[USCAdad]

When the politicians have the guts to declare a war, when the US has the integrity to do no more than protect its borders and stay within the confines of the law (Constitution). Then I'd be plenty willing.

As far as being feminized, I guess we can take comfort that Russia did it first. I mean after all, they wouldn't do bad things to people now would they, and they weren't successful in this region. That must mean that what is needed is a really, really strong hand.

How about we get real and see who would be really willing to solve the problem. An embargo against the entire region. Yup, that's right no oil from the big dessert. Who is willing to pay ten bucks a gallon and deal with a major recession? That or find the next energy is the only question. The US will never succeed as long as they are dependent on the region and unwilling to run an oppressive Empire.

Right now we have the nation builders preaching the spread of Democracy, when we know exactly how the vast majority in that region will vote. The US has blown its chance to do this right.... staying in Afghanistan until it was done right. It wanders directionless. Is it Osama? Al Queda? Iran? that's the imminent threat? We talk of keeping the fight there instead of here. But then what, the refugees? Who's going to end up paying or housing them?

Speaking of paying. The Gov was unwilling to pass a declaration of war. Were they braver when it came to paying for it? Why is the cost coming out of emergency measures and not added to the budget? Because the folk in power know they couldn't have actually started or continued this war while being honest. And there are a whole lot of folk that cheer on the deception.

[Arctic_Menace]

Quote:

Was that ever in doubt?

Point taken.

[xerxes]

What also helped in Germany's eventual unification was Napoleon's policy of forcibly drafting troops from conquered nations which, as one might imagine, was not the most popular thing to do (though militarily necessary)

Here's another one Boney's legacies in Europe. This is in Berlin just down the road from the Brandenburg Gate.

[stratos]

What gets me is that France only has one statue of Napoleon on display

[xerxes]

Yeah that is kinda weird, but then he was pretty picky about how he wanted himself immortalised. After Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington appropriated a 15ft. statue of Napoleon that had been rejected because Napoleon did not look glorious enough (or some other vain reason I can't quite remember).

Though, if you ever see anything in Paris with a N surrounded by oak leaves, that's another one of his marks.

[BartSimpson]

stratos wrote:

What gets me is that France only has one statue of Napoleon on display

They don't like being reminded of the time when they actually mattered.

[stratos]

BartSimpson wrote:

stratos wrote:

What gets me is that France only has one statue of Napoleon on display

They don't like being reminded of the time when they actually mattered.

[OPP]

Arctic_Menace wrote:

For what they did, not because of who they are. Peter the Great did alot of amazing things for Russia, and pretty much kicked Charles XII of Sweden's ass, and got alot of territory for Russia.

60,000 swedish soldiers left Sachsen 18 months prior to the final battle at Poltava in 1709 but only 17,000 remained when the battle was to take place. The soldiers lost during these 18 months died predominantly from cold and starvation and the 17,000 hungry and tired soldiers left faced a well equipped, well trained and rested force of over 40,000 russian soldiers. The swedish soldiers did not have enough amunition for more than one battle and were forced to let everyhting ride on a single assault.

I woudln't call that "kicking our asses". It was more of a slaughter.
Keep in mind that Sweden was at war with five other nations at this time and the final obstacle left for Sweden, after suppressing and defeating the rest, was Russia.

You should read up a bit on, "the Lion of the North", the "Father of Modern Warfare", Gustavus Adolphus instead. Among those who studied and admired Gustav II Adolf you'll find Napoleon Bonaparte and Carl von Clausewitz. Both of them considered Gustav Adolf to be one of the greatest generals of all time.

[sasquatch2]

That's because Charles XII of Sweden like Napolean and Hitler broke the rule.

"Don't march on Moscow."

Finland in the Continuation War made the same error.

[sasquatch2]

The biggest problem that Napolean had was the immediate aftermath of Borodino.

The Russians celebrate their defeat at Borodino.......perhaps as weird as the Brits celebrate Dunkirk.

Napolean was slightly weakened by Borodino, but unlike the Russians he had long supply lines and unlike the Russians, who promptly raised a new army, could not get reinforcements. He was over-extended in a war with an implacable enemy, who although soundly defeated, fought on.

[OPP]

sasquatch2 wrote:

That's because Charles XII of Sweden like Napolean and Hitler broke the rule.

"Don't march on Moscow."

Finland in the Continuation War made the same error.

Napoleon and Hitler could have learnt from history, unlike Charles. Charles XII lay in a coma from a battle wound when the descisive battle of Poltava took place. Had he been consious, maybe history would have played out a bit differently?
His reckles behaviour and style of warfare ment his eventual death, aswell. He was the last waring king to lead his troops in battle and enjoyed great respect from his soldiers as he slept on the ground under bare sky with his soldiers and commandeered his troops from the front.

[OPP]

USCAdad wrote:

When the politicians have the guts to declare a war, when the US has the integrity to do no more than protect its borders and stay within the confines of the law (Constitution). Then I'd be plenty willing.

As far as being feminized, I guess we can take comfort that Russia did it first. I mean after all, they wouldn't do bad things to people now would they, and they weren't successful in this region. That must mean that what is needed is a really, really strong hand.

How about we get real and see who would be really willing to solve the problem. An embargo against the entire region. Yup, that's right no oil from the big dessert. Who is willing to pay ten bucks a gallon and deal with a major recession? That or find the next energy is the only question. The US will never succeed as long as they are dependent on the region and unwilling to run an oppressive Empire.

Right now we have the nation builders preaching the spread of Democracy, when we know exactly how the vast majority in that region will vote. The US has blown its chance to do this right.... staying in Afghanistan until it was done right. It wanders directionless. Is it Osama? Al Queda? Iran? that's the imminent threat? We talk of keeping the fight there instead of here. But then what, the refugees? Who's going to end up paying or housing them?

Speaking of paying. The Gov was unwilling to pass a declaration of war. Were they braver when it came to paying for it? Why is the cost coming out of emergency measures and not added to the budget? Because the folk in power know they couldn't have actually started or continued this war while being honest. And there are a whole lot of folk that cheer on the deception.

Holy shit! How did I manage to miss this post? Probably becaus it's way off topic, but, man! Soooo spot on! Great post. A shame we can't vote on 'em any more.

[OPP]

Arctic_Menace wrote:

Tman1 wrote:

However his boneheaded move on Russia was not his best....

Nor was his move on Spain.


Shepherd's Dog, I know that Peter the Great did some pretty nasty stuff during his reign, but he did some good things too. He opened Russia to the West, and without him, Russia would not have become what it has become.

Yes, he tortured his son. Yes, thousands died during the construction of St. Petersburg, but remember the Russian proverb: "No sacrifice is too great". This tactic greatly helped Russia when she was fighting Sweden.

Peter the Great went out and about, and at one point became an apprentice. The master offered Peter a big sac of money because he was the Czar of Russia. Peter said no, and that he wanted to be paid what the man would pay a normal apprentice. Peter was then paid the normal amount and went out and bought a pair of shoes. He then was said to have walked around town saying: "I earned the money to pay for these shoes!"


He also saved the lives of his men, who were drowning. This was his last act in life. Pretty selfless........

That's a myth. Nothing more. He was a heartless and ruthless man, just as any Russian leader of importance. And he didn't just torture his son. He killed him. His only son, btw.

He westernized Russia. A good move. Smart move but nothing worth granting him the title of "Great". A title which many european kings refused to recognize.
He's simply Peter the first.