I'm an American, and I belive that we took all the land that we currently have by unnecessary force.

Including all that land we purchased from France, Britain and Russia without the use of force?

We might as well make a Jack Daniels ad that has a picture of the entire North American continent with a big American flag flowing from Canada to Mexico and the words "United States of North America" shown proudly proclaiming our status as the new world empire!

Shut up and laugh America...we're not on this earth long enough to gripe and complain!

We are AMERICAN too

why the people in USA is american only?

They stole the word America, but that word is for all of us who live across the continent.

sorry AMERICANS you are Thieves

besides the silly rage inspired by a simple, accurate map from the 1800s

It's not accurate, the British controlled the Washington/Oregon area until after Texas was annexed.

Stick it to them.

Agros Holding SA
ALLIED DOMECQ (HOLDINGS) LTD
ALLIED DOMECQ (US) FINANCE
ALLIED DOMECQ ATLANTIC FINANCE LTD
ALLIED DOMECQ CANADA FINANCING CO
Allied Domecq Canada Ltd
ALLIED DOMECQ EUROPEAN INVESTMENTS LTD
ALLIED DOMECQ FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD
Allied Domecq International Holdings B.V.
ALLIED DOMECQ INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LTD
ALLIED DOMECQ INVESTMENTS LTD
ALLIED DOMECQ INVESTMENTS UK LTD
ALLIED DOMECQ MEDICAL EXPENSES TRUST LTD
ALLIED DOMECQ OVERSEAS (CANADA) LTD
ALLIED DOMECQ OVERSEAS (EUROPE) LTD
ALLIED DOMECQ OVERSEAS LTD
Allied Domecq PLC
Allied Domecq Spirits & Wine (Europe) B.V.
ALLIED DOMECQ SPIRITS & WINE (INVESTMENTS) LTD
Allied Domecq Spirits & Wine Estonia A S
ALLIED DOMECQ SPIRITS & WINE HOLDINGS LTD
Allied Domecq Spirits & Wine Latvia Sia
Ambrosio Velasco Sa
Austin Nichols & Co. Incorporated
AUSTIN NICHOLS AND CO
BECHER SP (KARLOVY VARY)
BEEFEATER GIN LTD
CAMPBELL DISTILLERS LTD
CASELLA
CAXTON TOWER WINES
CHIVAS BROTHERS (AMERICAS) LTD
CHIVAS BROTHERS (EUROPE) LTD
CHIVAS BROTHERS (HOLDINGS) LTD
CHIVAS BROTHERS (JAPAN) LTD
Chivas Brothers Ltd
CHIVAS BROTHERS PERNOD RICARD LTD
CIDRERIES ET SOPAGLY REUNIES
Compagnie Des Jus De Marmande
Courvoisier Sa
Cusenier Sa
DILLON WINES AND SPIRITS
Distillerie Charentaise Jubert Sa
Domecq Bodegas S.L.
Domecq Wines Espana Sa
FOULON
G H Mumm Et Cie
GLENLIVET HOLDINGS LTD
HILL, THOMSON & CO., LTD
Hiram Walker & Sons Limited
Hiram Walker-Gooderham & Worts Limited
HOUSE OF CAMPBELL LTD
IRISH DISTILLERS GROUP PLC
Jan Becher - Karlovarska Becherovka A.S.
Joseph E Seagram & Sons Ltd
L. De Salignac Et Compagnie
LARIOS
MACNAB DISTILLERIES LTD
Malibu-Kahlua International
MARTELL
Martell & Co
MILLSTREAM (HOLDINGS) LTD
Mumm Perrier Jouet Vignobles & Recherche
OPTISURE LTD
Orlando Wyndham
Pernod
Pernod Ricard
Pernod Ricard (Thailand) Limited
Pernod Ricard Argentina S.A.
Pernod Ricard Austria Gmbh
Pernod Ricard Belgium Nv
Pernod Ricard Brasil Indústria E Comércio Ltda.
Pernod Ricard Canada Ltee
Pernod Ricard Canarias S.L.
Pernod Ricard Denmark Aktieselskab
Pernod Ricard Deutschland GmbH
Pernod Ricard Espana SA
Pernod Ricard Estonia Ou
Pernod Ricard Europe
Pernod Ricard Finland Oy
Pernod Ricard Hong Kong Limited
Pernod Ricard Italia Spa
Pernod Ricard Japan K.K.
Pernod Ricard Latvia Sia
Pernod Ricard Pacific Holding Pty Ltd
Pernod Ricard Pacific Pty Ltd
Pernod Ricard Portugal - Somagnum DistribuiÇÃo S.A.
Pernod Ricard Singapore Pte Ltd
Pernod Ricard Sweden Ab
Pernod Ricard Swiss Sa
Pernod Ricard UK Ltd
Pernod Ricard Usa Llc
Pernod Ricard Venezuela C.A.
Pernod Rikard Private Joint Stock Company
Pr Hungary Import Szeszesital Kereskedelmi Korlatolt Felelossegu Tarsasag
PR NEWCO 3 LTD
PR NEWCO 4
RAMAZZOTTI
Renault-Bisquit Sa
Ruavieja Sa
Sa Ricard
Seagram Distilleries Private Limited
Seagram India Private Limited
Spirits Partners
Ste Des Domaines Renault Bisquit
Ste Des Produits D Armagnac
THE GLENLIVET DISTILLERIES LTD
THE GLENLIVET DISTILLERS LTD
THE GLENLIVET DISTILLERS LTD
TIA MARIA INTERNATIONAL LTD
TIA MARIA LTD
TWO DOGS ALCOHOLIC LEMONADE
Vista Buena Winery Inc
WHITE HEATHER DISTILLERS LTD
WORLD BRANDS DUTY FREE LTD
Wyborowa SA
WYNDHAM ESTATE WINES
Wyndham Estate Wines (Australia) Pty Limited
YEREVAN COGNAC FACTORY
YOO HOO CHOCOLATE BEVERAGE CORP

It sounds like you and I mostly agree, amigo.
These multiculturally brainwashed idiots think everybody is going to magically get along, some dreamy day. They ignore the glaring fact that tribes, and nations formed because like-minded peoople got together, interbred, and became more closely related. Thus they solidified their ways, and their bonds to eachother.
Then there are the bloodthirsty moneygrubbers...the sort that want more cash or power than they could wield in a lifetime. They are the epitome of greed.
And both the cultural marxists, and the neocon, one-world super rich are stupid. They will kill the world.
Meanwhile, people like you and I-whom are probably in the majority, just want to live our lives in peace, free to enjoy our cultures, free from manipulation, outside dominance, race war, enforced, artificial, ultimately faccist political correctness, and all the other horrors of the new world order.
Well, the greedy and the unwise always collapse from their own megalomania eventually.
Hopefully, amigo, you and I will be around when the idiots of the world are forced to give up their plans for all us normal people, and just let us be.
I hope your culture survives. That's all I ever wanted for my people.
Peace.

the bad mexicans wants his territories back :(

bola de gringos putos llorones jajaja

I used the words "history tells them", not tells them what to do, very deliberately, since what is learned can go either way.

Your knowledge of chess seems to be minimal. A new departure move breaks away entirely from the record (or history) of the line, and creates a new game, as it were, with new positions and new moves to consider, and it usually alters both the tactical and strategic situation.

In most cases, the new move has nothing at all to do with the previous moves except to advance the move count. It isn't a groping for a pattern that isn't there, it is a well-planned new sequence of moves that confers an advantage to the one that discovered it (unless the new move is refuted over the board--and not by history!).

To me, history is several things: it is someone's snapshots of a time period; it is someone's opinion as to what was going on; it is a record of facts, at least as seen by someone; and, it is a record of outcomes from various kinds of efforts, be it war or economic uphevals, etc.

The problem I have with history is historians; those who would interpret the past through their filters of NOW to reach a preplanned conclusion.
One can spend oceans of time trying to find an analogous situation in the past to what is facing us in the NOW, and then trying to use that information to guide one's efforts. Using that time to better analyze the situation to come up with a vaild plan might well be more profitable.

That is no more obvious than in chess. All of the historical move and positional information you have will do you absolutely no good when faced with a new positional situation. You must analyze it going forward.

I think this is a dead horse issue now, don't you?

I stated again that inventive minds, perhaps with ample knowledge of history, can and do ignore what history tells them in order to pursue their own ideas.

History doesn't tell you what to do, it tells you what others have done. Saying you are ignoring history means you're ignoring what others have done. This is completely different from simply not doing what others have done.

You seem to turn the leaf over to agree with me! And then attempt to say that any new departure from historical precedent is actually following history, just that the history is unknown! You have me there! Unknown history! This I cannot deal with!

Again it seems we're using different meanings for the same terms. I see history as a repository of information, not an instruction manual. You can use the information about what someone else has done in the past to decide _not_ to do the same thing in the future. In my book, Knowledge!=Following and Ignorance!=Diverging, that either action can come from knowledge or ignorance, the only difference is that actions coming from knowledge are generally more successful than actions coming from ignorance.

So there was no tradition to follow, and no history to follow either at that point. It is really a simple concept, Michael. After the original, new move, the history of that line went out the window and made new chess history!

If chess games could be played where the entire sequence from start to finish was known before hand, there would be no sense in playing, whomever got the first move would pick the sequence of events that leads to his victory. Instead chess is based on strategies and patterns which are rooted in history. Even your "new lines" are just attempts to create a favored pattern when one isn't readily available. But these "new lines" are not random moves, they are calculated based on a player's history in the game. Again, knowledge of history leads to better actions, even if those actions are the opposite of what has historically been done.

It is similar in the case of Alexander, but with the terrible admonition of military history that going up against a 10 to 1 numerical disadvantage is folly.

Only it wasn't 10 to 1 by any modern estimates. Even still, Alexander's moves were not ignoring history, but rather based on the knowledge that in picking a narrow field of battle he could negate any advantage Darius had. Everything Alexander did strategically had historical precedence.

His usual anvil and hammer tactic had to be modified to fit the circumstances, and it worked, despite the teachings of military history up until then. But I repeat myself. He made an original move with his cavalry, and history was rewritten.

Alexander narrowed Darius's line, used geography to keep from being out-flanked, used a decoy attack to lure the main forces into attacking his defensive position, broke through an opening in the line, and out-flanked Darius. Tell me what part of that was novel.

You seem to turn the leaf over to agree with me! And then attempt to say that any new departure from historical precedent is actually following history, just that the history is unknown! You have me there! Unknown history! This I cannot deal with!

In chess there is something called an original line of attack when it is first sprung on an opponent with no precedent in the literature. Alekhine and Fischer were well-known for their original lines. That these lines were dubbed original later on by other grandmasters means that there was no history of such a line in the chess literature reaching far back.

Thus chess history was not a factor in their decision to play their line. Their opponents had no recourse to history either, and had to rely on over-the-board analysis of a position before making a counter move. That the players had historical knowledge of advantageous and disadvantageous positions that could arise is a given, but the tactical responses NOW dominated the game.

So there was no tradition to follow, and no history to follow either at that point. It is really a simple concept, Michael. After the original, new move, the history of that line went out the window and made new chess history!

It is similar in the case of Alexander, but with the terrible admonition of military history that going up against a 10 to 1 numerical disadvantage is folly.

His usual anvil and hammer tactic had to be modified to fit the circumstances, and it worked, despite the teachings of military history up until then. But I repeat myself. He made an original move with his cavalry, and history was rewritten.