www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:Gain doesn't have to be land. Matters of gain come in whatever form the attacker reaches for. Should they fail then they are defeated.

Glad you agree. The US was reaching for the conquest of Canada. They failed. Therefore they were defeated.

Its like you've gone retarded in the last 24 hours.

We've already covered this part. The US was defeated in Canada, the war was a draw. Is any of this sinking in or would you like time?

Deepcrush wrote:its not a football game. Both sides have their goals.

Back on topic, you've done a complete volte-face from your earlier stance that:

at the end of the war things went back to status quo. Seems a draw.

You specifically stated that the return to the status quo implies a draw. Now you're stating that:

the attacking goals were to gain new territory. There for if you fail to achive your goal you have been defeated.

Which is it?

Deepcrush wrote:We've already covered this part. The US was defeated in Canada, the war was a draw. Is any of this sinking in or would you like time?

By your own definition of sucess as:

the attacking goals were to gain new territory. There for if you fail to achive your goal you have been defeated.

the US was defeated - it failed to gain any of Canada, which was it's primary war aim.

I hoped someone would get the joke. I thought it was funny.

Right, back to topic.
The US failed to gain Canada and also failed to halt impressment.
The UK failed to take the Miss river and also failed to hold Maryland.

Neither side gained what they wanted. Also as everything returned to status quo in the end, that would be a draw. Would one side had held an advantage over the other then it would have been a defeat. This wasn't the case.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:We've already covered this part. The US was defeated in Canada, the war was a draw. Is any of this sinking in or would you like time?

By your own definition of sucess as:

the attacking goals were to gain new territory. There for if you fail to achive your goal you have been defeated.

the US was defeated - it failed to gain any of Canada, which was it's primary war aim.

Covered this by chance in the post just a sec ago. Just read one back.

The British attacks on New Orleans and Washington weren't overriding political objectives - the were operational level offensives developed as a means of prosecuting the war. The invasion and conquest of Canada was the reason the US went to war in the first place. You might as well call the Battle of Normady a draw because the allies failed to pinch off the Falaise Pocket in time to prevent the German retreat.

Ok, so a goal isn't a goal if it isn't what you think counts as a goal because its part of a goal of war?

Great to see you put so much thought into that. Got that brain cell kicking hmmm...

The British attacks on New Orleans and Washington weren't overriding political objectives - the were operational level offensives developed as a means of prosecuting the war.

Read this statement, kick yourself in the ass and then pull out your foot so you can think. An offensive normally has a goal, wouldn't you think? Or are you saying that England attacked with as much thought as "Well lets just hope for the best"?

The invasion and conquest of Canada was the reason the US went to war in the first place. You might as well call the Battle of Normady a draw because the allies failed to pinch off the Falaise Pocket in time to prevent the German retreat.

Wrong, yet again, wrong. The invasion of Canada what the opening move of the war, not the reason. You really have a lot of trouble when it comes to 1812 don't you.

As to Normady being a draw. The primary goal was to build a beachhead against Germany and begin an offensive into France. Since this happened, it counts as a victory. I'm trying to be nice but its hard for me, I'm not the nicest of guys and you give so many open shots for stupidity its not even funny anymore.

Deepcrush wrote:An offensive normally has a goal, wouldn't you think? Or are you saying that England attacked with as much thought as "Well lets just hope for the best"?

A specific operation has an operational-level goal. Such as to capture a city. These operational-level goals combine to achieve the strategic-level goal of a campaign, such as to open a new front in a war, or to control a major line of communication. Multiple campaign goals combine to achieve the overarching political goal - i.e. the objective set at government level that defines "victory" in the war.

The political goal of the United States in the War of 1812 was conquest of Canada. It attempted to achieve this by invading, and got a bloody nose.

The political goal of the United Kingdom was first to defeat the invasion of Canada, and then to force the United States to agree to cease hostilities, so as to avoid the necessity to maintain an excessively large force in Canada to defend against repeated US invasions. The first was done by first ejecting the US invasion force, and then advancing on Detroit and the modern location of Chicago in order to establish a buffer area. The latter was done through punishment raids against the eastern seaboard, and through economic warfare. The attack on NO was part of this latter strategy - by wrecking commerce on the Mississippi.

Look, let's simplify this:

USA:
Goals: Seize control of parts of Canada.
Result: Failed to seize control of parts of Canada, lost parts of US to enemy counter-attack.

Canada:
Goals: Defeat invasion, force the USA to agree to ceasefire.
Result: Success, the invasion force was defeated and the US was forced to agree to a ceasefire.

Now, did any land change hands after that war? No. Were the original leaders replaced? No. Was any gain at all gained by either side? No. Did one side achieve its objectives? Yes.
I call that a victory.

Now, let's look at the results of the First Gulf War:
Did any land change hands after that war? No. Were the original leaders replaced? No. Was any gain at all gained by either side? No. Did one side achieve its objectives? Yes.
I call that a victory, too.

Basicaly, unless you agree that the First Gulf War was a draw, then Canada won that round.

Deepcrush wrote:

Similarly, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 should probably be regarded as a draw I guess. So should the Falklands conflict.

Wrong, the attacking goals were to gain new territory. There for if you fail to achive your goal you have been defeated. Very poor examples.

You're criticising me by agreeing with me.

Victory isn't a yes or no matter. Student of history or not, its not a football game. Both sides have their goals. The mission is to achive your goals while stopping your enemy from achiving theirs.

Exactly. And therefore, saying that a war is a draw because the borders went back to what they were is wrong. Which is the exact point I was making.

OMG, you guys miss this by so much its sad.

If I have to keep repeating this for special kids I'm going to get rude and I promised Ian I wouldn't for awhile.

Like I told Rochey, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this matter.
I see 1812 as a draw, you guys don't.

Congratulations on your newfound restraint.

I have a question about the Stargazer...
In all of the episodes with the Constellation class ships, the ships were grey. But all of the seen models (the micromachine as well as the one in Picard's ready-room, maybe others) were yellow. Why is this?

I always thought the models were supposed to be gold, but I didn't look too closely at them.

If they were gold then that was the cheapest gold the UFP could find. The things broke when the fell only a foot in ST-FC.