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 (181108)	2/3/2006 8:12:57 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

After most of 10 years of fighting, it became clear to Britain that far more money was being spent in the war than could be obtained in a peace that might never arise. So a peace was signed. True, but also the French invested quite a bit of money into supporting the Americans (and exacting revenge for the F&I war, which some claim also hastened the downfall of the French Monarchy after the peace was signed and the Americans lacked the means of paying back their loans. And when Lexington and Concorde occurred, there was reportedly only about a week's supply of gunpowder in New York and the rest of the colonies lacked sufficient weaponry (armies needed muskets, not specialized rifles). In July, 1775, the Committee of Safety in New York wrote: "We have no arms, we have no powder, we have no blankets." (W. G. Sumner, The Financier and the Finances of the A merican Revolution, i, 107.) This was still the condition in every part of the United States, and it was for this reason that the necessity was so great of obtaining supplies abroad. The quality of the stores sent from France was occasionally criticized; doubtless some of the powder was poor and some of the guns were defective, but they were vastly superior to anything that could be had on this side of the water. americanrevolution.org In fact, you should read the rest of these links related to French participation in the American Revolution. Then you can read about Spanish participation. It seems both Kingdoms had it in for Britain and felt aiding the rebellious colonialists was something that could only assist their own cause (and imperialism). getnet.com Long before Spain declared war on Britain, the colonials received aid from the peninsula. In 1776 spain dispatched one of its largest fleets to the Americas, where it smashed British smuggling operations along the Brazilian coast and took Uruguay from the Portuguese, who were Britain's allies. americanrevolution.org One of the greatest impacts of the Spanish navy was keeping the English in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico from reinforcing Cornwallis at Yorktown October 1781. Carl, you have to think about the tremendous political coup it was when France and the US signed an alliance in 1778. Much of the population in the colonies were loyalists, or fence-sitters. But there's no doubt that having French and Spanish support convinced many of these loyalists to submit to the Patriotic cause, or flee to Canada. There's no doubt that the British were over-extended, but you should take into account how much of this was due to the pressure placed upon their limited resources by the French and Spanish activities in the Caribbean and elsewhere. So yes.. after 10 years the British were tired and saw no end to the war.. But within the first couple of years, the war was VERY MUCH an unsure thing. Had France and Spain rejected any assistance to the Continental Congress, or had Franklin's mission to France not been as successful, it's quite likely that the Loyalists would have overwhelmed the Patriots. I can see your point of view, but I really find it difficult to underestimate the tremendous shot in the arm to the Patriotic cause it was to obtain French and Spanish support. Without it, morale would likely have sank to a low-ebb as inflation took hold and the economy suffered. Hawk

To: Bilow who wrote (181108)	2/4/2006 1:24:41 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

President Bush's Words Ring Hollow to Soldiers' Loved Ones by Elizabeth Frederick* Published on Friday, February 3, 2006 by the Baltimore Sun As the partner of an Iraq War veteran, I pay attention to the news. I watched the president's State of the Union address Tuesday night hoping to hear some good news. Instead, most of what I heard made me frustrated and angry. I trusted President Bush to make sound decisions, moral decisions that would not needlessly put my loved one in harm's way. I trusted him, as commander in chief, to have respect for the military as an institution, for the soldiers who serve and for their families who make sacrifices in the name of ideals and values more important than their personal wants and needs. When Mr. Bush decided to wage war on Iraq, he lost my trust. As he continued to make speeches about the progress in Iraq and high morale of our troops, I heard an entirely different story from my own soldier, who was deployed in northern Iraq for most of 2005. I heard his stories of Iraqi citizens who had nothing but disdain for U.S. soldiers. I heard him tell me that morale was low, that he and others had no idea what their mission was and that their only concern was for each other and making it home alive. I heard him express frustration that for every insurgent they arrested, two more were there to take the detainee's place. Soldiers rebuilt the same roads time and again because they kept being blown up. Troops were spending thousands of dollars of their own money on armor and equipment because it wasn't being supplied. I heard him tell me private contractors were benefiting from this war, not the Iraqi people. Above all, I heard him tell me the military had become political, something he had never seen happen before, and that those in charge were more concerned with themselves and profiting from this war than with the soldiers whose lives they were entrusted with. He is a soldier, not an activist. He went to Iraq thinking it was a noble cause and he could do some good. It did not take long for him to start saying that the cause was neither noble nor just. He did not believe he was doing any good in Iraq, and he began to say the troops should get out of there. For these words and stories to come from him, an experienced combat veteran who, at 26, has spent the better part of a decade in the military, said more to me than all of Mr. Bush's speeches combined. Mr. Bush said Tuesday that there was nothing honorable about retreat. I say there is nothing honorable about waging wars of choice. There is nothing honorable about refusing to admit mistakes and covering up lies. Invading Iraq was wrong; moreover, it was immoral and irresponsible. Rather than admit that and commit to bringing the troops home now, he calls those who disagree with him defeatists and isolationists. There is a big difference between isolationism and advocating for responsible foreign policy, a difference Mr. Bush does not seem to acknowledge. Refusing to wage unnecessary wars is not isolationism, it is common sense. Mr. Bush also said military families have made great sacrifices. I do not need the president to remind me of this. Every day for a year, I waited and wondered if my soldier would be the next person to be killed or wounded in a war that should not have begun. Every day, I watched the news in tears and prayed that another family would not have to shoulder the burden of loss. I prayed selfishly, hoping it was not my soldier. Every day, I lived with the knowledge that I could lose the man I love in a war of choice and that his service and sacrifice to this country were being wasted and abused by this administration. I never needed the president to tell me I had made sacrifices before, and I do not need him to now. His family is safe and sound; he never had those experiences, never made those sacrifices himself and is in no position to console me. I am a member of Military Families Speak Out, and what I and the more than 3,000 other military families in our group need is responsible leadership - if not from the president, then from Congress. What the other families and I need is a plan to bring the troops home now. Mr. Bush seems to think that if he continues to insult his detractors by calling them defeatists, we will go away. But he is mistaken. The longer he continues to "stay the course" in Iraq, the louder we will speak. We will stay our course, because it is a moral one. As much as the president may wish people to forget his actions, we will not. We have earned the right, and we have the obligation to speak out against the president, to say that this war is wrong because we and our soldiers have experienced it firsthand. Our soldiers are not putting spin on the situation in Iraq. They are simply telling loved ones honest stories about what is happening. When responsible leaders start understanding this, then we can begin picking up the pieces and paving a better path for this country. ______________________________________________________ *Elizabeth Frederick is a staff assistant at American University, where she is a graduate student in public policy. Her e-mail is elizabeth.frederick@gmail.com. © 2006 The Baltimore Sun commondreams.org