17, 2012, 01:42:22 AM
Not what Berkut is saying. He is saying that it is inappropriate to, for example, blame me for the British role in the slave trade and for me to then defend it or mitigate it as if I was a defendant in the dock. As people with a purported interest in history we should instead discuss what actually happened and why it happened that way.
But that is where he and the other yanks here are mistaken and get defensive - we (well, me and Sheilbh for sure) are not handing out blame or saying that the US was doing extraordinarily evil things.
We are saying that they have done similar stuff as any other great power at the time, and pretending otherwise is incorrect, and pretentious.
It would have required inhuman forbearance by the Americans not to have helped themselves to those under-exploited lands. I don't think it was even possible for the American state to have prevented what happened. So I do have some sympathy for the view that it was different to, say, British colonialism in India or Africa.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 17, 2012, 03:05:01 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 17, 2012, 02:15:13 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 17, 2012, 01:42:22 AM
Not what Berkut is saying. He is saying that it is inappropriate to, for example, blame me for the British role in the slave trade and for me to then defend it or mitigate it as if I was a defendant in the dock. As people with a purported interest in history we should instead discuss what actually happened and why it happened that way.
But that is where he and the other yanks here are mistaken and get defensive - we (well, me and Sheilbh for sure) are not handing out blame or saying that the US was doing extraordinarily evil things.
We are saying that they have done similar stuff as any other great power at the time, and pretending otherwise is incorrect, and pretentious.
It would have required inhuman forbearance by the Americans not to have helped themselves to those under-exploited lands. I don't think it was even possible for the American state to have prevented what happened. So I do have some sympathy for the view that it was different to, say, British colonialism in India or Africa.
I have been talking about their wars all along. And anyways, again, I am not judging them. I am saying that they shouldn't judge other powers of the period from the position of moral high ground, which they did not have.
You guys colonized Croatia. I judge ye: guilty.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 17, 2012, 03:22:30 AM
You guys colonized Croatia. I judge ye: guilty.
:lol: just keep ignoring what I am saying. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BEING GUILTY. God damn you americans can be so dense about this topic. It is annoying because otherwise you are quick to judge others.
And, Croatia was a dynastical union of two civilized countries, thankyouverymuch
So, if you want to debate the Spanish American war, why not shift the focus from the Philippines and look at Puerto Rico and Guam? not every territory that changed hands in that war underwent the same political route.
You guys have shit all over my thread, when it would've been much more fun shitting on modern British defense spending.
Quote from: The Larch on July 17, 2012, 03:33:48 AM
So, if you want to debate the Spanish American war, why not shift the focus from the Philippines and look at Puerto Rico and Guam? not every territory that changed hands in that war underwent the same political route.
Good point. Wish I'd said that... wait! I did!
QuoteThe results of the Spanish-American War somewhat muddy the field, in the several different types of territories resulted (those given immediate independence, those that were established as proto-independent states, and those that got citizenship but not statehood), but none of these resemble European imperial gains.
You did not mention the key words. -2 points. You can do better.
Quote from: Tamas on July 17, 2012, 03:20:41 AM
I have been talking about their wars all along. And anyways, again, I am not judging them. I am saying that they shouldn't judge other powers of the period from the position of moral high ground, which they did not have.
I don't think you should judge the Americans based on a moral high ground that nobody has.
But in any case, I still don't see why Europeans get so defensive about this stuff, and start flailing about and demanding that things that are clearly different are somehow "all the same". It is really quite bizarre.
Especially since if you really want to talk about "blame" and "judging" you should be talking about people or cultures, not nations. And in that sense, there is exactly no division between Europeans and Americans when it comes to questions of our interactions with other cultures and peoples. The Americans, to the extent that we are identifiable as "the people who kicked the shot out of the Native Americans or the Spanish or the Mexicans" are in fact the exact same people who kicked the shit out of the Indians, Algerians, and aboriginal Australians.
The replacement of hunter-gatherer societies with food producing societies is a phenomenon that has very little to do with nations at its root cause.
Quote from: Tamas on July 17, 2012, 03:25:04 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 17, 2012, 03:22:30 AM
You guys colonized Croatia. I judge ye: guilty.
:lol: just keep ignoring what I am saying. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BEING GUILTY.
Of course you are - you are claiming that Europeans are not any more or less relatively guilty because "the Americans did it too!".
Which is really dense on a variety of different levels, not the least of which is that you don't share guilt with your ancestors, so what fucking difference does it make anyway?
Quote
God damn you americans can be so dense about this topic. It is annoying because otherwise you are quick to judge others.
I think you are being very quick to judge how quick Americans judge others. Not to mention rather bigoted and you are rather grossly over-generalizing.
I don't know about "Americans" or "Europeans" quickness or lack thereof in judging others, but YOU at least sure are being rather defensive and rather, well, jingoist?. That may not be the right word.
In any case, not agreeing with you does not make anyone dense. Indeed, not agreeing with anyone who makes arguments of the form that involve gross over-generalization of hundreds of millions of people based on a rather infantile and simplistic stereotypes is almost the very opposite of "dense".
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2012, 08:34:55 PM
I am suprised that you think it is an apt comparison, or that you aren't aware of such commentaries.
Feel fee to elaborate. The only negative judgement I've ever read is about Bismark's gaming of the telegram.
QuoteMy take on the Mexican American War: Mexico was dysfunctional, the US was not. The US was experiencing rapid population growth and Texas was almost empty. A bunch of Americans moved there, and were predictably dissatisfied with the government they received. Hence a sequence of events that led to their independence and incorporation into the US. Quite different than the Franco Prussian War.
The Texas war for independence was quite different from the Franco-Prussian, which is why no one has made the comparison. I've been talking about the Mexican-American War.
Quote from: The Larch on July 17, 2012, 03:33:48 AM
So, if you want to debate the Spanish American war, why not shift the focus from the Philippines and look at Puerto Rico and Guam? not every territory that changed hands in that war underwent the same political route.
Sure. Why not? :)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 17, 2012, 01:42:22 AM
Not what Berkut is saying. He is saying that it is inappropriate to, for example, blame me for the British role in the slave trade and for me to then defend it or mitigate it as if I was a defendant in the dock. As people with a purported interest in history we should instead discuss what actually happened and why it happened that way.
Except he is. He's hand waving certain periods of history because that's a "phase" they went through. If we use this criteria any country can do anything, since it's just going through a "phase".
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2012, 11:38:59 PM
Calling the US spread throughout the continent into what was formerly "native" lands "colonialism" is confusing expansionism with colonialism.
Not really. As I say the comparison I'd make in a colonial sense is with Canada or Australia. But I think Argentina and Russia are decent examples too, it just seems the state following the colonisers is based on the same land mass.
QuoteIt is transparently false to anyone who has a more than passing interest in history and doesn't really mean anything anyway - so what that many nations engaged in colonialism in the past?
The debate started because Tamas said that the Spanish and Mexican-American wars were imperialist conquests - I like many Americans at the time agree with that view - Americans bridled at the label of them as imperial conquests. Which actually made Tamas's point.
QuoteIf I was British, say, I would not feel a singel iota of guilt about my nations colonial and imperial past.
No-one does. I think that's a big problem actually. We moved from an Empire, to kitsch-Imperial nostalgia at an alarming speed with barely any pause for reflection, education or, yes, a little bit of guilt in between. If you bring up the British Empire you're more likely to be told about railways and the wonderful English legal system than the institutionalised economic exploitation of large parts of the world, the famines and the wiping out of native populations in certain areas. I think we need a bit of guilt because it comes from self-reflection and a degree of empathy with the victims of our past.
I think you can go too far in being guilty, but that there's a balance to be struck between Germany's relationship with her past and Britain's.
QuoteOf course you are - you are claiming that Europeans are not any more or less relatively guilty because "the Americans did it too!".
Not at all. In terms of guilt European colonialism was a whole magnitude worse, I think that's obvious.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2012, 08:16:53 AM
Except he is. He's hand waving certain periods of history because that's a "phase" they went through. If we use this criteria any country can do anything, since it's just going through a "phase".
I think the language of 'phases' is unhelpful, as you say they're something you go through. They seem to me a bit like viewing history through a strict Marxist analysis or like a series of geological ages.
I think the role guilt and reflection play in how we read history is that it returns it to being about choices and self-deceits. So I think the German way of thinking about Nazism is going to be less what happened and why and more, how did people let this happen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2012, 08:09:48 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 17, 2012, 03:33:48 AM
So, if you want to debate the Spanish American war, why not shift the focus from the Philippines and look at Puerto Rico and Guam? not every territory that changed hands in that war underwent the same political route.
Sure. Why not? :)
So, when are you giving them independence? What's taking you so long? :P
Quote from: The Larch on July 17, 2012, 08:27:36 AM
So, when are you giving them independence? What's taking you so long? :P
We've tried several times to unload the dump but the locals aren't that stupid. They know a sweatheart deal when they see one. :)
Quote from: The Larch on July 17, 2012, 08:27:36 AM
So, when are you giving them independence? What's taking you so long? :P
Puerto Rico and Guam enjoy benefits that far exceed anything they would enjoy as independent states.
Couldn't say the same of any shit hole colony in Africa back in the day.
I was a little curious about PR, so I wikied.
PRs are US citizens, but people residing in PR cannot vote for president. I guess that means if I moved down there I couldn't either.
PR does not have legislative representation. They have a nonvoting member of Congress (same as DC).
Residents of PR do not pay federal income tax, but do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, and in turn recieve SS and Medicare.
Quote from: The Larch on July 17, 2012, 07:47:54 AM
You did not mention the key words. -2 points. You can do better.
:huh: Sorry, what were the "key words?" I made the general observation, with specific examples to illustrate it. That's far better than what you have done so far, but I know you can do better. Create a thesis, and then illustrate with examples. Go ahead and try it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2012, 08:49:52 AM
PRs are US citizens, but people residing in PR cannot vote for president. I guess that means if I moved down there I couldn't either.
I wonder if you can get around that if you still have property elsewhere and claim that as your primary residence.
I also wikied Guam, and it seems they have an even more ossum deal.
The IRS collects federal income tax on everyone residing in Guam, but then turns it all over to the Guamanian government. That includes taxes on all US military personnel residing in Guam.
Quote from: The Larch on July 17, 2012, 08:27:36 AM
So, when are you giving them independence? What's taking you so long? :P
They don't want it :mellow:
I say either become a state or GTFO but they seem to like their current arrangement since it is better than being either an independent country or a full part of the US.
Which is sorta messed up actually :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 17, 2012, 08:24:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2012, 08:16:53 AM
Except he is. He's hand waving certain periods of history because that's a "phase" they went through. If we use this criteria any country can do anything, since it's just going through a "phase".
I think the language of 'phases' is unhelpful, as you say they're something you go through. They seem to me a bit like viewing history through a strict Marxist analysis or like a series of geological ages.
I think the role guilt and reflection play in how we read history is that it returns it to being about choices and self-deceits. So I think the German way of thinking about Nazism is going to be less what happened and why and more, how did people let this happen.
Tell Berkut, that. I'm not the one who came with this "phase" issue to assuage any guilt or to keep bright and shiny my nations history.
Guam and P.R. seem to be more like our Channel Islands, oddities still somewhat loosely tied to the sovereign state.
I'm not sure you can draw too much from their histories either way, within the wider debate about colonialism and empires.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2012, 08:30:31 AM
Couldn't say the same of any shit hole colony in Africa back in the day.
Are you sure about that?
Quote from: The Larch on July 17, 2012, 08:27:36 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2012, 08:09:48 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 17, 2012, 03:33:48 AM
So, if you want to debate the Spanish American war, why not shift the focus from the Philippines and look at Puerto Rico and Guam? not every territory that changed hands in that war underwent the same political route.
Sure. Why not? :)
So, when are you giving them independence? What's taking you so long? :P
They don't want it. Sure, some of them do, but Puerto Rico has voted multiple times on the options of complete independence, applying for full statehood, or continuing their current status, and keeping the current status has consistantly won.
Can you imagine a nation full of Lusti's and Timmay's? :o
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 16, 2012, 05:54:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 16, 2012, 04:35:38 AM
:lol:
I love this subject, you Americans get so defensive on what is crystal clear: the wars with Mexico, and later Spain were blatant imperialist conquests.
I can't defend much of the Mexican War, other than it was right in its righteousness, and the Spanish-American War was a response to international terrorism.
Both of those wars are only partly defensible; Mexican War re: the Texans, and Spanish-American War re: the Phillipines.
And without it - we wouldn't have California, so hello obviously a good decision.
Yeah but we got Texas and Arizona in the deal... <_<
Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2012, 08:48:06 PM
Yeah but we got Texas and Arizona in the deal... <_<
You win some, you lose some. Besides, Arizona wasn't so bad until it began its whole look at me! phase.
Fair point.
Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2012, 08:48:06 PM
Yeah but we got Texas and Arizona in the deal... <_<
If we hadn't gotten Texas, they'd be independant. And who'd want a nation like that on their border?
Quote from: dps on July 17, 2012, 08:52:01 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2012, 08:48:06 PM
Yeah but we got Texas and Arizona in the deal... <_<
If we hadn't gotten Texas, they'd be independant. And who'd want a nation like that on their border?
We could have helped Mexico take it back.