quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

The Louisiana Purchase......was it us holding a gun to Napoleans head?
The rest of your silly little list I will lead others to refute(though I will join with Ron in calling bullshit on WWII )
So now we have ignorance married to a little bit of knowledge.....and we wind up with you....an asshole sure of his illusions and willing to demonstrate his stupidity at the drop of a hat.
Hows that working for you?

Louisana was owned by Spain not France.
The treaty of San Ildefenso clearly states that France would exercise a protectorate over Louisana and that it would continue to be a possession of Spain.
At this time Napoleon held the king of Spain,his wife and son as his "guest" in the palace at San Ildefenso.
The "Voyage of discovery" Was a military expedition into a foriegn country and was armed with the most modern of auto loading rifles...22 .40 cal rounds without stopping to reload.
France saw this military expedition as a military threat that she would not be able to respond to effectively. When Jefferson (who knew full well about the treaty with Spain) approached France about purchasing a franchise in the port of New Orleans. Napoleon seeing a "fait acompli" sold Jefferson something he did not own.
Consider also that Lewis and Clark were commissioned to go to the Pacific ocean. No part of the Louisiana purchase is any where near the Pacific ocean.
Spain sent a military expedition to intercept them but thanks to his g/f Lewis took a different route on his return and managed to evade the Spanish.

quote:

Wow, just all over the place with this response. According to supply lists there were a total of 15 rifles taken on the "Voyage of Discovery" most if not all were the Model 1792 flintlocks, perhaps a couple of Model 1803s although there is no record of them.

If you would use something besides wiki you might have also noticed that there were two cannon and the repeating rifle I mentioned.


Hardly a military expedition when you consider there were 33 members of the party and a dog. I would dare say hardly enough to bring France to her knees in fear.

At the time of the expedition it would have been comprable to NASA at its inception.
Do you feel that France would be frightened by a mere 30 soldiers? Maybe it was that those 30 men represented the leading edge of an American army and France needed her army in Europe and not in America.



I see now though that it was us that forced France to threaten the head of another country into signing the rights away so that France could sell the entire thing to the US.

That is not what I said nor is it what I infered. You are being disingenuous in the extreme to say so.
Perhaps it is your ignorance of the history of the period which limits your ability to think clearly on this matter. Maybe you should do a little reading.
It was not the U.S.which forced France to attack Spain.


Makes sense to me now. Damn we are evil imperialists.
Well we started out as a few little colonies on the eastern seaboard. Now we have the center section of North America. We own islands in the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico. Did all of those countries petition the U.S. to become possessions of the U.S.?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yourthreshold

I'm at a bit of a loss at to why you're even arguing with Thompsonx at this point. It's somewhat hard to refute his arguments because so many of them are exaggerations, untruths, and outright lies. Someone who calls WW2 an American war of aggression is just barking mad. We weren't even in the war until 53 months after the Japanese Empire started their part of it and 28 months after the Germans ignited it in Europe. All of the USA except Alaska was taken by force? That statement alone is proof of either idiocy or a zealots viewpoint.

He believes in a different reality than most people. Accept it and move on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yourthreshold

I'm at a bit of a loss at to why you're even arguing with Thompsonx at this point. It's somewhat hard to refute his arguments because so many of them are exaggerations, untruths, and outright lies.

I am waiting for you to refute just one


Someone who calls WW2 an American war of aggression is just barking mad. We weren't even in the war until 53 months after the Japanese Empire started their part of it and 28 months after the Germans ignited it in Europe.

Perhaps you should read what I say instead of what you want to hear. I said we were responsible for our entry into WWII and it was for purposes of national agrandisement.


All of the USA except Alaska was taken by force? That statement alone is proof of either idiocy or a zealots viewpoint.

Is it your position that the native Americans asked us to take their lands?
Is it your position that Mexico asked us to take half of their country?
Is it your position that Spain asked us to take Florida,Alabama and Mississippi?
Is it your position that England asked us to take Oregon and Washington off of their hands?

He believes in a different reality than most people. Accept it and move on.

Try reading a fucking history book

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Sort of a simple minded pov....but considering the source probably the best you could come up with.
By the by, you do realise the Empire of Japan was involved in that little fracas....don't you?

If you have a point would you please make it?
I would think my point was obvious...you had failed to mention Japan in your previous rant.Sorry for overestimating your powers of deduction...I shall not make that mistake again...from now on I will connect all the little dots for you.


Point of fact Clemenceau died in 1929....blaming him for WWII is a little much don't you think....and if you are going to blame the Treaty of Versailles(sp?)

You got that part right
Well if the treaty is the genisis of WWII(which most everyone agrees) than Wilson ,an American statesman deserves at least honorable mention for all his efforts against that document...or doesn't this fit into your juandiced point of veiw?

...that sort of lets Roosevelt off the hook doesn't it

No...Roosevelt is on the hook because of his machinations with Churchill to involve us in the war and for his maneuvering Japan into Pearl Harbor.
So Roosevelt is on the hook for recognising that England was and is our natural ally...while the powers of totaliarism were our natural enemies.
It is my point of veiw that those machinations you so decry were some of Roosevelts finest moments!

......which way you going to go.
Further point of fact Wilson(the American President) was aghast at the imposition of reparations on Germany....so if blaming the treaty is the way you are going ...again American hands seem to be clean.
Yeah right
Nifty well thought out response thompson....keep up the good work.
Now where exactly will you hang your hat?

quote:

Might just be the best advice I have ever received on these boards....though you do seem to miss the amusement factor inherant in these arguments :)
Luckydawg you are just as bad as thompson.....you use a brush as wide as he does to paint all who hold beleifs to the left of you into the same box as a thompson......newsflash as far as your concerned I'm one of those lefties and yet here I am arguing with thompson.How does that fit inot your narrow ideological box?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yourthreshold

I'm at a bit of a loss at to why you're even arguing with Thompsonx at this point. It's somewhat hard to refute his arguments because so many of them are exaggerations, untruths, and outright lies.

I am waiting for you to refute just one


Someone who calls WW2 an American war of aggression is just barking mad. We weren't even in the war until 53 months after the Japanese Empire started their part of it and 28 months after the Germans ignited it in Europe.

Perhaps you should read what I say instead of what you want to hear. I said we were responsible for our entry into WWII and it was for purposes of national agrandisement.


All of the USA except Alaska was taken by force? That statement alone is proof of either idiocy or a zealots viewpoint.

Is it your position that the native Americans asked us to take their lands?
Is it your position that Mexico asked us to take half of their country?
Is it your position that Spain asked us to take Florida,Alabama and Mississippi?
Is it your position that England asked us to take Oregon and Washington off of their hands?

He believes in a different reality than most people. Accept it and move on.

Try reading a fucking history book

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Wow, just all over the place with this response. According to supply lists there were a total of 15 rifles taken on the "Voyage of Discovery" most if not all were the Model 1792 flintlocks, perhaps a couple of Model 1803s although there is no record of them.

If you would use something besides wiki you might have also noticed that there were two cannon and the repeating rifle I mentioned.


Hardly a military expedition when you consider there were 33 members of the party and a dog. I would dare say hardly enough to bring France to her knees in fear.

At the time of the expedition it would have been comprable to NASA at its inception.
Do you feel that France would be frightened by a mere 30 soldiers? Maybe it was that those 30 men represented the leading edge of an American army and France needed her army in Europe and not in America.



I see now though that it was us that forced France to threaten the head of another country into signing the rights away so that France could sell the entire thing to the US.

That is not what I said nor is it what I infered. You are being disingenuous in the extreme to say so.
Perhaps it is your ignorance of the history of the period which limits your ability to think clearly on this matter. Maybe you should do a little reading.
It was not the U.S.which forced France to attack Spain.


Makes sense to me now. Damn we are evil imperialists.
Well we started out as a few little colonies on the eastern seaboard. Now we have the center section of North America. We own islands in the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico. Did all of those countries petition the U.S. to become possessions of the U.S.?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Might just be the best advice I have ever received on these boards....though you do seem to miss the amusement factor inherant in these arguments :)
Luckydawg you are just as bad as thompson.....you use a brush as wide as he does to paint all who hold beleifs to the left of you into the same box as a thompson......newsflash as far as your concerned I'm one of those lefties and yet here I am arguing with thompson.How does that fit inot your narrow ideological box?

So far you have yet to refute anything I have said.

quote:

So Roosevelt is on the hook for recognising that England was and is our natural ally...while the powers of totaliarism were our natural enemies.
It is my point of veiw that those machinations you so decry were some of Roosevelts finest moments!

quote:


I did use something other than wiki... I looked at their handwritten list of supplies...Supply list according to Lewis

If the two cannon and the repeating rifle are not on your list(which you did not link)then it could be that your list is not an original.

Secondly, you are the one that suggested that the US had not gained any other land, save Alaska, without the use of force of threat of it.

I did not suggest it I stated it as a fact.

Therefore, by you suggesting that the US gained control of Louisiana because Napolean either did so because of the threat he saw from the "Voyage of Discovery" or it implies that we were responsible for the hostage situation...

What I said was that Napoleon sold something that he did not own because he could not prevent our incursion into it.

Finally, nice attempt to change the subject. What do any of those islands have to do with the purchase of Louisiana? Indeed my ignorance is showing, I have a lot to learn about people.

It was your statement about imperalism that I was responding to. Hardly a change of subject.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Please see earlier post where I stated that often American foreign policy is short sighted  and otherwise just plain stupid(or words to that effect).And here is the difference between the two of us....I can and do recognise our mistakes....you can't and won't recognise our glories.

I posted that the U.S. has engaged in wars of agression.
I posted that all of our wars have been wars of agression.
Because I did not post that bill smith, an eagle scout, helped a poor old lady across the street you find that sufficient grounds to dismiss my statements.



Remember that amusement factor I mentioned earlier...it wears thin right about here...having a battle of wits with someone who is witless...is akin to pulling the wings off of butterflys.Not my cup of tea.

If you feel unable or unwilling to continue this discussion you are free to discontinue your participation at any time

Perhaps some other poster will care to pick this up...simply as a suggestion for the next guy.....your statement that England "picked a fight" seems as  good a starting point as any.

Perhaps if you were to read Churchill's little six volumn work on WW II you might have some bassis to carry on a discussion about the causes of WW II at least from Churchill's point of view.


Sheesh those poor despots Hitler and Mussolini...surrounded on all sides by belligerant democracies.

Those are your words not mine

No wonder they felt put upon to start wars of agression(see thats the correct use of the phrase....no charge for the illumination)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:


I did use something other than wiki... I looked at their handwritten list of supplies...Supply list according to Lewis

If the two cannon and the repeating rifle are not on your list(which you did not link)then it could be that your list is not an original.

Secondly, you are the one that suggested that the US had not gained any other land, save Alaska, without the use of force of threat of it.

I did not suggest it I stated it as a fact.

Therefore, by you suggesting that the US gained control of Louisiana because Napolean either did so because of the threat he saw from the "Voyage of Discovery" or it implies that we were responsible for the hostage situation...

What I said was that Napoleon sold something that he did not own becaise he could not prevent our incursion into it.

Finally, nice attempt to change the subject. What do any of those islands have to do with the purchase of Louisiana? Indeed my ignorance is showing, I have a lot to learn about people.

It was your statement about imperalism that I was responding to. Hardly a change of subject.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Thanks for the link a very cool read. I guarantee those Model 1792s with the various modifications that had been made by the date of travel scared the shit out of them as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I would raise a cavil or more about WW2, Huntie.

Ron