Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (139236)	7/8/2004 8:57:26 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I have affirmed that it was better for both parties to transact the Purchase. I did not set any dates for possible annexation, but was thinking of the long run prospect of France holding the territory without substantial immigration. Since I doubt that, even during a truce, Napoleon would have left the Continent practically underdefended against the British, I question how big an armada he would have sent to protect New Orleans. As for your hobby horse of guerrilla warfare, it is likely, in so comparatively barbarous an age, to have been met with ethnic cleansing, sending the French back to their homeland, until there was no one left to fight. Of course, given our experience in annexing Mexican territory such as California, which was not met with endless guerilla war, I doubt your premise anyway. Finally, I only referred to Napoleon by that name.