Fucking Iran.

[Cless_Alvein]

@Infonick

The difference is that if America HAD LOST, America would have been in deep shit, but it didn’t. The war happened, but the oputcome was one of the better possibilities for the time. Also, considering how Britain was the most powerful country in the world, not losing is a pretty big accomplishment. Had America lsot the war, America would have lost its freedoms. Besides, America was still a fledgling country and couldn’t handle what Britain was doing do it at the time.

It wasn’t a victory, though. Had Britain been the aggressor in this war, I’d say it was a victory, but the USA started the war, and did not accomplish what it set out to do, which was get better trade settlements with England and France, so claiming that the USA won its freedom in this war is ridiculous. That is like saying that Napoleon invading Russia was a victory because he improved the reputation of the French army.

England wasn’t simply having a trade war with France, so that pint is invalid.

Yes, but the British had done things (such as impressment and attacks on ships) prior to the war.

Do you know why they were making raids on ships and conscripting British and sometimes American sailors? Ah yes, because there was a (trade) war with France.

I say it was a victory since we maintained our sovreignty and freedom. By this definition we lost WWI since we lost numerous lvies and just tipped the war in favor of France and Britain.

You don’t seem to understand that the point of the war of 1812 was <i>not</i> to guarantee the USA’s freedom. America helped win World War I because tipping the war slightly in favour of France and Britian was what they <i>set out to do</i>. There should be no delusion about the real objective of a war, and achieving it or not is the only factor. Cries about how it was a “victory” through making up stories about what would have happened if it had not been a stalemate does not change the fact that <i>it doesn’t matter, and that the objectives set out at the start of the war didn’t get accomplished.</i>

Ending a war is useless? That is pretty fucked up Cless.

Where are you getting this? I said the document was useless in resolving any of the conflicts that started the war. Do you know what the Treaty of Ghent contains?

I’m just saying that with Iraq we won’t gain anything unelss we do that, so it is loss by the logic you’ve been using.

The “real” (read:official) objective of Iraq was to secure its non-existent WMD caches, but that has been changed to getting democracy to the Middle-east. To be honest, I’m confused as to what constitutes as a victory in <i>this</i> war. shrug

[Herr_Rommel]

All I can say is that if that moron in office and his neo-con puppetmasters and cronies actually try and go after Iran…it spells doom for the U.S. military. Our numbers will be stretched so thin from Iraq to Iran to Afghanistan (how convenient they connect to each other [Iraq -> Iran -> Afghanistan]) it’ll be harsh on Marines and Army troops already in that area. It’s as if the government wants us to exhaust ourselves so that everyone will attack us and the born-again Christians like them will get what they wanted…the Apocalypse. (being very exaggerating)

[Infonick]

@Cless_Alvein

It wasn’t a victory, though. Had Britain been the aggressor in this war, I’d say it was a victory, but the USA started the war, and did not accomplish what it set out to do, which was get better trade settlements with England and France, so claiming that the USA won its freedom in this war is ridiculous. That is like saying that Napoleon invading Russia was a victory because he improved the reputation of the French army.

America couldn’t handle what was going on at the time or it would have been in trouble. If America had lost, America would have lost a shit load of things. America didn’t lose and maintained its status, so it is a victory in away. You are using too narrow of a measure. By the standards you have set, America hasn’t won many wars. I’m not sauying America won its freedom, I’m saying it kept it by not losing the war. As for the last line, that’s jsut stupid and doesn’t make any sense.

@Cless_Alvein

Do you know why they were making raids on ships and conscripting British and sometimes American sailors? Ah yes, because there was a (trade) war with France.

It doens’t change the fact that they were attacking us. In WW1, we went against Germany because they sank too many of our ships (most noteably the Lusatania). I guess we were the aggressor there too and at fault.

@Cless_Alvein

You don’t seem to understand that the point of the war of 1812 was <i>not</i> to guarantee the USA’s freedom. America helped win World War I because tipping the war slightly in favour of France and Britian was what they <i>set out to do</i>. There should be no delusion about the real objective of a war, and achieving it or not is the only factor. Cries about how it was a “victory” through making up stories about what would have happened if it had not been a stalemate does not change the fact that <i>it doesn’t matter, and that the objectives set out at the start of the war didn’t get accomplished.</i>

You are missing that the actions Britain was taking was hurting America and America couldn’t handle it at the time. America was a very new country and was not very stable. Besides, this isn’t the only time America has declared war for attacks… Britain attacked our ships, so we declared war. We declared war, but Britain was still an aggressor. You are acting like America is some evil country and Britain was completely innocent.

@Cless_Alvein

Where are you getting this? I said the document was useless in resolving any of the conflicts that started the war. Do you know what the Treaty of Ghent contains?

You said that the Treaty of Ghent was useless.

whereas in the war of 1812, that useless piece of paper, the Treaty of Ghent, was signed

@Cless_Alvein

The “real” (read:official) objective of Iraq was to secure its non-existent WMD caches, but that has been changed to getting democracy to the Middle-east. To be honest, I’m confused as to what constitutes as a victory in <i>this</i> war. shrug

A victory would be stabalizing the country so that we can pull out ands etting up a new government. You also ignore that one of the goals was to get Saddam out of power, which has been done. Thanks for proving my point about setting narrow victory standards.

Congratualtions, you missed every point I tried to make.

[OmegaflareX]

@Infonick

So you don’t think that forcing the most powerful military into a stalemate where they weren’t able to conquer is a victory? The War of 1812 is a victory for the same reason Vietnam is considered a loss. If America had lost the war, America wouldn’t be America. Also, America hadn’t been setup too long (a little over 20 years at its present state).

America was already a nation by then and I’m astonished you didn’t know that. It was America after we won the Revolutionary War. It was a fledgling nation that was harassed by Europe, but on paper it was still an official nation. Every major American offensive failed, and the Battle of New Orleans, where Andrew Jackson led the only victory against Great Britain, was after the Treaty of Ghent was signed. So it technically wasn’t even part of the war.

A stalemate, by the way, is anything but a victory. WWI was a stalemate for a long time, and I’d hardly call that a victory. A victory is actually defeating an enemy army, and New Orleans was the only time we routed a British army.

“Hades, if the White House burning is considered a defeat to you, America doesn’t exist period since we lost the Revloution then.”

Um, it was burned in the War of 1812.

[Cless_Alvein]

@Infonick

America couldn’t handle what was going on at the time or it would have been in trouble. If America had lost, America would have lost a shit load of things. America didn’t lose and maintained its status, so it is a victory in away. You are using too narrow of a measure. By the standards you have set, America hasn’t won many wars. I’m not sauying America won its freedom, I’m saying it kept it by not losing the war. As for the last line, that’s jsut stupid and doesn’t make any sense.

Explain how <i>not losing your freedom, when it was never threatened in the first place</i> makes it a “victory” and not a stalemate. American “won” in both world wars by my standards, so how many others wars can you think of that America “lost” by my standards and won by yours?

It doens’t change the fact that they were attacking us. In WW1, we went against Germany because they sank too many of our ships (most noteably the Lusatania). I guess we were the aggressor there too and at fault.

Certainly not, since Germany directed these hostile actions against America. Britain may have been wrong in taking American sailors, but keep in mind historical context: Britain still retained somewhat the view that America was a colony; sinking ships and mandatory service are quite different things. It does not justify Britain’s actions, but this is not what started the war.

You are missing that the actions Britain was taking was hurting America and America couldn’t handle it at the time. America was a very new country and was not very stable. Besides, this isn’t the only time America has declared war for attacks… Britain attacked our ships, so we declared war. We declared war, but Britain was still an aggressor. You are acting like America is some evil country and Britain was completely innocent.

I certainly did not. While the British had little reason to impress American sailors into British service, this was still not the main reason the war was started. The war was started because trade restrictions threatened to collapse the American economy. These actions were not directed at America. By your standards, if every country with a weak and dollar-dependent economy attacked the USA right now because the weak American dollar caused by the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iran was hurting the global economy, it would be justified, because these actions were hurting them and they couldn’t take it?

You said that the Treaty of Ghent was useless.

That’s right, it was indeed useless in resolving any of the things that started the conflict.

A victory would be stabalizing the country so that we can pull out ands etting up a new government. You also ignore that one of the goals was to get Saddam out of power, which has been done.

That made a major goal <i>after</i> everyone realized the initial one obviously didn’t make sense. I agree that at least that much had been accomplished, but the whole war was a lie in the first place, and considering America’s new reputation, I don’t know whether it was profitable on the whole or not.

[Infonick]

@OmegaflareX

America was already a nation by then and I’m astonished you didn’t know that. It was America after we won the Revolutionary War. It was a fledgling nation that was harassed by Europe, but on paper it was still an official nation. Every major American offensive failed, and the Battle of New Orleans, where Andrew Jackson led the only victory against Great Britain, was after the Treaty of Ghent was signed. So it technically wasn’t even part of the war.

Thank you for stating the obvious. I’ve said countless times that America was a country during the War of 1812. I even said that the reason America couldn’t lose the war was because it was a new country. I don’t know how in the world you got the idea that I said the War of 1812 made America a nation.

@OmegaflareX

A stalemate, by the way, is anything but a victory. WWI was a stalemate for a long time, and I’d hardly call that a victory. A victory is actually defeating an enemy army, and New Orleans was the only time we routed a British army.

The treaty may not have addressed some of the issues that started the war, but it ended it and did stop them. Both sides compromised and ended the war since neither was making advances. However, it confuirmed Americas indepedence which is very important and significant. Nothing was lost, but some was gained. Korea is more of a stalemate than the War of 1812. Korea is much mroe of a stalemate than WW1 or the War of 1812.Korea never ended and is still technically going on. Neither side can make advances so the cease fire was agreed upon, but the Korean War isn’t over. The War of 1812 ended like many wars did prior to it. America’s defeat would have let the British take over. The War of 1812 confirmed America’s independence and kept its status.

@OmegaflareX

“Hades, if the White House burning is considered a defeat to you, America doesn’t exist period since we lost the Revloution then.”

Um, it was burned in the War of 1812.

I know it was, read the rest of what I said. My point is that the British attacked and destroyed the area we disgnated for our government at the time, but we kept moving it and kept it functional. In the war of 1812, the White House was burned, but our government was still functional and there were other government buildings that stood. Also, I’m saying that if the White House burning means America lost, then Britain lost WW2 since its government buildings were bombed, but no one would say that Britain lost WW2, so America didn’t lose the War of 1812 as Hades implied.

Damn, you misread everything I said. You didn’t just misunderstand, you just misread and misinterpretted EVERYTHING.

Let’s get this back on the present and Iran.

[Infonick]

@Cless_Alvein

Explain how <i>not losing your freedom, when it was never threatened in the first place</i> makes it a “victory” and not a stalemate. American “won” in both world wars by my standards, so how many others wars can you think of that America “lost” by my standards and won by yours?

It was indanger since America was a new country and could not afford to lose.

@Cless_Alvein

Certainly not, since Germany directed these hostile actions against America. Britain may have been wrong in taking American sailors, but keep in mind historical context: Britain still retained somewhat the view that America was a colony; sinking ships and mandatory service are quite different things. It does not justify Britain’s actions, but this is not what started the war.

Germany didn’t direct the hostilities at America. Hell,w e there was even a time during the war that we were trading more with Germany than France or England. They had just been sinking too many of our ships without any care. After we tried to work with them on the issue, they still sunk many of our ships. Either way, even if Germany’s sinkings were directed at America, Britain did the same thing so it wasn’t really any different. Exactly, Britain did view America as a colony, so not beating them is SORT of a defeat to the British since they were the most powerful in the world. Britain’s view of America as a colony is part of why I say America couldn’t afford to lose and why its sovreignty was in jeopardy. America secured tis status as a country in the eyes of the world with this war, which is very significant and enough for me to consider it a victory.

@Cless_Alvein

I certainly did not. While the British had little reason to impress American sailors into British service, this was still not the main reason the war was started. The war was started because trade restrictions threatened to collapse the American economy. These actions were not directed at America. By your standards, if every country with a weak and dollar-dependent economy attacked the USA right now because the weak American dollar caused by the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iran was hurting the global economy, it would be justified, because these actions were hurting them and they couldn’t take it?

Like I said before, America was a young country and couldn’t handle an economic collapse. Also, the British did attack American ships.

@Cless_Alvein

That’s right, it was indeed useless in resolving any of the things that started the conflict.

That is completely different from what you said before. You said the treaty of Ghent was useless.

@Cless_Alvein

That made a major goal <i>after</i> everyone realized the initial one obviously didn’t make sense. I agree that at least that much had been accomplished, but the whole war was a lie in the first place, and considering America’s new reputation, I don’t know whether it was profitable on the whole or not.

I’m not saying Iraq was a smart thing to do or that the causes weren’t a lie. I’m just telling you what success and victory in Iraq would be. I don’t think that we should be in Iraq, but I think that we have to finish what we started there.

[Herr_Rommel]

Oh for the record one of the real significant reasons we went to war in WWI was the Zimmerman telegram where Germany tried to egg Mexico on to ally with them and fight the US. Finding this out…the US got pissed and declared war. The sinking of boats like the Lusitania did help, but the Zimmerman telegram was the real last straw.

[Cless_Alvein]

Yeah. I mean, if you want to consider that an official victory, go ahead… but I think it’s self-delusional to say that the war was won by the Americans (and consequently <i>lost</i> by the British).

[Infonick]

@Cless_Alvein

but I think it’s self-delusional to say that the war was won by the Americans (and consequently <i>lost</i> by the British).

Yeah, I’m not saying that.

[Cless_Alvein]

Well then.

Tea?

[Bakufan19]

Just to sum this up:

War of 1812

[Herr_Rommel]

Thank you. Glad to see someone else appreciates the use of Wikipedia, even to help resolve forum agruments if need be.

[Kaiser]

@Hades Shinigami

Wow, Americans are so deluded, that their definition of winning is having their whitehouse torched. That… really explains a few things.

Hush, Hades, grownups are talking.

[Hades_Vulvuhzela]

@KaiserVonAlmasy

Hush, Hades, grownups are talking.

Typical cop out. Now you’re trying to delude YOURSELF. How ironic.

sigh American pride is so fucking annoying. You have nothing to be proud about. You didn’t win the War of 1812, you blatantly lost it like the global bitches that you are. Quit PRETENDING you’re all high and mighty, the vast majority of your battles are losers. You didn’t achieve your objectives, therefor you failed. It’s not a hard concept.

God, I feel like pissing on a dozen american flags right now just because of your one overkillingly retarded comment and your even moreso unjustified patriotism. Maybe you’re the one who should hush up, boy, and take the unadultered truth like a man, since apparently you’re so grown-up and old and rugged and smart, right?

The Americans LOST, however marginal it may have been:

@Wikipedia

Many Canadians consider the War of 1812 to have been an American defeat. From their point of view, the American invasions of 1813 and 1814 were repulsed. Further supporting this point of view is that the British occupied some American territory at the end of the war; however, the Americans did not occupy any British territory. However, from the American point of view, the war was a successful defense of American rights, which they claimed culminated in the victory at New Orleans. Because New Orleans was successfully defended, American expansion into the Southwest was possible.

Defense of rights? What the fuck? Like I said, you’re just fucking deluded. Americans will come up with any excuse to convince themselves that they won something, no matter what. This is absurd.

America: Can we have you?
British Canadians: Well… no not really…

I don’t see how it could’ve been more of a loss for the Americans than it was. It’s just like, the pinnacle of failurosity. Even trying to argue it is senseless. It’s like running into a concrete wall, and then saying you defeated the wall on the basis that you won the right to run into it again.

[Sir_Percival]

For heaven’s sake, Hades: you complain about overweening pride, but perhaps you ought to practise what you yourself preach, declaring that you would pass water over a dozen American flags. You are hurting yourself with your own argument, and, rhetorically speaking, certainly not making an audience inclined to hear you out.

Anyhow, Iran…

[Eden99]

@Sir_Percival

For heaven’s sake, Hades: you complain about overweening pride, but perhaps you ought to practise what you yourself preach, declaring that you would pass water over a dozen American flags. You are hurting yourself with your own argument, and, rhetorically speaking, certainly not making an audience inclined to hear you out.

That may be completely true, but this,

@Hades Shinigam

It’s like running into a concrete wall, and then saying you defeated the wall on the basis that you won the right to run into it again.

was the first thing on the boards to make me laugh in months. I’m almost willing to say this whole thread was worth it just for that.

:kissy:

[Kaiser]

You know what irony is, Hades?

Irony is that you are the single greatest example of every trait that typifies the stererotype of the “ugly American”. Which is quite an accomplishment for somebody who isn’t American at all.

1. You pick fights for the sake of picking fights.

2. You’re not only narrow-minded, provincial, and ignorant, but you’re proud of being so.

3. Your hypocrisy is so blatant and over the top obvious that if it were anybody else I’d swear you were doing it deliberately as a satire, because nobody could possibly be that dense so as not to see the hilarious contridiction between their own words and deeds.

4. Your obstinate adherence to your own pre-conceived world view, regardless of how many times people on this forum prove it to be flawed and lacking. You’re like the people down here who continue to insist that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack in spite of three years worth of evidence and plain common sense proving beyond a shadow of all sane doubt that there is no connection.

5. You pop off with insulting and downright spiteful ad hominem attacks that aren’t even applicable [see: your charges just now against me; ANYBODY with 1/10th of a brain who’s read any of my posts over the last three years is, depending on their personality type, either laughing, fuming, or crying over how ridiculously off-base your assessment of me is] yet you use them anyway I guess because you think they sound cool or discrediting or something. The problem is, they aren’t cool, the only one discredited by them is you (assuming, of course, you have any crediblity left to lose, which is probably a flawed assumption on my part), and they succeed only in acting as flamebait and inspiring “God, this forum is going downhill, it used to be so much better” threads from old-guard posters down the line. Two things we do not need.

6. Read your posts in this thread. Then read Cless Alvein’s. See the difference? One poster is a emotionally blinded, jingoistic asshole looking for a chance to put his country over, the other is making a rational, intelligent counter-argument to the assessment of the war of 1812 as an American Victory. Guess who’s who?

7. This isn’t about the war of 1812. This isn’t about a Canada vs United States thing. This is about you being a troll, probably the worst I’ve had the misfortune to encounter in the 3 years I’ve been coming to this place.

NOW…

Hopefully this thread will get back on topic, because so far I’ve found the contributions from the adults to be very interesting.

[Cala]

Psst Kaiser, it’s “an emotionally…” >.>

As for Iran, I’ve stated my views. They want the US to attack for whatever reason.

[Big_Dizzy]

I think Info summed up most of what else I actually wanted to contribute to this conversation. This is not just any war, but this is a war that stretches our military so thin that Bush will finally get to completely rape our constitutional rights and force us into a military draft for the sake of pre-emptive strikes which illustrates that soldier morale and human life matters not to neo-cons. What matters is the top one percent and all that oil. That’s the GOP way. Also, I voted for Kerry(despite the fact that I voted for Dean in the primary). Bush should have never had the first four years in which he pissed the economy straight into the metaphorical toilet. He lied and cheated to steal the election in the first place. Though this one was won fairly, it still doesn’t change the fact. And in 2000, I was unable to vote because election day was 2 fucking weeks before my 18th B-day. I would have, however, voted for Gore.