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: marcos who wrote (147448)	10/12/2004 7:15:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am reading what you write. It just doesn't refute what I wrote. At least some of it is completly true but that doesn't make what I wrote false. Your information strongly backs the idea that the desire for land was a reason for the war, and that it was a more important reason than many peopl realize; that does not mean that it was the only reason, or that there were no legitimate casus belli. If anybody had casus belli over anything in that time, it was Britain, who was virtually alone in fighting a dictator who was trying to take over the world, and who was right about then [june 1812 if memory serves] marching on Moscow, at the height of his power, of course he was about to meet General Winter on the field, but no one realised the import of that yet .... so some quick-buck yanqui traders are going to get rich trading with this tyrant? - woo, there's casus belli, for sure A lot less "for sure" than impressment or fireing on warships. The US was no obligated to follow Britain's lead in not trading with Napolean. While warring nations can indeed "impose sanctions" (to use the modern term), and try to impose a blockade to stop people from trading with their enemy, but it wasn't an act of war for the US to trade with France. Tim