Absolutes

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
[QB]
I see you are a history student. But you flunked out.

Erm, I'm a 46 years old math msc ... how come you've concluded what you've just concluded? You've definitely 'seen' wrong.
kind regards

[Paul Stevens]

Jos Horsmeier
ps. Have anyone of you ever realized that the USA never fought a war on its own territory?

This ring a bell. That is why he said you flunk history. Memory seems to be another problem.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
Erm, I'm a 46 years old math msc ... how come you've concluded what you've just concluded? You've definitely 'seen' wrong.

That doesn't seem to conect with what you wrote earlier on page 3 of the "no war" thread:
FYI I'm a pacifist, I refused to be drafted when I was 18 years old back in '63
Do the Dutch draft 7 year olds? Or do you just like to make stuff up? Does the word "troll" mean anything to you?

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
Have anyone of you ever realized that the USA never fought a war on its own territory?

While we're all enjoying Jos' particular fusion of smug superiority and flawed grasp of US history, here's another brain-teaser. Name all the countries you can think of that lost more than 500 lives in a single attack without benefit of an open declaration of war. Let's cut it to, say, the last 75 years.
[ February 19, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Jim Yingst]

[Jos]: Are you talking on behalf of all Americans or are you just proclaiming your own opinion here?
A bit of both. I recognize that some Americans will agree with you despite (or because of) the derogatory tone you are using for all America. But I seriously think you are needlessly pissing off many who could be your allies, or at least partly in agreement, when you make statements like "no civilization is present on your side of the pond".
I know, it's hard to read criticism targeted against something one feels affiliated with, but it's the fundamental right of the 'criticizer' to utter these criticisms. If 'all Americans' can't stand it, too bad for them; they're not the the 'absolute' truth or whachamacallit.
Well, in this forum there isn't a "fundamental right to criticize" if it conflicts too much with our goal of "a friendly place for Java greenhorns". Many of us like to be able to allow interesting discussions of politics etc. in Meaningless Drivel - but we've also seen them get really ugly in the past, and want to minimize that. At times in the past we've had the policy of simply closing any discussion that turned to war/terrorism/etc, because discussions had grown so heated that we saw no other way to keep the Ranch as a whole a friendly place. I'd prefer not to return to such a policy, but it may be necessary if tempers continue to rise (spurred on by events in the outside world of course).
I recognize that you, Jos, are far from the only offender here (on either side of this discussion) - you just happen to be the prime example who's posting immediately after my previous warning. (And there are probably others posting angry responses to you while I write this. :roll: ) As a matter of policy we don't want to stifle discussion just because it presents opposing viewpoints - in fact, for many of us a big part of the appeal of these discussions is learning about alternate views. But we do want to promote friendly discussion. We're all victims of various inbuilt biases to some extent, and most of the bartenders here are Americans, so you will probably perceive a pro-American bias in many of our decisions about what seems "unfriendly" and what isn't. We try to avoid that, but it happens. If you see things that you find intolerably "unfriendly" that we haven't closed off, let us know and we may be able to do something about it. "Something" will usually take the form of just closing any thread that is pissing people off, because it's a real pain to sort through each thread to determine who was in the right and who wasn't. And in the past it's seemed that if we just close controversial threads completely, it seems to encourage the participants to be a bit more self-policing the next time around. We haven't had this issue for a while, so maybe we need some thread closures as a reminder.

[Mapraputa Is]

I never realized that the invective that "the USA never fought a war on its own territory" can be so insulting...
But I am afraid European people can simply have different understanding of what war is.
Michael, if I am not mistaken, Hitler invaded the USSR June 22, 1941 without any declaration.
[ February 19, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
But I am afraid European people can simply have different understanding of what war is.

OK, pray tell what do Europeans think war is? I haven't a clue how you could define "war" such that America has never had one fought on its soil. Please enlighten me!

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Michael, if I am not mistaken, Hitler invaded the USSR June 22, 1941 without any declaration.

And Norway, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, and Greece too. The Japanese attacked Britian, US, and French territory without a declaration of war. The North Koreans attacked the US. The Chinese attacked the US in Korea but we were warned even if there was no formal declaration.
As to which lost 500 lives, I think you can knock Luxembourg and Denmark off the list. And possibly the French off the Japanese list as I think they simply surrendered in French Indochina.

[Jim Yingst]

I never realized that the invective that "the USA never fought a war on its own territory" can be so insulting...
Well, it does seem so ridiculous on the surface, as to virtually invite mockery. Let's try to be nice though.
Was there ever a formal declaration of war during the Civil War? I don't remember; the fact that I'm not turning one up in a brief web search suggests there wasn't. If not though - so what? Surely any common-sense definition of war must include the US Civil War, declared or not. Excluding it on this basis would be mere sophistry - a pastime many of us enjoy indulging in, but not particlarly meaningful, I think. And I'm sure Jos would be relieved to know the US hasn't fought any wars in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, or Afghanistan either. Not declared as such anyway. (Unless I'm mistaken on one of these - but I'm pretty confident in the general point.)
Similarly it's possible one might exclude the Revolutionary War for lack of declaration as an official "war" (was there one? I'd have thought declaring independence would cover it sufficiently) or perhaps by creatively defining "USA" or "its own territory". :roll: And I'd be curious to see what sophistries might be invoked to explain, say, the events of 1812-1815. Probably others as well - but the examples listed so far seem enough for now.
[ February 19, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Tom begged: OK, pray tell what do Europeans think war is?
Occupation, subjugation, extermination.
In short, a war is a war when there are chances to lose it! Otherwise there are a lot of other words for it in the dictionary.

[Mapraputa Is]

Jim wrote: And I'm sure Jos would be relieved to know the US hasn't fought any wars in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, or Afghanistan either. Not declared as such anyway. (Unless I'm mistaken on one of these - but I'm pretty confident in the general point.)
"Congress did not consider, under any circumstances, whether to "declare war" on Iraq. It has declared war only five times in US history — 1812 against Great Britain, 1846 against Mexico, 1898 against Spain, and then the two World Wars in 1917 and 1941."
http://www.pugwash.org/reports/rc/como_rhinelander.htm
You migh also find this interesting:
Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798 - 1993
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm
"This report lists 234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes..."
[ February 19, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

That doesn't seem to conect with what you wrote earlier on page 3 of the "no war" thread:
FYI I'm a pacifist, I refused to be drafted when I was 18 years old back in '63
Do the Dutch draft 7 year olds? Or do you just like to make stuff up? Does the word "troll" mean anything to you?

Hrmpf ... I have to apologize here; '63' is a typo (silly me, I haven't seen it before). I meant to type '73'. FYI: I'm not making things up and I'm not trolling.
Just in case you're jumping to the wrong conclusions again.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
FYI: I'm not making things up and I'm not trolling.

You made up the part about there never being a war fought in the territory of the USA.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Tom begged: OK, pray tell what do Europeans think war is?
Occupation, subjugation, extermination.
In short, a war is a war when there are chances to lose it! Otherwise there are a lot of other words for it in the dictionary.

During the revolution just about every major American city was occupied at one time or another. In the War of 1812 our capital city was burned to the ground. The Civil War certainly involved occupation and subjugation.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by extermination. If a country was exterminated then it wouldn't be around anymore, would it? Hey, that sounds like the Confederate States of America!!!

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You made up the part about there never being a war fought in the territory of the USA.

Ok, I realize that you folks like catching flies: I rephrase my previous question: where you ever invaded by other nations (this excludes that civil war) so you had to fight a war on your own territory? Compare this with the number of times the USA fought wars (formally declared or not, whether instigated by the USA or not) on other peoples' grounds.
BTW, exterminating the Indian people on American ground doesn't count here.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
Ok, I realize that you folks like catching flies: I rephrase my previous question: where you ever invaded by other nations (this excludes that civil war) so you had to fight a war on your own territory?

Yeah, the War of 1812 quickly comes to mind.

BTW, exterminating the Indian people on American ground doesn't count here.

You certainly seem to have a comic book view of US history.

[Mapraputa Is]

May I ask a question?
From your reaction, I understand that you never heard that "the USA never fought a war on its own territory"? I am asking, because this is a popular opinion in Russia (variant: last 200 years, something like this), I heard it many times. I did not know about Europe, but European history isn't too much different, so no wonder.
That's why I said that perhaps there are different understanding of the word "war".
My was close to what Jos presented, a mortal threat to the state independence because of some foreign state invasion. So Civil war is ruled out, and 9/11 too. But from mass reaction of amusement I conclude that Jos was right and you did not realize it.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Do the Dutch draft 7 year olds? Or do you just like to make stuff up? Does the word "troll" mean anything to you?

I am glad we sorted this out. I was afraid we will have two John Dunns - and how we would distinguish them, ah?
Regarding Indians extermination - it was already discussed five pages ago!
We are going in circles!

[Jim Yingst]

That's why I said that perhaps there are different understanding of the word "war".
Well how about we agree to use English here then, hmmm? This sounds like a weak attempt to justify a popular myth you were taught. If some Europeans and Russians want to redefine "war" in such a way as to exclude any US experiences, fine, but don't be surprised when such a made-up definition is ignored here. There's a valid point to be made along the lines of "most people in the US haven't experienced an invasion or prolonged assault on their homeland comparable to what people in many other countries have experienced" - but if this point was lost due to extremely sloppy wording, it's hardly the fault of the US posters here. And these games of who's-suffered-worst are really tiresome, as people conveniently define the particular type of tragedy they're talking about to either include or exclude a particular war or incident. And yes I'm including the standard pro-US response about how no one else has experienced the particular horror of the 9/11 disasters. Acting as if people in another country are unqualified to even comment on a situation because they haven't experienced the same particular type of disaster, is getting old. Not that everyone involved in these discussions is acting this way, but it's enough of a recurring subtext on both sides that I thought it worth mentioning. Let's move along, please.

[John Dunn]

I am glad we sorted this out. I was afraid we will have two John Dunns - and how we would distinguish them, ah?

only one, is done...
hey man! I'm not lying, I'm a stand-up guy.
Map Is: Didn't anyone at the Ranch ever send you my credentials??
I'll send them AGAIN...
p.s. didn't this vindicate me???
vindication by Pradep Chopra!!!

[Jim Yingst]

Map Is: Didn't anyone at the Ranch ever send you my credentials??
Oops - that might've been my fault. I (in my persona as [email protected]) received an e-mail from you (I guess) which was about some sort of "credentials" - I had no idea what the whole thing was about, but then I saw a comment from Map that made me think that she had also already received a copy, and knew what it was about - so I deleted mine. Sorry if I misunderstood what was going on. If you want to send again, send to [email protected], not [email protected], because I still don't know what was supposed to be authenticated.
[ February 19, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
Ok, I realize that you folks like catching flies: I rephrase my previous question: where you ever invaded by other nations (this excludes that civil war) so you had to fight a war on your own territory?

Read and learn:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0815411391/ref=jranch-20
The last invasion of one of the continental US states by a foreign power occurred on September 11, 1814. (A bit of trivia there.) New Orleans was attacked by the British at the end of the war but Louisiana wasn't a state at the time.
Of course, most of the Revolutionary War was fought in the US but I guess that doesn't count for some reason.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
But from mass reaction of amusement I conclude that Jos was right and you did not realize it.

Right about what? He hasn't been right about anything yet, not even what year he dodged the draft!

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
only one, is done...
hey man! I'm not lying, I'm a stand-up guy.

I did not imply you are lying. By this moment you proved it with all your hard work in "Meaningless Drivel" It was intended as anti-Thomas Paul comment, whose accusation to Jos' address did not have enough ground. I mean, the first thing that comes to mind is a typo - and when we check, 10-year shift in time can yield a perfectly military eligible Dutch. Now we only need to decide, did Jos make a typo in his age or in a date. It is more likely than one noticed a typo in his age, so I figured Jos posted his age correctly, an only made a typo in a date. Why call him troll? So he would change his name to "John Dunn" also? :roll:
"Credentials" - I did not get them. How many did you send? Well, we found at least one person to blame...

[John Dunn]

If we really need to free up 'John Dunn', I can always switch to Ivan 'Ilych' Dunn.

[Mapraputa Is]

Well how about we agree to use English here then, hmmm?
It's not that simple. We can use the same language and mean different things. One example, unrelated to this topic for not to provoke too emotional reaction... I already complained that I did not realize that the word "racist" here in USA is much more offensive than it was in my country. It all is based on different historical experience. For one thing, "racial" (as opposed to "national") problems weren't that deep, for another, officially there was no "racism" so there were no need to use this word to designate anything within reachable reality. "Racist" would cause an image of some nasty bloody guys lynching black people somewhere on the opposite side of the globe. If somebody called me a racist, I would find think it's a weird epithet and would be puzzled what it means and what "the offender" wanted to say.
Similarly, I noticed that the word "fascist" sometimes is used here in "light" manner, while in Russia it would probably mean a very bad offense.
This sounds like a weak attempt to justify a popular myth you were taught.
No. It's more about a national image of "war". For many years after WWII it was still often on TV, in movies, books etc. It was "the war". "Afghan war", for example, wasn't called "war" until very late, I think, until "perestroyka" and I have some suspicions where this idea came from. What was going on there, did not fit the national idea of what "real war" is about.
If some Europeans and Russians want to redefine "war" in such a way as to exclude any US experiences, fine, but don't be surprised when such a made-up definition is ignored here.
You confuse reasons and consequences. It's not that we want to "redefine" the term, it's that our "term" is defined differently - because of different history. Jos' statement is simply a tautology. When says "war" he probably (this means that I would ) means "waste sufferings nationwide" and "some invasion that would threat your own existence". So when you bring up 1812 war -- there was a "Patriotic war" (as opposed to "Great Patriotic War", aka WWII in Soviet eyes) in 1912-14 when Napoleon invaded Russia and even occupied Moscow - I do not think this war had any significant effect on society in XX century or nowadays.
If we used the term "war" in, say, diplomatic context, then I believe we would have one shared definition and understanding of what "war" is. In everyday usage, the definition isn't strict or in any way "correct". Do you expect to say "WWII" and an American, a German and a Russian to have the same set of associations? Never happens.
And these games of who's-suffered-worst are really tiresome, as people conveniently define the particular type of tragedy they're talking about to either include or exclude a particular war or incident.
I do not see it this way. I see it as an attempt to explain that because of different historical or whatever experience, people can have different vision of the same thing. In particular, why European people are far less excited when they hear the word "war". In my own mental space the closest substitute is "death" - because of set of associations I have... Destroyed buildings and whole cities, crowds of hungry people, dead bodies all around... So when the USA proclaims it goes to war, it's hard for me to see anything to be proud of. I am not trying to offend or denigrate anybody, just to offer an excursion into background pictures...
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[John Dunn]

Mapraputa Is: I do not see it this way. I see it as an attempt to explain that because of different historical or whatever experience, people can have different vision of the same thing. In particular, why European people are far less excited when they hear the word "war". In my own mental space the closest substitute is "death" - because of set of associations I have... Destroyed buildings and whole cities, crowds of hungry people, dead bodies all around... So when the USA proclaims it goes to war, it's hard for me to see anything to be proud of. I am not trying to offend or denigrate anybody, just to offer an excursion into background pictures...
This is an interesting comment. I probably have always associated war with liberation/freedom - the 'ends' rather than the 'means'. For example: Revolutionary War, Civil War, Spanish War, Panamanian Independence(1903), WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam (albeit a failed attempt), Bosnia
Okay, so maybe I can see where some Europeans may be coming from, but are we - the West - being manipulated by a wily leader, in Saddam?? We tried appeasement in the past (i.e. Nazi Germany), and it has failed?? We did not try to annihilate Saddam in '91, how do we know we won't fail again if we play along with him? Can we really take that risk??
I don't think we can lose site of the forest for the trees...
We obviously need to deal with North Korea at some point as they have blatantly defied any peaceful deal Clinton and Carter made with them and they are desparate and bankrupt. Do we want to deal with a nuclearized North Korea & Iraq?? Can we?? What about Iran, they were responsible for the bombing of our embassasy in Beirut. They have definitely sponsered terrorism in the past. The Syrians are just as bad. And then of course we have Osama, who is not as easy to get.
From Bush's standpoint, should he just sit back and wait for the next Al Qaida attack?? What would a responsible President of the US do??? Assume we decide that war is not the answer, then should we do NOTHING as an alternative??? We already tried that with Clinton. It didn't seem to work to well. What I seem to hear is a lot of criticism but no effective alternative.

[Mapraputa Is]

Thread convergence alert!
This belongs to "no war"!
I am proceeding with my "Absolutes" business...

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
An interesting page on Soviet mass murder from 1917-1987:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

Until 1987... How many did they kill in 1987? Never mind...
This is an interesting page indeed.
This pic is particularly interesting:
Annual Risk of a Soviet Citizen being Murdered by His Own Government in Comparison to Some Other Risks
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.FIG1.6.GIF
I guess, it was just a miracle that I somehow escaped a horrible destiny - to be murdered by My Own Government... What worse, that people around me also somehow survived - must be sheer lack too...
Tom, let's make a deal.
To avoid this kind of statistics in the future, I propose to agree on:
1) the final and ultimate goal of communist governments is to finally kill all its people;
2) by the year 1988 the USSR fully fulfilled this mission;
3) since all citizens of the USSR were successfully Murdered By Their Own Government, the Communist Party had no other choice but to switch to democracy
You have my signature under this verdict.
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Thomas Paul]

Which type of argument was that, Map? I'm sure you can find it in your list?

[John Smith]

Mapraputa Is wrote:

1) the final and ultimate goal of communist governments is to finally kill all its people;
2) by the year 1988 the USSR fully fulfilled this mission;
3) since all citizens of the USSR were successfully Murdered By Their Own Government, the Communist Party had no other choice but to switch to democracy

Map, I think you finally exhausted your common sense in this long thread.
Eugene.
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Paul Stevens]

A great philosopher once said, "It is important to remember that the French have always been there when they needed us."

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
A great philosopher once said, "It is important to remember that the French have always been there when they needed us."

If it hadn't been for the French and Germans we would never have had to fight WWII and we wouldn't have become the great SuperPower(tm) that we are. So all of you who hate the US, go throw rocks at the French.
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[shay Aluko]

A good example of absolutes is the current Administration: "you are either with us or against us", you either support our war or you support sadddam", "if you don't support the war you are unpatriotic",etc etc the leadership tends to reduce all argumente into black and white, they seem to assume the American people and indeed the world is not sophisticated or intelligent enough to understand that there are nuances in every situation. Its not suprising anyway, since such simplistic views of the world come from the very top of the administration and everyone in the administration is forced to "toe the line" and not be too smart.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

If it hadn't been for the French and Germans we would never have had to fight WWII and we wouldn't have become the great SuperPower(tm) that we are. So all of you who hate the US, go throw rocks at the French.

Plus don't forget we owe them a little bit for the Revolution. Remember they loaned the colonies ships and guns, and put the British on the run, and the Continental Army on its feet again.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
A good example of absolutes is the current Administration: "you are either with us or against us", you either support our war or you support sadddam", "if you don't support the war you are unpatriotic",etc etc the leadership tends to reduce all argumente into black and white, they seem to assume the American people and indeed the world is not sophisticated or intelligent enough to understand that there are nuances in every situation. Its not suprising anyway, since such simplistic views of the world come from the very top of the administration and everyone in the administration is forced to "toe the line" and not be too smart.

You haven't read this thread from the beginning, have you? When we were talking about absolutes we are talking about the existance of moral absolutes, not absolute statements.
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
You confuse reasons and consequences. It's not that we want to "redefine" the term, it's that our "term" is defined differently - because of different history. Jos' statement is simply a tautology. When says "war" he probably (this means that I would ) means "waste sufferings nationwide" and "some invasion that would threat your own existence". So when you bring up 1812 war -- there was a "Patriotic war" (as opposed to "Great Patriotic War", aka WWII in Soviet eyes) in 1912-14 when Napoleon invaded Russia and even occupied Moscow - I do not think this war had any significant effect on society in XX century or nowadays.

I think the War of 1812 (and the American Revolution) both meet Jos' tautology if that is what he meant. In both wars, the capital of the US was captured by the enemy (in the War of 1812 it was burned to the ground). Major cities were captured and held during the revolution including New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston (the largest city in the southern US at the time). If the US had lost the War of 1812, it is likely that at least part of northern US (New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine) would have joined Canada and returned to the British empire.
I have to disagree with you about the effect on modern day Europe of Napoleon's campaign in Russia. Borodino and the march to Moscow destroyed his army and ended the power of France permanently in Europe. It is hard to imagine what Europe would be like today if Napoleon had defeated Russia without destroying his army. Wellington would have been defeated in Spain with the influx of fresh troops from the Moscow campaign. The rise of the Prussian state into Germany would probably never have happened.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I think the War of 1812 (and the American Revolution) both meet Jos' tautology if that is what he meant. In both wars, the capital of the US was captured by the enemy (in the War of 1812 it was burned to the ground). Major cities were captured and held during the revolution including New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston (the largest city in the southern US at the time). If the US had lost the War of 1812, it is likely that at least part of northern US (New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine) would have joined Canada and returned to the British empire.

You folks still don't get it, do you? The North American continent was the 'new' posession of several nations; France, the Netherlands, England etc. etc. Back in 1812 matters still weren't settled no matter that 'declaration of independence' back in 1776. That 1812 war was just a war between several nations claiming those particular parts of that continent. There *were* no Americans around at that time, there were immigrants (depends from what side you'd define them) and there were nations claiming 'their' territory.
Don't compare these inter-nation wars with American aggression against centuries or even millenium old nations that were/are/going to be invaded by the American armies. The Americans behave as if they are the saviours of the world, which they aren't, they have their own serious problems to deal with; The Americans behave as if they know it all, which they don't, no more and no less than other nations around the globe. Americans behave as if they protect freedom, which they don't, it's just a mere prottectionism of their own (lack of) culture and (lack of) civilization. Don't behave as world dictators no matter what other idiots (like Saddam Hussein et al) exist on this earth.
I'm not against the USA just because I detest this 'warrior like mentality' of most of you guys, no matter what George double-you Bush wants to make you believe. It's the 'absolutism' (that's what this thread is all about) that makes me puke. Your opinion is not the de facto world-wide-correct opinion. IMO, the American opinion (according to your current administration) is a dead wrong opinion.
And now go tell me that I have to go and live in Russia or something else silly, or go bragging about how you all suffered back in 1812.
kind regards
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Jos Horsmeier ]

[Michael Ernest]

I'm just flabberghasted that anyone so sure of the arrogance and moral superiority of others cannot for a moment see it in himself.
As for your sense of history, Jos, if I hadn't heard you say otherwise I would have assumed you were a snotty US undergraduate who refuses to believe there's anything he doesn't know and know better than anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
I'm just flabberghasted that anyone so sure of the arrogance and moral superiority of others cannot for a moment see it in himself.[QB]

In general, (for the American participants here), can I just say 'hear hear'?

[QB]As for your sense of history, Jos, if I hadn't heard you say otherwise I would have assumed you were a snotty US undergraduate who refuses to believe there's anything he doesn't know and know better than anyone else.

In general, (for the American participants here), can I just say 'hear hear'? And for you in particular, would you please be so kind to refrain from these silly personal insults?
Thank you.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier
The North American continent was the 'new' posession of several nations; France, the Netherlands, England etc. etc.

By 1664, all the Dutch colonies in North America had been lost. The Colony of New Amsterdam in fact surrendered to the British without firing a single shot.

Back in 1812 matters still weren't settled no matter that 'declaration of independence' back in 1776.

By 1783, the independence of the US was recognized by France, England, Spain, and the Netherlands with the signing of the Treaty of Paris.
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]