¡Hoy es el Cinco de Mayo!

A bit of Mexican history for you all... in 1862, French troops under Napoleon III were sent to Mexico to force the Mexicans to pay off their debt to France. The French army was powerful at the time (no, France hasn't always been the World War II France we all know today) and the odds of the Mexicans winning was slim. But they did, on this day in 1862. This is NOT Mexico's Independence Day!

So, because of this minor military victory, we all have a reason go out, party, get drunk, and TP each other's houses! Whose should we go for first? ABF sound good? :evilha:

But we aren't Mexican... :)

*raises finger as though about to respond* ...oh yeah, we're not, are we?

Yeah, this has nothing to do with America, except for Mexican immigrants. Also, I think beer commercials like to publicize it on TV.

I think the french should celebrate Napoleon! If it werent for him there would not be egyptology or those useless buttons at the end of military uniforms and dress clothes.

He nearly conquered the world! :far-out:

Too bad Emperor Max didn't make it, Mexico might have become a half-decent country.

Super-cool Spanish-speaking robot Lopez is probably celebrating right now.

I heard the dumbest joke today involving the Titanic, a cargo of mayonnaise, and its sinking. You put the joke together because I'm too lazy to do it.

Yes, you know how big a band of losers the Mexicans are when they're national holiday celebrates a small victory they had against France in a war that they lost. (France succeeded to occupying all of Mexico; only left under intense American pressure after the Civil War ended. By no means did Mexico force the French out, though not for lack of trying.)

I think the french should celebrate Napoleon!...He nearly conquered the world!

They do celebrate him; he's revered. That's why his ornate sarcophagus is at the Fields of Elyisium (Champs d'Elysses).

Too bad Emperor Max didn't make it, Mexico might have become a half-decent country.

I agree.

I heard the dumbest joke today involving the Titanic, a cargo of mayonnaise, and its sinking. You put the joke together because I'm too lazy to do it.

I have no power of imagination; you put it together for me. I like jokes.

You're right, that is a dumb joke.

Q: Why did the Titanic sink?
A: It had a cargo of mayonnaise! And it... weighed the ship down... and kept it from... steering past the iceberg... and stuff.

And also, Mexico's main holiday is their Independence Day on el Dieciséis de Septiembre. (September 16th.) Cinco de Mayo is, for some reason, the one immigrants to America celebrate. (It's also celebrated in Puebla, Mexico.)

Given the rich, long history of France and the short, concise history of Mexico, I say that the Mexican's have all the right to celebrate. If they had been around for as long of the French, well then...

Can't they just call it May like everyone else, that counts?

Yeah, they should learn English to adjust to our needs!

Darunia, given that they executed Maximillian (firing squad.), I think that in the end the Mexicans won... :)

Yeah! I mean, it's cute and all that they have their own little language thing, but c'mon, do they take it seriously? :D Oh wait, you mean they actually don't have a mindset of speaking it INSTEAD of english, and just think of it as the norm? That's so funny! Why are you looking at me like that?

I agree, Spanish can be fun to speak at times, but c'mon now, English is the universal language! I mean, it's just human nature to speak English, right? Right?!

Just keep thinking that way and you'll get a real warm reception if you ever go to plenty of foreign countries... :)

Foreign countries? Why would I want to go to one of those? They're just so... un-American. How can a country be so un-American? It's a mystery to me...

If someone didn't like me because I was American I'd punch them in the face...and then insult their country for not being as cool as America.

America: We are officially cooler than you're stupid country [unless it's Japan, which is totally awesome].

In Japan, you can use your daughter as an ashtray and make your wife eat your poo and it's considered good manners.

They also get beer from vending machines and worship Santa Clause.

Who is from the moon, or sometimes placed on a crucific, snapshotted, and then spread across the internet to trick people into thinking Japan doesn't know Santa isn't Jesus. ...though he is a pretty good analogy of Jesus...

Santa is Jesus.

And the elves are Jews!

THE REIGNDEER ARE MUSLIMS!

I guess Christians are Mrs. Clause... dammit, my diety is a woman. :disgust:

You worship the Christians themselves? Hmm, now that's an odd religion... I mean, I'm no diety you don't have to do anything for paint my house!

So...Japanese people worship Mrs. Clause?

Yes. They perform bukakke on Mrs. Claus statues and then swallow them.

http://www.nbc.com/footer/tmyk/images/home_logo.jpg

The Tooth Fairy is Buddha and the Easter Bunny is the prophet Mohammed.

Darunia, given that they executed Maximillian (firing squad.), I think that in the end the Mexicans won...

Maximillian who France withdrew support from and chose to stay there by himself? Mexico deposed him. France left because of American intervention. Mexico could never militarilly best any country. Even Canada could (probably) hold its own against them!


Given the rich, long history of France and the short, concise history of Mexico, I say that the Mexican's have all the right to celebrate. If they had been around for as long of the French, well then...

So you're saying that the longer the country has been established, the better fighters they are. Not at all neccessarilly; in fact, I'd say that a young nation is more prone to fight well; take the United States. A country fighting for its independence will always fight harder than a nation fighting to control another one. Thus, Mexico's single, minor victory is pitifully, and the fact that they celebrate it SOOO much is sad. It'd be like America celebrating the Battle of New Orleans every year with a huge, trumped up kegger.

Well, the south celebrates the battles they won in the Civil War, a war which they lost. Of course, the south had the upper hand for the first half of the Civil War, so they have some reason to celebrate.

It also helps in the fact that they're dumb.

In a down-to-earth, real way. Like with farms and hard work.

Farm Dumb.

Another neat thing about Japan is that they love big people. The more you hit your head on things the more they love you. Japan is built very very small and people over 6 foot find it very uncomfortable. But when they see a large person over 6 foot it's like bringing sunshine in to their world. First they point and laugh but then they'll be sitting on your knee and telling you what they want for Christmas. Which usually involves porn.

Maximillian who France withdrew support from and chose to stay there by himself? Mexico deposed him. France left because of American intervention. Mexico could never militarilly best any country. Even Canada could (probably) hold its own against them!

Mexico also did pretty well against Spain in the 1820s... :)

Mexico also did pretty well against Spain in the 1820s... :)

Which goes to one of Darunia's later statements in the same message that you replied to:

A country fighting for its independence will always fight harder than a nation fighting to control another one.

Haha, fortunatly Oklahoma wasn't actually a state back then, so the farm morons didn't manage to settle here and spread all that. My mother however has been deep inside southern territory, and while she defends what she saw, I gotta say the stories truly are horrifying. Sorry, that realm where people go around talking about how the "north" wasn't fair or whatever just frighten me to no end. Also the racism.

*Sighs*. Do you know how much more money and resources France had than Mexico? Given, they still had to travel across the ocean, but that doesn't really matter too much, now does it?
It's worty of recognition and it's a meaningful event in the country's short history. Now quietly back away from the computer, stand up, and take the stick out of your ass. It's time to learn to stop hating countries for no reason at all.

It's time to learn to stop hating countries for no reason at all.
...This is Mexico we're talking about. We have reasons to hate Mexico. Millions of reasons, pouring across our border like floodwaters every year.

This is just a bonus.

I used to live in Texas. We called those "wetbacks". I've been to Mexico. and it's not a bad country. What about the Cubans and the other islanders? Shall we hate them too for wanting jobs?

I don't like illegal immigration but it's still not an excuse to hold a grudge against a country.

Yes it is. And I will do so if I damn well please. So, nyah to you.

See this is why people who make important decisions aren't you and will never be you.

Illegal Mass Immigration destroys a country, history has proven that over and over and over. People who dont speak the language or understand the culture inherently destroy it. That's why everyone in China is Chinese, everyone in Iran is Iranian, and so on. They may suck as countries, but China will still be China in 50 years. Here, i'm not so sure. California is only pockets of America with mostly Mexican towns where no one speaks english, no one goes to school and everyone works hard labor with little pay. How on Earth can that be a good thing.

Essentially, America IS immigrants when you break it down. However, it's managed. People who want to come in, legally, must pass a not so rigerous, but very important, exam. That exam basically just has a few requirements. You aren't swarming with parasites, and you are capable of supporting yourself. That's pretty much it. In the process of becoming a citizen, these people learn more about America than most natural born citizens will ever learn. They also get a SSN and the responsibilities of all Americans, paying taxes and such. These people have earned the right to be an American because the test is basically to weed out those who only have potential to be a drain. Illegal immigrants, however, go across the border in droves. Some that live near the border make a daily living of getting money from us and taking it down to Mexico. It's a hard life, but it's also illegal. If they can't make it in legally, they need to take a long hard look at themselves and find out what they are doing wrong, and also pick out the lice. Not that they ALL have it mind you, or even most, but that's just one thing that'll keep them out if they do. There's also only so many allowed in every day, and there's a perfectly good reason. You allow as many people from poor nations as want in, then unfortunatly, and this isn't really too much of a knock against them, but it really ruins our economy which is so sensitive. Add in too many of an element at once and you can throw everything off, and in this case, it's people starting right off at the bottom of the ladder. Result? Some of them might actually maange to achieve the American dream. The rest however, even if it's only odds, are doomed to a life of obscurity and toilet cleaning. It really WILL end up dragging the US down to Mexico's level. So, only so many in at once, and they have to do it the legal way. Why not instead of putting all that work into desperatly sneaking into the US, put it into making Mexico a better place? It's truly amazing how many people just give up just because they realize how little they can do. Some people try doing things, but everyone else just stands still. The nation, up to the point of leadership, really needs to push and reward constructive efforts on the part of the people. A large amount of them need to unleash their potential to make things better at once. The best way to do that is a government announcement during the commercial breaks of Spanish Dragon Ball Z, perhaps. I dunno, the fact is they need to face their problems head on and not complain that we aren't just letting them all in. When they clean up their act, THEN we'll see, but at that point they won't even want to come over because things will be fine there, where they no longer look at foreign people funny when they are actually surprised most people's cars are armored.

Mexico also did pretty well against Spain in the 1820s...

Spain (and Austria) are the only two countries with worse military records than Mexico. They were both superpowers once; but neither has won a war in 400+ years, and isolated they couldn't win a war against an army of kittens.

SPEAKING OF AUSTRIA, that plays very well into our discussion here, about immigration. Austria is just what it is today: one small Germanic country. It expanded to encompass more land, and soon it had dozens of minorities: Poles, Slavs, Germans, Greeks, Macedonians, Muslims---all these diverse peoples. They all wanted autonomy, and it tore Austria apart. What will happen in 50 years when California and New Mexico is SO overwhelmingly Spanish that THEY want to secede, like Quebec wants to do now?

Mexicans sweeping the nation!

So what are you guys saying (aside from Dark Jag)? Illegal immigration from Mexico is going to destroy America? Get real. It's not a good thing but it won't destroy America. Mexico is a 3rd world country (the 'highest' one at that) and it borders the most powerful nation in the world. It's never going to stop. In any sitaution like this, the lesser of the two will strive to be like the higher neighbor. They will do anything to live in America, legal or not.
But hey! Let's go raid Mexico and take it over! They have too many people jumping the border! Oh no! It's ruining MY life AND YOURS!! Help me! There's TOO many of them!
*sigh*

But really, Dark Jag makes a good point about helping their nation out. The only way to fix a leak is by going to the source.

I was really actually suggesting they try and fix themselves, requiring big time changes. If America is going to get involved, well, they'd have to take over first.

If people keep leaving Mexico at this rate wouldn't Mexico eventually be empty?

Spain (and Austria) are the only two countries with worse military records than Mexico. They were both superpowers once; but neither has won a war in 400+ years, and isolated they couldn't win a war against an army of kittens.

Darunia, the problem with using "history" to prove a biased point is that history has a tendency to not just follow one belief's path... as in, you can try to twist it to fit your means but it won't mean that that has any relation to reality.

So, I prove that Mexico can win wars, and did indeed win two. So what do you do? Ignore it, of course! Come up with excuses. Well you know what? You can do that for ANYTHING! Anything. Now, Mexico did lose badly to the US in 1848. But the US was a far stronger nation that is contiguous to Mexico... Mexico honestly never had much of a chance. Especially not with as incompetent leadership as Santa Anna provided...

SPEAKING OF AUSTRIA, that plays very well into our discussion here, about immigration. Austria is just what it is today: one small Germanic country. It expanded to encompass more land, and soon it had dozens of minorities: Poles, Slavs, Germans, Greeks, Macedonians, Muslims---all these diverse peoples. They all wanted autonomy, and it tore Austria apart. What will happen in 50 years when California and New Mexico is SO overwhelmingly Spanish that THEY want to secede, like Quebec wants to do now?

You get your history a bit off again. Austria... you know, the Austrian Empire survived for centuries. It didn't disolve just because the minorities decided they didn't like Austria anymore. It dissolved because of the chaos of World War I. Kind of like Russia... the Austrian armies preformed pretty badly in the field. Now, Austria had been a second-rate power for many years at that point (its decline starting when Prussia began to get dominant in Europe -- that is, between the mid 1700s and mid 1800s...)

Anyway, it was a weak power. But before the war, they had managed to hold it together, despite all the pressures of nationalism pressing agaisnt it. Now, there were agitators, but the government did as good a job as they possibly could to keep the empire together. The army was important... not as much in supression as in pride in the Empire's military. That, and giving some nationalities (especially Hungarians, after the Germans) more rights than others... Austria only fell apart when it was clear they were losing the war and their army had failed pretty miserably in the field. Then, all of the parts declared independance... what proves that it wasn't just a 'we want freedom' thing (though that was part of it) was that Hungary went too. Hungary hadn't exactly been opressed under Austrian rule...

My point is, your point is flawed. Now, Austria well might have collapsed on its own later on. Actually, I'd bet on it... it just was not a strong enough nation to survive. But when you look at the whole case it has zero relation to anything to do with the US. There is very little one could say about the Austrian Empire that has much to do with the US... Quebec? That's a bit closer, because it's a nationality that has lived in that place for a long time and wants its freedom, but it's also not quite the same because unlike the minorities in Austria the French in Quebec are given as many rights as the English elsewhere... and as for Mexicans in the US, oh come on. You're just insane. People come to America because they don't want to live in Mexico anymore! Why in the world would they want to take over California again? And that also ignores how strong our military is, and how strong our economy is (just as important a factor here... given how many Slavs fled Austria for the US and elsewhere...), and how anyone who comes here IS Americanized in some way... you're just paranoid. And scared of Mexicans.

And if you want to talk about Spain, the story of their rise and fall is short, relatively. They had ships and were near the coast. They came to the Americas. They exploited it for all the money they could. They shipped that gold home. They at the same time went on a massive crusade to exterminate all the Jews and Muslims in their country, and did a good job of it. This greatly reduced their population in some important categories that Jews were common in, and was of great detriment to the nation's future success. So once the gold dried up, they had nothing left and their colonies withered for a very long time.

The English came up with a better model... :)

Um, did I mention that this semester one of my classes was European History, 1815-1914? (though plenty of what I said is stuff I knew before that, like the part on Spain...):)

If people keep leaving Mexico at this rate wouldn't Mexico eventually be empty?

No, because a lot of them are actually coming from Central America and compared to the number coming here even more are staying there. I'm sure that Mexico is growing in population naturally, and not just because of immigration like the US...

You're taking it way, WAY too liberally. All I'm saying is that Mexico's military sucks; which it very well does. You claim that because Spain was beaten by Mexico, Mexico must be pretty tough there. If two retarded cripples get into a fight, one will eventually win; that doesn't mean that the winner is a superman. As for Austria, she was a superpower under the Habsurgs for centuries, but she was never a major military power unto herself. Way back to the 16th century; she survived in alliances. She was large and powerful, but a poor fighter. No matter with whom she was alligned, she inevitably failed---right up until her very last dance, WWI. She was an embarassment to Germany, who had to drain troops from the front lines to keep Italy and Russia out of Austria. She lost to France in 1859; ceded Nice and Savoy. She was a hilarious bumbling fool in the Napoleonic Wars, time and time and time again. She was persistent; the only major Austrian victory was at Leipzig---when she was helpe by Russian and Prussian troops; outnumbering Napoleon 3-1. Other than that, at Aspern-Essling, the great Austrian victory there merely forced Napoleon to withdraw for the day. They trumpeted it as saving Vienne and the war---but this was just weeks before Wagram, which was a defeat so telling that they abdicated (for the fifth time) days afterwards. Before that, Austria lost the Seven Years' War after Catherine the Great negotiated Russia out of it; she lost the War of the Spanish Succession...Austria lost, furthermore, way back in the Thirty Years' War. Inbetween she won and lost many minor wars, but all were inconsequential. Spain...well, after 1638, she was cursed. 1588 was the armada; then she lost big in the Thirty Years' War to the protestants...lost her empire piece-by-piece to the English, Dutch and French. Napoleon occupied and controlled Spain; and after he fell, her south america pride all broke free. Then, in 1898 the US kicked Spain's ass in less than a year, and took what remained of her colonial prestige in just a few months. Point being: I was right, Austria and Spain are poor fighters.

You see, I can ramble on and on to impress people, just like you.

[b]Spain (and Austria) are the only two countries with worse military records than Mexico. They were both superpowers once; but neither has won a war in 400+ years, and isolated they couldn't win a war against an army of kittens.

WTF was the Alamo then?

10,000 vs. 200. Even a Canadian should be able to do the math. That's not a battle at all, that's a tragedy.

You're taking it way, WAY too liberally. All I'm saying is that Mexico's military sucks; which it very well does. You claim that because Spain was beaten by Mexico, Mexico must be pretty tough there. If two retarded cripples get into a fight, one will eventually win; that doesn't mean that the winner is a superman. As for Austria, she was a superpower under the Habsurgs for centuries, but she was never a major military power unto herself. Way back to the 16th century; she survived in alliances. She was large and powerful, but a poor fighter. No matter with whom she was alligned, she inevitably failed---right up until her very last dance, WWI. She was an embarassment to Germany, who had to drain troops from the front lines to keep Italy and Russia out of Austria. She lost to France in 1859; ceded Nice and Savoy. She was a hilarious bumbling fool in the Napoleonic Wars, time and time and time again. She was persistent; the only major Austrian victory was at Leipzig---when she was helpe by Russian and Prussian troops; outnumbering Napoleon 3-1. Other than that, at Aspern-Essling, the great Austrian victory there merely forced Napoleon to withdraw for the day. They trumpeted it as saving Vienne and the war---but this was just weeks before Wagram, which was a defeat so telling that they abdicated (for the fifth time) days afterwards. Before that, Austria lost the Seven Years' War after Catherine the Great negotiated Russia out of it; she lost the War of the Spanish Succession...Austria lost, furthermore, way back in the Thirty Years' War. Inbetween she won and lost many minor wars, but all were inconsequential. Spain...well, after 1638, she was cursed. 1588 was the armada; then she lost big in the Thirty Years' War to the protestants...lost her empire piece-by-piece to the English, Dutch and French. Napoleon occupied and controlled Spain; and after he fell, her south america pride all broke free. Then, in 1898 the US kicked Spain's ass in less than a year, and took what remained of her colonial prestige in just a few months. Point being: I was right, Austria and Spain are poor fighters.

You know, even as late as the 1840s and 50s most observers gave Austria the edge over Prussia to control Germany... now, they were wrong, but the fact that Austria appeared to be so strong should mean something to you. Yes, they got weaker over time. But they were a very strong nation at one point, and your denying it doesn't change that... see, before the 1800s Nationalism was not a major force. Polygot empires were more the norm than not. Austria's struggles came along with the rise of nationalism and its spread to the peoples they dominated... but even then, the fact that Austria managed to stay in one piece until WWI means it had a competent government at the very least.

Oh, and as for WWI... sure, Austria did badly. So did the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire. All three fell as an effect of the war, too... and more specifically because of how poorly they fought...

Oh. Yes, in 1859 Austria was defeated by France and Piedmont-Sardinia. But France was still a very powerful nation, so it's not too surprising... note Piedmont didn't keep fighting after France stopped... and they did win SOMETIMES. For instance, when they and Prussia ganged up on Denmark... :D You ignore the 'little wars'. But they matter. They show national power as well. For instance, the wars between France and Britain in the Americas! France did well and it made them look pretty strong... which made it all the more surprising when Britain won so convincingly in the end (Montcalm and Wolfe and all that)... But their (Austria's) glory days were past in the mid 1800s. It was downhill for the rest of their existence... but Austria was still an important place, And Vienna one of the great European cities. (I've been there, but Austria, the Czech Republic, and Hungary all blend together into just a couple of things I remember...) And as I said, it shows some kind of skill to hold together such a nation for that long with a relatively weak military (though it was large and won enough most of the time to make the people proud...) and, much more importantly, the tides of nationalism rising higher and higher in Europe.

Noting wars they lost? Fine, so they didn't do as well in some wars. And they did well in others -- how do you think they expanded so far East, well into Ottoman territories? If they were as incompetent as you suggest, they wouldn't even have been anywhere near Serbia's borders in 1914, much less about to get blown apart over it...

Oh yeah, and in WWI EVERYONE was stupid. Turkey, Russia, and Austria-Hungary (official state name from the mid-1800s on... making something of a joke of Hungary's also declaring freedom after WWI...) were blown apart, but did Germany, Britain, and France really do much better? ALL the powers were stupid. The French took horrendous casualties... Oh, and against Italy at least Austria mostly held its ground. It cost massive losses, but Austria and Italy were about even... (and Italy more competent in WWI than it would be in WWII)

Spain...well, after 1638, she was cursed. 1588 was the armada; then she lost big in the Thirty Years' War to the protestants...lost her empire piece-by-piece to the English, Dutch and French. Napoleon occupied and controlled Spain; and after he fell, her south america pride all broke free. Then, in 1898 the US kicked Spain's ass in less than a year, and took what remained of her colonial prestige in just a few months. Point being: I was right, Austria and Spain are poor fighters.

Spain wasn't cursed. As I said, it was a mixture of severe talent drain because of the Inquisition (kill or convert all the Jews and Moslems!) and their flawed gold-first policy. England didn't do a gold-first policy and succeeded... Spain was focused on exploitation and making money for the treasury, not truly running good colonies. And it showed. Oh, and when that gold ran out... Spain was a shell way before 1898. It's actually amazing they clung on to some colonies that long... the US only didn't take Cuba in the mid 1800s because the Civil War started up before the South could convince the North to let them take it as another slave colony.


[b]Spain (and Austria) are the only two countries with worse military records than Mexico. They were both superpowers once; but neither has won a war in 400+ years, and isolated they couldn't win a war against an army of kittens.

Given Austria's size now, should that be surprising? :) All Austria has now is its memories of its glory days and the nice city of Vienna to keep up for the tourists. As for Spain, they don't have the best military in the world but they have one worth some mention at least... don't win wars? Most European nations don't seem to fight many wars by themselves anymore, you know. Peacekeeping, maybe (France does, anyway), but wars? Cooalitions...

Darunia gets his history for "cossacks - the art of war". please forgive him.

http://chopsticks.koolplace.com/stuff/pic/img/battleshipcanada.jpg
I'm sure someone here has seen this before... I just thought it was kinda random and funny :flowers:

:D

ABF, all you did was take what I wrote, rebuke some of it and reword it with...well, more words. All I've been trying to beat into your Canadian cranium is that Austria, Spain and Mexico have poor military histories. For some reason, that threatens your existence, so you're gungho on proving to me that they're military histories aren't so bad.

But they are, so get over it.

They are no worse than anyone else's (in their categories), over the course of their histories...

*agrees with ABF*

Spain... I mean, they had a major intercontinental empire! How in the world could you call them a complete failure militarially? And they forced out the Muslims once France stopped them at the Pyrrenes (sp). And united their nation into one (excepting Portugal), finishing when Columbus left -- recall Ferdinand and Isabella married to unite Aragon and Castille. Yes, after the 1500s or so they started slipping and were in full decline by the 1800s, but they were once great.

Austria, same thing. How in the world does a "failure" conquer most of South-Eastern Europe???

You're just looking at their weak points and calling them a failure for it. If that's the standard we are going to set, then the Roman Empire was also a MISERABLE failure. After all, they were CRUSHED in the Tannenburg Forest, permanantly stopping their expansion into Germany, and then several hundred years later collapsed! What more proof could I possibly need to know that they were a pathetic great power?

In short, you are using fundamentally flawed logic. Not that that's too surprising...

Spain... I mean, they had a major intercontinental empire! How in the world could you call them a complete failure militarially? And they forced out the Muslims once France stopped them at the Pyrrenes (sp). And united their nation into one (excepting Portugal), finishing when Columbus left -- recall Ferdinand and Isabella married to unite Aragon and Castille. Yes, after the 1500s or so they started slipping and were in full decline by the 1800s, but they were once great.

It's all relative. They are poor compared to the rest of Europe. Even the dimmest bulb has its bright days.

Austria, same thing. How in the world does a "failure" conquer most of South-Eastern Europe???

What, you mean an area the size of Vermont? And you put "failure" in marks as though I actually said that word. You added failure; I just said in the beginning that they were the two worst European powers militarily. AND THEY WERE. One can tell that you're a liberal; it's in everything you say... "we're all special, there are no losers." Austria and Spain are, militarily, second class .

You're just looking at their weak points and calling them a failure for it. No, I'm looking quite broadly at 400 years of general history.

What, you mean an area the size of Vermont? And you put "failure" in marks as though I actually said that word. You added failure; I just said in the beginning that they were the two worst European powers militarily. AND THEY WERE. One can tell that you're a liberal; it's in everything you say... "we're all special, there are no losers." Austria and Spain are, militarily, second class .


Yes, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina (sp?), a big chunk of Romania (Transylvania was part of Hungary), and, of course, Austria are indeed about as large as Vermont. I bow to your superior geographic knowledge...

:erm:

Naturally, their pitiful military might is proven by how the conquered all that... and same with Spain. 'Even a dim bulb has bright days'??? Spain was one of the most powerful countries in Europe for many decades, and worth mentioning for some time after that! And Austria was a powerful empire for centuries! You are insane!

So what are all these nations with SOOOO much better military records? Britain? France? Prussia? Italy? Umm, all of them have plenty of failures too, if you look at the "right" times like you're doing! EVERYONE has failures. Every empire weakens and slowly falls. Just like every one has a strong point.

Did I ever say that by the late 1800s Austria and Spain weren't weak empires? No. By that point, they had declined quite far. But your statements are very clearly not just talking about then. You're talking about their whole history. And that proves you to be totally wrong.

As for Mexico, they just had the bad luck to be just south of a much more powerful nation.

Since ABF lives in Maine and Darunia and I go to the same college in Massachusetts (Goronville or Moronville?) I suggest we all meet up this summer and discuss this over a cup of coffee or tea. Oh, wait... I forgot, Darunia doesn't like either of those. One Lemonade please!

Or on screwdriver (yes I'm cool because I ingest vodka,)

AND NOW BACK TO THE SHOW!

ABF. All I've been saying is that Spain and Austria are second class by world standards. They are. It's the way of things. Italy? Psf, don't make me laugh; Italy's just a tad better than Spain or Austria. Britain, France, Germany are the big three. Spain was big for a century, but declined not immediately after the Armada, but rather during the height of the Thirty Years' War. Austria may have conquered many small, divided people in many small states in the Balkan area, but they never successfully won a war against a (major) European state. Spain was cursed after 1648. I'm repeating what I've already said, because you just keep blaring history lessons at me without getting a clue: ALL I SAID WAS THAT SPAIN AND AUSTRIA AREN'T GREAT MILITARY POWERS/HAVEN'T BEEN FOR 350 YEARS. It's more an opinion than fact, but come on. You can't accept that, though, and you have to write out a huge report on how they used to be so grand. Ugh.

Children shouldn't drink.

I like history. I wrote that because I wanted to, not because I "had" to... and because you're making vast overgeneralizations that actual history does NOT back up.

You're just denying it until your ass bleeds. Anyone could pick up any authentic history of Western Europe and come to my same conclusion. Spain and Austria have been the least powerful European powers for 350 years. It's obvious. While they were declining, all the others were either growing or standing still. I insert the number '350 years', but you cannot accept that; so you trumpet at me how Spain was once so grand 500 years ago. That's 100% beside the point.

Austria wasn't seriously in decline until the 1800s (after the rise of nationalism). No, not 350 years.

What about Spain's navy power? They were one of the most powerful nations with a navy...

The Spanish Armada was a major blow there... but it was still some time until Britain became indesputably the strongest naval power, I'd say.

Austria wasn't seriously in decline until the 1800s (after the rise of nationalism). No, not 350 years My god, that is...so now true...Austria was, in my opinion, only a major power only for lack of a stronger one. Their power was never THAT supreme; and by the War of the Austrian Succession, it was all but absent. Spanish Succession; Seven Years War...they fielded armies, but played no major role in deciding the victory. By the Napoleonic Wars, they were "the sick old man of Europe"...bumbling and backwards. I'd say that this was in effect for 350 YEARS, as opposed to 200, quoted by you. They may've been a gallant, elogant power, but militarilly they were decrepid.

What about Spain's navy power? They were one of the most powerful nations with a navy...

They had a lot of ships...building a huge fleet was never a problem---but its quantity, not quality. The same is for France; who had a great fleet, but poor training and tactics. Thus, the British navy always, always, always won. The Spanish Armada, The Nile, Aboukir Bay, Trafalgar... all support this. The Spanish Navy hasn't won a major naval battle in....(again my date)...at least 350 years.

The Spanish Armada was a major blow there... but it was still some time until Britain became indesputably the strongest naval power, I'd say.

Perhaps...and the British came into power, what, 300 YEARS AGO!? About 1700 is when they really became prominent, I'd say about 1720, during the Spanish Succession.

And Britain declined in the 1940s. Every empire has a height and a decline and a low point...

France? Their navy had a few points where it competed with Britain's (such as, fortuitously for us, in 1783...), but it always faded back afterwards because Britain's was just better.

Spain and Austria we're just repeating ourselves... but I'll say more later anyway. :)

And Britain declined in the 1940s. Every empire has a height and a decline and a low point...

That's a very relative point of view. Britain didn't "decline", it threw away its empire. At that time, all of Europe did...it was the cool thing for western powers to do. They scaled down their militaries, liberated (almost) all of their colonies, and became the political wusses that they are today. If they hadn't opted to, Britain would still be the major world power it used to be. France could've done more to win in Indochina and Algeria. All of Africa would still be under the European sway. They opted to step down.

France? Their navy had a few points where it competed with Britain's (such as, fortuitously for us, in 1783...), but it always faded back afterwards because Britain's was just better.

Isn't that essentially what I just said. Yet you feel compelled to answer it anyway with an ABF slant. :shake: