Can I Have A Mass Said for American Heroes?

[apriori]

That’s correct, but Texan rage alone would not have been able to win the battle. Righteous anger never withstood an artillery bombardment, and Sam Houston was a smart enough man to recognize that his army could not have won a battle against the professional army of the Mexicans without something extra on his side. In this case, it was the fact that they were all asleep.

It should be noted that Iraq terrorists are killing more American soldiers than American soldiers are killing terrorists. And the Americans have all the training, material, money, soldiers, and fancy equipment. The terrorist have but one advantage. They hate Americans so much that they are willing to kill themselves to kill more Americans.

Attitude can win a battle too. One Iraq terrorist said, “We don’t stand a chance. The Americans outnumber us 20-1.” Another terrorist replied, But look at how fortunate we are! We have so many targets to shoot at, while the Americans have so few."

 

[Lujack]

It should be noted that Iraq terrorists are killing more American soldiers than American soldiers are killing terrorists. And the Americans have all the training, material, money, soldiers, and fancy equipment. The terrorist have but one advantage. They hate Americans so much that they are willing to kill themselves to kill more Americans.

Attitude can win a battle too. One Iraq terrorist said, “We don’t stand a chance. The Americans outnumber us 20-1.” Another terrorist replied, But look at how fortunate we are! We have so many targets to shoot at, while the Americans have so few."

1. I doubt this is true. While the sources are a few years old, most of them peg the casualty ratio in Iraq as four to one in favor of the American armies. So, no.
2. Once again, the Iraqis are not trying to engage the Americans in a standup fight, a battle of armies. When was the last time you heard about massed terrorists assaulting an American base?
3. You need to distinguish political will from the impact of military morale on an individual engagement; national spirit can win a war, but that’s different from the Texans willing themselves to storm Santa Ana’s battle lines despite the fact that he had all the artillery.

 

[apriori]

1. I doubt this is true. While the sources are a few years old, most of them peg the casualty ratio in Iraq as four to one in favor of the American armies. So, no.

 

[Lujack]

 

[apriori]

apriori;4931509:

You claimed that the Iraqis were killing more Americans than Americans were killing Iraqis. That’s not true, and now you’re trying to move the goalposts to “slowing down the army to a crawl”.

I said that Iraqi terrorist were killing more Americans than Americans were killing terrorists. I stand behind that statement. I wasn’t including the Iraqi Army casualties because that is a seperate issue. I was trying to prove that assymetrical warfare can be very effective. One suicide bomber can take out 20,or 30 people. That creates the 20-1 ratio.

Guerrilla fighters always take astronomical casualties. The only way they win is that they are often more patient than the enemy, and willing to absorb those casualties for longer. They only rarely win any individual battles.

If by individual battles with large armies, that it one thing. That is where artillery is useful. But not against small forces. You need a large stationary target (THE ALAMO) for the cannons of that era to hit anything.

No, history has shown that a few men with guns can be useful for harassing the enemy, and a well-organized resistance force can do damage to an occupier, but they alone cannot and will not win the war. Even in Vietnam, it was the NVA that proved to be the crack fighters, not the Vietcong. The Maquis alone had no chance to throw the Germans out of France, and without the Red Army to fight at the front, Cossack raids on German supply lines in Russia would have been pointless.

As the Alamo proves, the Mexican Army was held up for 13 days. The defenders of the Alamo never intended to win the war at the Alamo. They only signed on to keep the Mexicans busy while aid was to arrive from either Fannin or Houston. Fannin had a seperate Mexican Army to deal with and could not come to the Alamo’s aid. Houston was playing politician and kept refusing to go to the aid of the Alamo until forced to do so by the other politicians. They kept receiving letters for help from the Alamo but Houston refused to acknowledge them. I suggest you take a look at this documentary because that is a very important point that is brought up. Houston did not want to go to the Alamo’s aid and sealed their fate.

Houston did

do what Santa Ana didn’t want him to do! He did avoid a traditional battle! He retreated and retreated and retreated until the Mexican Army was sleeping, and then he struck, preventing them from employing their artillery in a traditional battle!

The artillery wouldn’t have made much difference. Trying to hit a moving target with a rifle is hard enough but trying to do it with a cannon is near impossible.

That “cut, slash, and run” suggestion from the ridiculous John Wayne movie, though, would have been a disaster. There was no real escape from the Alamo, except in individual runners (and for them it was difficult), because Mexican dragoons controlled the desert. The terrain wasn’t suited for it, either, because unlike South Carolina where Francis Marion could hide in the swamps, the land was way too open. Plus, the population just wasn’t large and united enough to support that.

Houston’s army could have made all the difference but then the Alamo would be just another building and not a shrine.

Race war??? Only in the sense that any war between foreign countries is a race war. I guess Juan Seguin’s cavalry company doesn’t exist, either.

Besides, it wasn’t that he was more generous to hispanics than whites (the distinction you’re making between Americans and Mexicans is silly because they were all, technically, Mexican subjects and residents of Texas), it seemed that way because virtually the entire white population was in rebellion. He was generous to those non-rebels, who were almost all hispanic. Hispanic rebels, however, got no special treatment.

He probably gave Mexicans a break because he wanted to show the difference to his soldiers. He was a politician too!

The difference in race is also examined in the documentary.This is brought up in letters that some of the Mexican soldiers wrote. They said it would be the first time they would be fighting people of a different race. Not acknowledging what a difference race makes is really ignoring history. Today, Mexicans claim to be Mexican or American or Hispanic or Latino depending on who is present and what parade their marching in.

Is that a race difference or a country of origin difference or a loyalty. Most Americans of most races consider themselves Americans plus whatever race they happen to be. I would assume they are loyal to America if America every went to war against the country they originated from, like Italians, Germans, and Japanese during WW2. I personally don’t connect myself with any other country but America.

 

[Lujack]

Lujack;4931732:

apriori;4931509:

I said that Iraqi terrorist were killing more Americans than Americans were killing terrorists. I stand behind that statement. I wasn’t including the Iraqi Army casualties because that is a seperate issue. I was trying to prove that assymetrical warfare can be very effective. One suicide bomber can take out 20,or 30 people. That creates the 20-1 ratio.

And I’m telling you that this isn’t true. In 2006, long after the Iraqi army was gone, the casualty ratio was still four to one in favor of the American army. The insurgents are suffering more casualties.

If by individual battles with large armies, that it one thing. That is where artillery is useful. But not against small forces. You need a large stationary target (THE ALAMO) for the cannons of that era to hit anything.

In a traditional set piece battle, the army is a large stationary target. Mexican artillery was widely considered by observers to be on a par with European artillery, which had been used to break up attacks since the 1700’s. Look at the artillery of the Napoleonic War, and see what that was capable of doing to an attacking army; any attempted attack by the Texans against a prepared Mexican army would have met the same fate: shredded by artillery, especially if it was over open ground.

As the Alamo proves, the Mexican Army was held up for 13 days. The defenders of the Alamo never intended to win the war at the Alamo. They only signed on to keep the Mexicans busy while aid was to arrive from either Fannin or Houston. Fannin had a seperate Mexican Army to deal with and could not come to the Alamo’s aid.

You moved the goalposts again. The men in the Alamo weren’t guerrilla fighters on the run, but soldiers in a fort! That’s entirely different from the “cut and run” strategy you’re claiming would have held up the Mexican Army!

Houston was playing politician and kept refusing to go to the aid of the Alamo until forced to do so by the other politicians. They kept receiving letters for help from the Alamo but Houston refused to acknowledge them. I suggest you take a look at this documentary because that is a very important point that is brought up. Houston did not want to go to the Alamo’s aid and sealed their fate.

It is a very important point in the course of the war: Houston didn’t go to the Alamo because he couldn’t win. The Texans would not have beaten the Mexicans in a standup fight, especially in the open desert where artillery is at its most effective. Houston wisely avoided that confrontation.

The artillery wouldn’t have made much difference. Trying to hit a moving target with a rifle is hard enough but trying to do it with a cannon is near impossible.

It isn’t that hard to fire at the army! Massed troops are an easy target for artillery, especially on open ground. Armies had been doing that for over a hundred years before the Mexican War; it was an old tactic in Frederick the Great’s time!

Houston’s army could have made all the difference but then the Alamo would be just another building and not a shrine.

No, they would have been torn apart by artillery and we’d be talking about the brief revolution in the Mexican province of Tejas.

He probably gave Mexicans a break because he wanted to show the difference to his soldiers. He was a politician too!

He gave Mexicans a break because they were not in rebellion against his government. Any Mexicans in rebellion against the government didn’t get special treatment?

The difference in race is also examined in the documentary.This is brought up in letters that some of the Mexican soldiers wrote. They said it would be the first time they would be fighting people of a different race. Not acknowledging what a difference race makes is really ignoring history. Today, Mexicans claim to be Mexican or American or Hispanic or Latino depending on who is present and what parade their marching in.

Is that a race difference or a country of origin difference or a loyalty. Most Americans of most races consider themselves Americans plus whatever race they happen to be. I would assume they are loyal to America if America every went to war against the country they originated from, like Italians, Germans, and Japanese during WW2. I personally don’t connect myself with any other country but America.

I’m not sure what this tangent is about, but the Texas Revolution certainly was not a race war, any more than its a race war when the Italians fight the Germans.