American history of war (need some help)

[Knarkarplanka]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Knarkarplanka

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Knarkarplanka

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
i think it's pretty primitive to have a king or queen

first of all, nowadays, the king doesn´t have any power to rule over here.
and if you thnk thats primitive, I think it´s even more primitive to give so much power to a single person(your president), all they do is using it wrong. instead of war, you could spend it on making your own country stronger, then one day, you may live as comfortable as we do over here.
Free healthcare, almost no poor people, low crimerate, a excellent schoolsystem ect.

Good luck!

I just think it's really strange to worship people like that. Why even keep them? I think it's some sort of throwback to the belief that they are superior people and hence does nothing but further the big racial problems in Europe. Do you support monarchies? I'm wondering since you seem to get pretty sensitive and bitter when I commented on it.

Maybe one day you can live as comfortable as we do over here, where we don't worship kings or queens, you have the right to be successful from your hard work, the best educational institutions in the world, etc.

Just to make one thing clear, I don´t think there is anyone in Swden that´s worshiping our royal family. They are nothing but PR and tradition. Our present King Carl XVI Gustav can´t spell his own name, a month or so ago he was racing around with his son in porsches on public roads along with the "secret service"
What´s the big difference between a monarchy and having a president anyway? one person that´s way more powerful than he should be.
there´s a lot of thing that could, and should be changed in the world

The difference is that a president is elected by the people, not appointed by hereditary conditions. The president doesn't have omnipotent powers either, there are checks and balances (and I'm guessing there are checks and balances within other countries, too).

It just seems so... 17th century... something that shouldn't be around in the 21st century. I think it should go away like the caste system in India - a bad tradition in today's world

a king didn´t have omnipotent power during the 17th century. sounds like you think of a king as one during the dark ages in england, sitting with his crown on his throne all day long and by that time being omnipotent.

Yes indeed, a president is being elected, but after that he´s free to do almost whatevver he likes, such as start a war with Iraq all by himself.

 

[So]

Damnit....lost a long reply....

First, I'd just like to note...

I feel I´m not as teached in this subject as some of you are so I chose not to make a statement.

The correct past tense form of the word teach is 'taught'. I know English isn't your first language, so you get a pass on the mistke, but I thought you might like to know for future reference .

On to business...

No president in US history, except possibly George Washington during the Whiskey rebellion, or Monroe during the invasion of Washington has directly lead a military campaign, or tactical conflict. In the case of the whiskey rebellion, I am unsure if Washington led it directly, but if he did, it was because there was no one else. The president is the commander of the military, but he is not expected to lead it into battle. Washington would lead because he was the only person capable, and Monroe would have fought in the heat of the moment.

Grant is a very interesting character, but you should know, he became president in 1869, four years after the end of the civil war. Late in life, well after the end of his presidency, he wrote an autobirgraphy, which covered his exploits in the mexican war, and his command up to the end of the civil war but does not talk of his presidency or postwar experiences. Some of the most descriptive scenes during his mexican war campaign describe the American use of cannons, later, in the Civil war portion of the book, Grant gives an account of leaving a huge amout of artillery behind because his army simply had too much artillery to use and still move at a reasonable rate.

This segues into one of my conclusions about the way the United States fights wars. We fight wars very differently from the way other countries do, unlike the Russians or the Chineese, we do not depend on masses of troops, unlike Germany (used to) we do not depend on lifelong training of soldiers, and unlike We mass obscene amounts of maretiele, and send relatively few men into battle, depending on murderous firepower to decimate and break a foe before they can overrun our lines, We did this in every major war since the Civil War, arguably the Mexican war, including attempting to do this in Vietnam, and succeeding in the Gulf Wars, but the premier example (IMO) is the forgotten war, The Korean War. With a tiny number of troops compared to our opponents, we inflicted massive casualties, and repeately truned back mass waves of opponents.

 

[Knarkarplanka]

Originally posted by: So
Damnit....lost a long reply....

First, I'd just like to note...

I feel I´m not as teached in this subject as some of you are so I chose not to make a statement.

The correct past tense form of the word teach is 'taught'. I know English isn't your first language, so you get a pass on the mistke, but I thought you might like to know for future reference .

On to business...

No president in US history, except possibly George Washington during the Whiskey rebellion, or Monroe during the invasion of Washington has directly lead a military campaign, or tactical conflict. In the case of the whiskey rebellion, I am unsure if Washington led it directly, but if he did, it was because there was no one else. The president is the commander of the military, but he is not expected to lead it into battle. Washington would lead because he was the only person capable, and Monroe would have fought in the heat of the moment.

Grant is a very interesting character, but you should know, he became president in 1869, four years after the end of the civil war. Late in life, well after the end of his presidency, he wrote an autobirgraphy, which covered his exploits in the mexican war, and his command up to the end of the civil war but does not talk of his presidency or postwar experiences. Some of the most descriptive scenes during his mexican war campaign describe the American use of cannons, later, in the Civil war portion of the book, Grant gives an account of leaving a huge amout of artillery behind because his army simply had too much artillery to use and still move at a reasonable rate.

This segues into one of my conclusions about the way the United States fights wars. We fight wars very differently from the way other countries do, unlike the Russians or the Chineese, we do not depend on masses of troops, unlike Germany (used to) we do not depend on lifelong training of soldiers, and unlike We mass obscene amounts of maretiele, and send relatively few men into battle, depending on murderous firepower to decimate and break a foe before they can overrun our lines, We did this in every major war since the Civil War, arguably the Mexican war, including attempting to do this in Vietnam, and succeeding in the Gulf Wars, but the premier example (IMO) is the forgotten war, The Korean War. With a tiny number of troops compared to our opponents, we inflicted massive casualties, and repeately truned back mass waves of opponents.

good reply there, I´ll have to check out the civil and some other wars just to se it´s correct, need more than one source.

and about teached/taught, I know the correct form should have been taught when I come and think about it. I guess I have to blame it on that I was tired last night, it was around 01:00 AM over here