Ukraine

Previous Next
SamAndreas said:
... our own 1814 war with England was about.

We shouldn't have won that war, but we did.
Click to expand...
Dude that war was a draw at best. We wanted to take Canada and to stop impressment. So we attacked the Brits when 99% of their effort was against Napoleon. They burned our capital. We failed to take Canada. Brits stopped impressment as soon as they beat Napoleon. Then we signed a peace treaty. Then we fought at New Orleans. The only significance of that battle is that we get to call 1812 a draw instead of a loss.

Sorry for non-Ukraine rant. You are right to draw an analogy but I think it is a little different. If the present counter-offensive fails and they sign a Korea-style cease-fire, folks may call it a "draw" but would still be a "win" for Ukraine based on how it looked in February 2022 and it would still be a "loss" for Russia.
 
Last edited:
efil4stnias said:
full video of assault on RuAF position(s)

Intense, graphic - but the key take-away is just how in control this squad leader is even with pure adrenaline running thru his veins. This is the kind of squad leader that guys rally around.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised with how much gear they are wearing on dismount. Those mobiks are very lucky this group fights with compassion.
 
SharonT said:
The Battle of New Orleans and War of 1812 could stand as a thread on its own. Many here have family stories or grew up near the Chalmette Battlefield, etc.

Like Ukraine, we took steps forward in the big picture, then back. Hopefully they'll keep more of their forward. (y)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_D'Aquin's_Battalion_of_Free_Men_of_Color
Click to expand...
You do appear to have added to what the professor said in his lecture.

I don't know why I typed 1815 then changed it to 1814 instead of 1812 all along, I meant 1812. Maybe it was a case of I picked the wrong date up in that lecture.

The parts of that war, which apply to the current war the professor was referring to are from 1814 and 1815. Your Wikipedia link strengthens the professors argument about the identity of citizens for the nation being created. That was an unusually inclusive moment in our nation's founding, currently Ukraine is showing an unusually inclusive trend in theirs.
 
DaveXA said:
Interesting clip. Two questions. 1. Did a dude get tossed like a turret? 2. How did the tank manage to miss the mine and the second vehicle didn't?

Click to expand...


Here is a longer clip. So you see dude land AND while the tank missed THAT mine, he put in reverse to go back and well, found a different mine.

Other GLMRS hits in this clip too.

 
Consigliere said:
Dude that war was a draw at best. We wanted to take Canada and to stop impressment. So we attacked the Brits when 99% of their effort was against Napoleon. They burned our capital. We failed to take Canada. Brits stopped impressment as soon as they beat Napoleon. Then we signed a peace treaty. Then we fought at New Orleans. The only significance of that battle is that we get to call 1812 a draw instead of a loss.

Sorry for non-Ukraine rant. You are right to draw an analogy but I think it is a little different. If the present counter-offensive fails and they sign a Korea-style cease-fire, folks may call it a "draw" but would still be a "win" for Ukraine based on how it looked in February 2022 and it would still be a "loss" for Russia.
Click to expand...
I like that you replied, but in your reply it appears that you may not have turned on that watched that lecture because the lines of evaluation you are talking about ignore the creation of a nation parts, and instead are only focused on the win or loss of the war.

The US was created from a melting pot, albeit not a wholly inclusive melting pot, which included all who were there it still was a unique point in world history insofar as being a good start. Similarly Ukraine is a nation being formed from a melting pot. They seem to be including more of who is there than we did.

We didn't include our first to be there native peoples hardly at all. Ukraine is forming their nation latter, but does seem to be doing a better job of being inclusive about who they do include in their creation.
 
SamAndreas said:
I like that you replied, but in your reply it appears that you may not have turned on that watched that lecture because the lines of evaluation you are talking about ignore the creation of a nation parts, and instead are only focused on the win or loss of the war.

The US was created from a melting pot, albeit not a wholly inclusive melting pot, which included all who were there it still was a unique point in world history insofar as being a good start. Similarly Ukraine is a nation being formed from a melting pot. They seem to be including more of who is there than we did.

We didn't include our first to be there native peoples hardly at all. Ukraine is forming their nation latter, but does seem to be doing a better job of being inclusive about who they do include in their creation.
Click to expand...
Ummm, sorry to pick nits but, since you came back with a reply to him, I gotta chime in that I’m with Consigliere on this one.

Your original post said the US “…shouldn't have won that war, but we did.” That’s just an objectively, historically wrong statement.

That’s like getting your arse kicked in a fight but saying “I won the fight because it built my character”. I can say that with authority because I got my arse kicked a lot as a kid and it built a lot of character…but I still lost the fights. :hihi:
 
Last edited:
HoustonSaint68 said:
Ummm, sorry to pick nits but, since you came back with a reply to him, I gotta chime in that I’m with Consigliere on this one.

Your original post said the US “…shouldn't have won that war, but we did.” That’s just an objectively, historically wrong statement.

That’s like getting your arse kicked in a fight but saying “I won the fight because it built my character”. I can say that with authority because I got my arse kicked a lot as a kid and it built a lot of character…but I still lost the fights. :hihi:
Click to expand...
OK so Sam's main point was the nation-building thing and he's right.

It's a good day for history lectures because nobody is working anyway.

Zelesnky had a good editorial on the Fourth of July today. He was smart to put it in the WSJ.
 
HoustonSaint68 said:
Ummm, sorry to pick nits but, since you came back with a reply to him, I gotta chime in that I’m with Consigliere on this one.

Your original post said the US “…shouldn't have won that war, but we did.” That’s just an objectively, historically wrong statement.

That’s like getting your arse kicked in a fight but saying “I won the fight because it built my character”. I can say that with authority because I got my arse kicked a lot as a kid and it built a lot of character…but I still lost the fights. :hihi:
Click to expand...
Had Napoleon not tackled the British when they were otherwise occupied with us, we would have lost that war. Remember the British did take our Capitol and burned it.

They beat us every time we engaged them until they had to shift most of their forces back home to take on France.
Just as we are saving Ukraine with our help in this war, France saved us in that war, because we had been losing that war until France started a second war.

And as @Consigliere has noted that is not the central issue of my posts.

I will note that the professor in his lecture also has my view on that we should not have won that war, luck that France got involved, and our inclusive nation building both factored into why we survived.

Almost no wars have simple answers that follow the logic of single effect or cause. It's always a combination soup that comes together to decide the outcome of most wars.


The main thrust of my comments is that the US and Ukraine have a lot of in common nation building in the early stages of our development as a nation. That in common factor is especially apparent for having included more of the people in New Orleans. Necessity was a major factor in that, many in American didn't want to include those who they did not feel came from their roots. Necessity is also a major factor in Ukraine, they cannot afford to shut any minority group they have out.

They can't even shut out the few Nazi's they have. Although to call those people Nazi's is not correct, Germans were the Nazi's, those very strong nationalist Ukrainians have some of similar symbolic images which long predate the Nazi's. Many of those symbols come from the Vikings, 1,200 years before Nazi's used similar symbols.

They need to be included, but I do hope they are not allowed to dominate. We have them here as well and keeping them in check is something we've had to deal with from time to time during our history.

But we do have to include them, and have. Trying to get rid of them would make us worse overall, not better.

​

 
I don't dispute the larger point, I think as I alluded in my analogous reference to character building. If the definition of "losing" the War of 1812 means that the US would be reinstituted as a colony of Great Britain, then there is zero chance the US would have "lost" that war under any circumstances.

Anyway, I admit it was a nit pick (although one in service of accuracy, not emotion)...but one in kind to your reply to Consigliere. All good.
 
War of 1812 was what some would call a "White Peace". Mostly, status quo antebellum was maintained. The US didn't gain anything but didn't lose either. And the same goes for the UK. After the iniital land victories, the UK was initially going to impose much harsher demands on the US, such as conceding much of the Northwest Territory. The people that "lost" would be the American Indians/Native Americans/First Nation/whatever PC term is nowadays in those territories.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Share this page

 

Twitter

Back
Top Bottom