Thread: Sad, sad sign of the times...

"How would British citizens have reacted when the concept of never letting the sun set on the British Empire was the philosophy of the day? I just can't imagine people not caring about the Union Jack being disgraced in some way during this period. I'm just curious."

I would think that during those time the average British Citizen wouldn't of had an opinion - it would have been the preseve of the ruling 1%.

In terms of modern conflicts - I would regard it as odd if the average subject held the military responsible for the wars that are being fought.

Soldiers simply follow their leaders. Protest where it exists tends to be political.

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

Maybe the British members here can give their perspective on why the Brits lost that war?

We were having problems with other countries of course (the French for example) but I think mainly the reason we lost was that the expense of fighting a significant war so far away greatly exceeded any apparent value to be gained from the disputed territory. Remember that back then the US was basically a rural economy. Nobody was prepared to commit the resources necessary.

Originally Posted by trewornan

We were having problems with other countries of course (the French for example) but I think mainly the reason we lost was that the expense of fighting a significant war so far away greatly exceeded any apparent value to be gained from the disputed territory. Remember that back then the US was basically a rural economy. Nobody was prepared to commit the resources necessary.

More than two hundred years and you guys still can't admit you got your arses kicked by a ragtag band of scalawags!

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Actually it is a rather abstract concept, a myth that has been perpetuated by the media. Or it could be chalked up to a translation error. In the q'uran aggressive war and compulsory conversion are not allowed. It's tough to define the true meaning of jihad, it's more of an inner strength or a dedication to improving oneself in the face of adversity.

It would be nice if you could spread this around to the radical Muslims. I don't think they got the memo . I've also heard different on this but ....

Justin

Originally Posted by Bruno

Nono absolutely not.
I just used wanted to make clear that ANY religion that aquires political power goes evil.

Currently, there is a big problem with extremist Islam, but the same problem existed with Christianity.
Eventually the Christians lost political power and the problems gradually went away.

I hope the same happens with Islam.
I wanted to underline that the solution does not have to include extermination / nukings / war of the offending parties.

Perhaps I could have explained it a bit more extensive the first time around.
My bad.

No religion should have temporal power. Any religion which exhorts its followers to kill in the name of God no longer has any credibility....(as if God needs human help to take out someone who has ticked Him off). You never see the leaders calling for the massacres doing any of the dirty work - be they Christian, Muslim, whatever....identify who is calling for the violence and you have identified who is profiting in some form - power, revenge, greed, vanity, ego.....

All religions have fanatics, because religions are practiced by humans and insanity is not restricted to one particular community. Christian violence is not just a thing of the past....ask one of the dead abortion clinic doctors...and then make a note of the reasons the pro-lifers did it: "It is God's will!, etc. etc."

Religions are like people: yes, you are unique and special.....just like everyone else.

Originally Posted by JMS

More than two hundred years and you guys still can't admit you got your arses kicked by a ragtag band of scalawags!

Hmmm....I don't know if I would call the American Revolution an ass-kicking.....we won through excellent leadership, unconventional warfare, and several strategic and tactical errors on the part of Cornwallis and his cohorts.....oh, and lots of French weapons and supplies, one French General (La Fayette), one Polish General (Pulaski), and one Prussian General (von Steuben...."No, your other left dammit!...Stay in line...no, right is that way...aaarrgghh!"- the US Army Drill Manual is still pretty much the same as von Steuben wrote it in the 1770's)...and it was still hanging by a thread for quite awhile....hardly a juggernaut.

American gratitude to France was even expressed by General Pershing in WWI when he arrived, saying "La Fayette, nous voila!" (La Fayette, we are here) and by the Congress who granted all direct descendants of La Fayette automatic US citizenship.

Originally Posted by WireBeard

Hmmm....I don't know if I would call the American Revolution an ass-kicking.....we won through excellent leadership, unconventional warfare, and several strategic and tactical errors on the part of Cornwallis and his cohorts.....oh, and lots of French weapons and supplies, one French General (La Fayette), one Polish General (Pulaski), and one Prussian General (von Steuben...."No, your other left dammit!...Stay in line...no, right is that way...aaarrgghh!"- the US Army Drill Manual is still pretty much the same as von Steuben wrote it in the 1770's)...and it was still hanging by a thread for quite awhile....hardly a juggernaut.

American gratitude to France was even expressed by General Pershing in WWI when he arrived, saying "La Fayette, nous voila!" (La Fayette, we are here) and by the Congress who granted all direct descendants of La Fayette automatic US citizenship.

Cmon Wirebeard, I was ribbing the redcoats...Wet blanket!

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

It would be nice if you could spread this around to the radical Muslims. I don't think they got the memo . I've also heard different on this but ....

Justin

Too true, if only they spent more time on the muslim part than the radical part things would be a lot easier.

Fighting a group of determined fighters, that has even a small degree of support from the local population, is a waste of time and effort. Using today's technology. The rougher the terrain, the easier the guerrilla's job is. All the locals need to do is be resolute and use good snipers, booby-traps, and ambushes.

It's a proven recipe for success. The Revolutionary War, Viet Nam, Cuba, Afghanistan, Croatia, etc.... the list is endless.

Of course, when technology allows implanting chips in everyone and satellite tracking them, even this will change. The satellites do this now, we only need slight improvements in the implants. I'd say 5 years maximum, it is in full development now. (Speaking strictly as an Electronic Engineer) And yes, the method is exactly the same as the way they can track your car now. Google "OnStar" and "vehicle tracking".

Guerrilla warfare will soon be a whole lot tougher to do successfully...The only real problem (a small one) is getting a population to "allow" implantation. Wouldn't you like the security of always knowing that you could be found in an "emergency", at any time, anywhere in the world, 24/7? Can't you see the advantages of computer tracking every Iraqi citizen's location to within 0.5 meter of resolution (or better)? Man, woman, and child?

Once the chips are in full swing, "insurgents" will have to go high-tech too. I'll bet the penalties for removing chips will be extremely severe. It'll all be for your own safety. Your government can be trusted not to abuse such devices.

Originally Posted by JMS

That is as I understand it!

Oh, and Bruno, we are not losing the war in Iraq!

Really? How long has it been since we saw the "Mission Accomplished" banner?

Did you know the so-called War on Terror has now been going on longer than World War II (The presence of troops in Iraq has been just under 6 years....) with only 2 countries occupied....hardly a glowing example of military success (because the politicians have ignored the military leadership's recommendations)

On a slightly related note, I noticed a member here lambasted Clinton and Feinstein for decrying the war...(neither of them really thrill me as leaders, BTW), but failed to mention all the Republicans who are against the war (Kissinger, Brownback, Warner, Murkowski, Hegel, Coleman, Smith, Voinovich, Collins, Specter, Graham, Sununu, Baily-Hutchison, Snowe). Hillary-bashing is getting old...mainly due to the fact that she is just like most other politicians.

I like the quote from Kissinger: “90% of all politicians give the other 10% a bad name”