A Veteran’s Letter to the President: "You suck."
lots and lots of fail
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,004
Likes: 1
From: Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeetroit
Originally Posted by Kestrel
There are only two wars offhand that I can think of, and both were wars of conquest: the Mexican American and the Spanish American wars. So, does that make Iraq a war of conquest?
Duff: I also believe we SHOULD pull out in a year. SHOULD pull out does not equal "we should have never gone there" or "we don't support the president" or "this war is BS". But thanks for bringing up another great example of the left wing media twisting around a poll to make it mean what they want it to mean.
I need sleep...
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
Look up the American invasion of Quebec in 1776.
Duff: I also believe we SHOULD pull out in a year. SHOULD pull out does not equal "we should have never gone there" or "we don't support the president" or "this war is BS". But thanks for bringing up another great example of the left wing media twisting around a poll to make it mean what they want it to mean.
Duff: I also believe we SHOULD pull out in a year. SHOULD pull out does not equal "we should have never gone there" or "we don't support the president" or "this war is BS". But thanks for bringing up another great example of the left wing media twisting around a poll to make it mean what they want it to mean.
David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland, said that while most service members were more conservative than society as a whole, it wasn't surprising to see them reflect attitudes similar to civilians, who increasingly oppose the war.
Those views aren't necessarily an indication that troops are losing faith in the war, Segal said.
"One could argue that troops are saying, `Hey, we've accomplished a great deal. It's time to get out,' which is what you hear a lot of people in Washington saying," he said.
Those views aren't necessarily an indication that troops are losing faith in the war, Segal said.
"One could argue that troops are saying, `Hey, we've accomplished a great deal. It's time to get out,' which is what you hear a lot of people in Washington saying," he said.
Push to shock!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 0
From: Palo Alto, CA
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
Look up the American invasion of Quebec in 1776.
That's like saying D-Day is a preemptive invasion
Pull my finger
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 41,423
Likes: 0
From: Arizona
Originally Posted by Kestrel
As part of the American Revolutionary War. The battle of Breed's Hill and the fight for Boston had been going on for over a year at that point.
That's like saying D-Day is a preemptive invasion
That's like saying D-Day is a preemptive invasion
i thought you were serious and i read it as "D-Day was a preemptive invasion"
lots and lots of fail
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,004
Likes: 1
From: Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeetroit
Originally Posted by Kestrel
As part of the American Revolutionary War. The battle of Breed's Hill and the fight for Boston had been going on for over a year at that point.
That's like saying D-Day is a preemptive invasion
That's like saying D-Day is a preemptive invasion
"The Battle of Quebec was an attempt on December 31, 1775 by American revolutionaries to capture the Canadian city of Quebec and enlist French-Canadian support for the Revolutionary War. Benedict Arnold and Richard Montgomery were the two primary American commanders in the assault, which failed. The battle was the climax of the American invasion of Canada, and put an end to any hopes of French Canada rising in rebellion with the Americans." From wikipedia.
Amazing how that's almost exactly parallel to what we did in Iraq...which was invade to motivate the entire middle east region to turn democratic.
Push to shock!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 0
From: Palo Alto, CA
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
You have no idea what you're talking about. Go do some research and stop spouting off. Going off what you're saying, I could say that 9/11 had happened 2 years before Iraq...but I'm not even going there.
"The Battle of Quebec was an attempt on December 31, 1775 by American revolutionaries to capture the Canadian city of Quebec and enlist French-Canadian support for the Revolutionary War. Benedict Arnold and Richard Montgomery were the two primary American commanders in the assault, which failed. The battle was the climax of the American invasion of Canada, and put an end to any hopes of French Canada rising in rebellion with the Americans." From wikipedia.
Amazing how that's almost exactly parallel to what we did in Iraq...which was invade to motivate the entire middle east region to turn democratic.
"The Battle of Quebec was an attempt on December 31, 1775 by American revolutionaries to capture the Canadian city of Quebec and enlist French-Canadian support for the Revolutionary War. Benedict Arnold and Richard Montgomery were the two primary American commanders in the assault, which failed. The battle was the climax of the American invasion of Canada, and put an end to any hopes of French Canada rising in rebellion with the Americans." From wikipedia.
Amazing how that's almost exactly parallel to what we did in Iraq...which was invade to motivate the entire middle east region to turn democratic.
Battle of Lexington and Concord: April 19, 1775
Battle of Bunker Hill: June 17, 1775
Siege of Boston: April 1775 - March 1776
We were already at war when we invaded Canada
And don't play the idealism card, we weren't trying to bring democracy anywhere. We were trying to keep them from using Canada as a launch point for invasions into New England and to get additional troops via French Canadians. The reasons for the invasion of Canada are not as pure as you would like to think. And, Britain was already a democracy at the time (Parliament, anyone?). We were a colony with no voting rights, which, ironically, is the way the US does business with its territories as well (Puerto Rico, Washington DC, Guam, US Marshall Islands, anyone?).
Edit: And oh, just for the record, a lot of my officer friends are also dubious about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. They are currently there or in Afganistan. Doing one's job well != agreeing with the reasons for having to do the job.
Last edited by Kestrel; Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38 AM.
lots and lots of fail
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,004
Likes: 1
From: Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeetroit
Originally Posted by Kestrel
There is absolutely no parallel. Before the Battle of Quebec:
Battle of Lexington and Concord: April 19, 1775
Battle of Bunker Hill: June 17, 1775
Siege of Boston: April 1775 - March 1776
We were already at war when we invaded Canada
And don't play the idealism card, we weren't trying to bring democracy anywhere. We were trying to keep them from using Canada as a launch point for invasions into New England and to get additional troops via French Canadians. The reasons for the invasion of Canada are not as pure as you would like to think. And, Britain was already a democracy at the time (Parliament, anyone?). We were a colony with no voting rights, which, ironically, is the way the US does business with its territories as well (Puerto Rico, Washington DC, Guam, US Marshall Islands, anyone?).
Edit: And oh, just for the record, a lot of my officer friends are also dubious about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. They are currently there or in Afganistan. I am dubious about the reasons for going to war, but plan on joining in the Navy after graduate school. Doing one's job well != agreeing with the reasons for having to do the job.
Battle of Lexington and Concord: April 19, 1775
Battle of Bunker Hill: June 17, 1775
Siege of Boston: April 1775 - March 1776
We were already at war when we invaded Canada
And don't play the idealism card, we weren't trying to bring democracy anywhere. We were trying to keep them from using Canada as a launch point for invasions into New England and to get additional troops via French Canadians. The reasons for the invasion of Canada are not as pure as you would like to think. And, Britain was already a democracy at the time (Parliament, anyone?). We were a colony with no voting rights, which, ironically, is the way the US does business with its territories as well (Puerto Rico, Washington DC, Guam, US Marshall Islands, anyone?).
Edit: And oh, just for the record, a lot of my officer friends are also dubious about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. They are currently there or in Afganistan. I am dubious about the reasons for going to war, but plan on joining in the Navy after graduate school. Doing one's job well != agreeing with the reasons for having to do the job.
I wasn't saying we invaded Canada for the same reasons we invaded Iraq, perhaps the phrase about it being parallel got to you.
I simply mean that both the Iraqi and Canadian invasions were done:
- After a major war operation had begun
- To hurt the enemy by hurting a sanctuary of theirs
- To prevent future attacks from that country
The attack on a British fort in Canada can be seen in the same way as I view our attack in Iraq as an attack on a Terrorist fort in the Middle East. Both were pre-emptive in my view. You said it yourself...we attacked Quebec before the British could attack us from there. We wanted to turn the Canadians against the British. Just like we wanted to get Iraq before they attacked us and we wanted to establish democracy in the middle east. End of story.
