you are correct about the nature of invasion, Cyrus. I think my point was that we have a certain American mythology that tries to cover this up....such as how guns are a patriotic duty to protect against tyrants, and that whole thanksgiving story that makes it seem like we were friends with the natives. I think it is fine for modern americans to have a guilt complex about this decades later, as it means we are coming to terms with where our wealth and pwer came from -- other people. not something we inherited peacefully.

@ishirk - nobody won the war of 1812

If my wiki research is correct, there were about 4,000 troops on either side. At the same time, Napoleon marched over half a million into Russia. Nobody in Europe remembers the war of 1812 at all.

But is was more than fish, it was about trade embargos with napoleon's 'continental system' and inpressment of sailors - the british were used to impressing sailors into their navy during war-time - any british subject with experience of sailing, could he forced to help run the navy, the problem was the british navy didn't recognise the difference between british sailors and american sailors.

After Napoleon was defeated, the trade embargo didn't matter to the British, and they no longer needed to impress sailors. So they didn't lose these two issues, they just resolved themselves.

Meanwhile the land war was a stalemate - with only the native american allies being devastated, and the third British goal of creating a native buffer state between Canada and the US was not achieved. The stalemate on the land left them without the leverage to force this issue in negotiations - so while there was no winners, the natives certainly lost.

The Canadians also developed a sense of national identity which separated them from 'those unruly americans in the south who invaded us' - ensuring that Canada would become a thing, and they would not voluntarily join the States.

Is colonialism entirely European because they were the only ones to try it, or the only ones to succeed at it?

How about the Muslim caliphates of the medieval times, or the Japanese from the 19th to 20th century, or the Mongols, or Chinese? I understand it is primarily European, but when it took place in other places, the results are generally the same.

@ Ora

Who do you consider to be the good guys in the Irish elections, out of interest?

i am aware that you can do all those things with a handgun, and yes i have shot a handgun. i believe i mentioned earlier that I own a number of guns, somewhat reluctantly.

my point was that is not the purpose of a handgun (hunting.) more of an silly side role.

How does one reluctantly own a gun? The only thing I've reluctantly owned in my life are a goldfish and a Hyundai Coupe.

well i didn't buy them, and wasn't really planning on owning them. a family thing, and a tool i use on my farm.

Really, because you are completely contradicting yourself now. You said, and I quote, "it is ineffective for any form of recreational hunting." and then again when I corrected you, "what do you hunt with them King Cyrus? rats? they are accurate up to like 50 feet."

Now, your new statement, that the handgun is not *primarily* designed or manufactured for hunting is true. I'm not sure how that has any bearing on whether or not they are legal though.

"Not to make excuses for settlers, and the relations with Native Americans is absolutely the number one failing of the United States, but I'm pretty sure everyone, regardless of skin color, subjugates when they invade. They project culture, religion, and rights (or lack thereof). And generally when you invade someone, you don't turn around and treat them as equals."

There may have been one invasion which wasn't like this, and it was Cubans supporting brother communists (as equals) in Angola.

I don't know of any modern examples where doctors, engineers and administrators were sent in equal numbers to soldiers - but this of course isn't what you meant by 'when they invade'.

It is a rare example of sending troops abroad for mutual assistance. (UN Peace keeping operations not withstanding) that said, the anti-communist militias had CIA and South African support - and the USSR eventually got involved, turning it into a proxy war for the super powers.

@Ora I know the war of 1812 wasn't really an outright victory for anyone -- but American's claim it as a victory across the board. I guess because they stood up to the big bad British navy. and I know the reasons for the war are more complicated, but I have discovered that when you boil down the reasons a lot of it comes down to control over North Atlantic Cod. The U.S. early wealth consisted primarily of Cod, Rum, and Slaves getting sold up and down the east coast from the carribean to boston. but it is just fin to say a war was over fish.

@Octavious Online (1445 D)
New 05:07 PM
+1
@ Ora

Who do you consider to be the good guys in the Irish elections, out of interest?
"

How much do you know about irish politics?

For now i will say not Sinn Fein, and i have my doubts about the AAA/PBP coalition (formerly known as the socialist party and socialist workers party, still can't get it together to actually unite under one banner...)

and KingCyrus, I am more than happy to cede the "handgun hunting" argument to you. enjoy, and I hope you bag a nice one.

A Hyundai Cope would look really silly dragged along by your horse-drawn carriage.

I'm glad, at least, that in this thread we're all still proving that healthy, friendly discussion still exists on WebDip outside of the mafia-playing weeks.

Long may we continue!

@ishirk - i mostly meant, the British didn't 'lose' the war of 1812 because it was too expensive to fight a whole continent. They don't even remember fighting it.

The sheer scale of the Napoleonic wars and how they shaped the peace in Europe for almost 100 years, with Britain as a major power were far more important.

I'm not saying the British didn't fail to achieve war aims... Their war aims were almost exclusively related to the situation in europe, -'d that changed. OK, they also decided it would be great to have a buffer state, so they could avoid future conflict between the US and (what became) Canada - they failed in this, and the lig term consequences were fine...

did you know that you can put a scope on the hood of a hyundai coupe and take down a charging water buffalo at 80 yards?

*long term consequences, and several other typos... Sorry.

@ishirk: No, I didn't, I live in the UK, we can't buy those commonplace US weapons.

@orathaic i find the different understanding of these conflicts incredibly interesting, and probably indicative of a lot of things about our cultures. I appreciate you perspective, thanks.

i think when i referred to the war as being expensive, I was referring to the American Revolution in 1776. would you say that is accurate?

@"The U.S. early wealth consisted primarily of Cod, Rum, and Slaves getting sold up and down the east coast from the carribean to boston. but it is just fin to say a war was over fish."

Also sorry for ignoring this. That explains why it was worth going to war with the British empire over their embargo - but the Brits were only placing an embargo to prevent supplies getting to Napoleon...

@ Ora

Not a huge amount, to be honest. You have a pro-European centre right bunch in charge, the Labour Party, Sinn criminal bastard scum Fien, and some others. I take it then that the some others are doing rather well?

There are four main parties. The two centre-right pro european parties (that can be distinguished by being on opposite sides during the civil war) lets call them FF and FG (and have always been in power since 1921, often with coalition partners), the Labour party (centre left, currently ruling coalition with FG), and SF (promised to only pursue their re-unification aims through peaceful means since 1998, and i think we should forgive old terrorists who actually do give up violence - because it might encourage current terrorists to give up violence and engage in politics - doesn't mean i'll vote for them)

Between the polls show FG at 30%, FF and SF at 20% and Lab at 10%
That leaves 20% splits between several smaller parties. The FG splitter (who are far more conservative) called: Renua, the Labour splitters (who feel labour betrayed the working class) called: the social democrats. The green party (who were wiped out in 2011, but were in power with FF from 2007-2011) and the extreme/fringe left (AAA/PBP).

FF were blamed for the financial crisis and recession, FG/Lab took over in 2011 and are now being blamed for austerity policies. Renua hate FG for allowed women who are suicidal possibly maybe have an abortion, the Social Democrats think Labour isn't left enough. SF and AAA/PBP are attacking former labour strongholds (and each other) to win the left vote.

And that is not to mention the popularities of independents, who may be vital to the formation of a stable government.

So here's the thing, SF are in a power sharing agreement in Northern Ireland (same political party) but in the republic they are far more left-wing, because that is where they think they can get the votes.

Pure populist politics.

But this election they have become more popular than FF, making them tied for being the second largest party. (Second only to FG)

FF and FG are seen as never being able to got into government together - left over split between them since the civil war. Family traditions and bitter divisions.

But neither would they be willing to form a coalition with the 'terrorist scum' that SF are still seen as. (Populists who care for nothing except re-unification, if you ask me - hence the differences in their policies between north and south)

Labour are the weakest of the main 4... Attacked from within by the split with the Social democrats, and from outside with anti-austerity parties and SF.
Meanwhile FF and FG are fighting with renua for the right wing vote... Who knows if we will have a stable government in March.

If by forgive you mean not actively trying to speed their journey to hell, I agree. I am no longer in favour of having the Sinn Fein leadership shot, hung, or even incarcerated. If by forgive you actually mean to forgive them, that's a step further than I am willing to take for a good few decades yet.

Aside from having a healthy crop of independents, those figures don't seem to offer particular cause for optimism on the change front. Still, time will tell. How long until the election?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

A fairly balanced article about the twisted history of gun ownership and regulation in the US, and the conundrum facing Americans trying to find a solution that everyone can live with.

I'm a bit perplexed at calling the war of 1812 an American victory.

The Americans lost Buffalo and large portions of NY, lost eastern Maine, lost Baltimore, had the capital burned to the ground, had a naval blockade imposed on them, and were on the brink of losing Boston when peace was declared. Add to that the war aims of taking Canada and Florida failed completely. If that's a victory I'd hate to see what defeat would look like.

according to wikipedia:
"In the United States, late victories over invading British armies at the battles of Plattsburg, Baltimore (inspiring the United States national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner") and New Orleans produced a sense of euphoria over a "second war of independence" against Britain.[9][10] The war ended on a high note for Americans, winning the final engagements of the war and bringing an "Era of Good Feelings" in which partisan animosity nearly vanished in the face of strengthened American nationalism."
i think that is where it comes from.
i also find it amusing that Canada has holidays and monuments celebrating its victory over the US, Britain barely remembers this as a war, and the US derives it's national anthem and a sense of victory from this war. Really a conflict that resulted in great propaganda for all involved.

1 week til the election. And if FF/FG decide to form a government that could end their bitter feud, and result in a new era of Irish politics... (which could lead to the rise of a new left) if the numbers don't add up and SF is required to form a government... well i'm not looking forward to that eventuality.

I kinda mean, 'forgive' in the sense of allow them take part in society. Like if we say we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists. That is fair, but if they give up their arms... Yeah... I want a successful peaceful solution to use as an example, that is all.

@Ishirk, yes there is that. I suspect however that US plans to roll into Canada, and be welcomed as liberators were complete failures.

When i implied nobody won. That also meant nobody lost. The US got the right of their sailors and trade with europe, the British held onto Canada (meanwhile Napoleon was defeated, twice) peace reigned.

It probably also discouraged any further British US wars. Hooray for everyone, except the native americans who never recovered.

I hope Ireland ends the farce that is FF and FG as separate parties. Heck, Labour can join them too, although they might just fizzle out and die anyway.