Can Canadian Anti-Americanism Survive Obama

[Praxius]

So that means the US beat you guys in the Revolution. Not just that but you must take credit for every war that the British lost. So much for your unblemished war record.

Nah, we're only concerned with the ones we were involved in.... the rest doesn't matter..... that and if that mentality was the case, those same lost wars would applied to you guys right up until your revolution.

And since we joined the UK/British Empire in just about every one of their wars they've been in except Iraq, including WWI and II (WWI was still technically under British authority) what you claimed above is somewhat true.

But when it comes to Canada's direct involvement in conflicts, be that under the British or on our own with other allies, etc., there have been very few losses..... and considering how the Germans of WWI and II considered our troops as storm/shock troops, hard to demoralize and kept on coming like lemmings until the job was done...... and considering our overall population..... that's not too shabby.

I ain't saying we're better then you guys, and I'm not saying we're the best..... but as history has shown.... we'll put up a fight when we need to and it won't be pretty.

Not true. The British troops that burned down the White House were fresh from the Pennisula Wars with France. They were sent to Bermuda and the fleet left Bermuda for the Chesapeake. They did not stop off in Canada to pick up any militia.

I never said they used any militia, but the attack was widly accept to have occured from the saking of York (Toronto).... there was no real other reason why they went to Washington, other then to repay the favor..... thus, via Canada.

"A suggestion of retaliation comes from the fact that Governor-General Sir George Prevost of Canada had written to the Admirals in Bermuda calling for a retaliation for the American sacking of York. He needed their permission and provision of naval resources. At the time, it was considered against the civilized laws of war to burn a non-military facility and the Americans had not only burned the Parliament but also some private warehouses which were also looted. Further proof of the retaliation was that after the limited British burning of some facilities of Washington, the British left. There was no territory that they wanted to occupy and no military facility that they had planned to attack."

Burning of Washington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ Althoguh through all the information I can find on the situation, besides the mention of George Cockburn leading the mission, everything mentioned only British this and British that..... George prior to entering Washington, was patrolling the atlantic coast..... but the remaining details of who all was involved is a bit limited from what I can find.

But since the US was at war with the British Empire, it would only make sense that most of the history would only reference the British Empire and the US, since Canada was merely a part of the British Empire.

True... as did the many attempts by the British attempts and attack the US failed including the force that burned down the White House.

They didn't fail in their burning of Washington/White House.... they went in with a small force, nothing meant to occupy, burned what they wanted to and left within 26 hours I believe.

In the end, the fighting went back and forth in that war, but looking at the final tallies which don't include militias or natives on either side, more losses were on the US side of the battle then the British.

But that's just nit picking.

Sure we had a larger casualty list. The Soviets had a larger casualty list than the Germans in WWII. How did that work out for them?

The Germans lost miserably..... but there was a loss none the less. In the end of the war of 1812, everything went right back to the way things were before the war.... all the borders remained the same.... and when you reflect apon that, it seems a bit pointless for the war to have ever occured in the first place..... .and when the US ends up with more casualties then the British and gained nothing..... that seems a bit like a slight loss to me.

Meh.... oh well.... the point being is we ain't weak, but we do have big mouths. Having big mouths is what has prevented us from being brutal warmongers and wanting to kill everybody around us, because our big mouths allow us to vent our anger, then drink a lot.... then forget what we were angry about.

It's a system

 

[EagleSmack]

Nah, we're only concerned with the ones we were involved in.... the rest doesn't matter..... that and if that mentality was the case, those same lost wars would applied to you guys right up until your revolution.

And since we joined the UK/British Empire in just about every one of their wars they've been in except Iraq, including WWI and II (WWI was still technically under British authority) what you claimed above is somewhat true.

But when it comes to Canada's direct involvement in conflicts, be that under the British or on our own with other allies, etc., there have been very few losses..... and considering how the Germans of WWI and II considered our troops as storm/shock troops, hard to demoralize and kept on coming like lemmings until the job was done...... and considering our overall population..... that's not too shabby.

And I never said Canadians can't fight. In college I did a report on the Royal Newfoundland Regt. of which my G-Mothers cousin fought and died with during WWI. It was a great report (If I must say) and I got an A. It talked about the dedication and unwavering bravery during the Battle of Beaumont-Hammel in the Somme. My favorite quote from the British General was...

"... it's assault failed because dead men can advance no further."

The fighting capabilities and spirit of Canadian soldiers is not a target here.

I ain't saying we're better then you guys, and I'm not saying we're the best..... but as history has shown.... we'll put up a fight when we need to and it won't be pretty.

Well said.

I never said they used any militia, but the attack was widly accept to have occured from the saking of York (Toronto).... there was no real other reason why they went to Washington, other then to repay the favor..... thus, via Canada.

It is accepted that the burning of Washington was in retaliation for the burning of York. Tit for tat and all's fair in war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

Althoguh through all the information I can find on the situation, besides the mention of George Cockburn leading the mission, everything mentioned only British this and British that..... George prior to entering Washington, was patrolling the atlantic coast..... but the remaining details of who all was involved is a bit limited from what I can find.

From what I have read was they were dispatched from Bermuda and landed at the Chesapeake.

They didn't fail in their burning of Washington/White House.... they went in with a small force, nothing meant to occupy, burned what they wanted to and left within 26 hours I believe.

Burning Washington was not the sole action of the Chesapeake Campaign, it was the first. The same troops that burned the White House boarded their ships and moved on to Baltimore where they were beaten and forced to retreat back to their ships and left the United States.

As the same US Forces that burned York where eventually turned back from Canada so was the same for the British troops that burned Washington.

In the end, the fighting went back and forth in that war, but looking at the final tallies which don't include militias or natives on either side, more losses were on the US side of the battle then the British.

But that's just nit picking.

But losses do not always determine the outcome of a war or battle. The US lost more men during the Revolution than the British did. Did we lose?

The Germans lost miserably..... but there was a loss none the less. In the end of the war of 1812, everything went right back to the way things were before the war.... all the borders remained the same.... and when you reflect apon that, it seems a bit pointless for the war to have ever occured in the first place..... .and when the US ends up with more casualties then the British and gained nothing..... that seems a bit like a slight loss to me.

Everything went right back to the way it was and the British toyed with the idea of getting concessions but when it was drawn out for them that although they were successful in some battles their invasions were all repulsed... including the invasion that did originate from Canada and may have contained Canadian Militia.

The US started the war because it was being pushed around by the British, particularly on the high seas with the pressing of US sailors. The US had a very small navy and Canada was the only place to strike at British interests. In the end the war was just as costly for the British to continue as it was for the US. There was no surrender, it was a cease fire and everything went back to the way it was.

Meh.... oh well.... the point being is we ain't weak, but we do have big mouths. Having big mouths is what has prevented us from being brutal warmongers and wanting to kill everybody around us, because our big mouths allow us to vent our anger, then drink a lot.... then forget what we were angry about.

It's a system

Well when some big mouth likens the US to a "fat smelly kid" I am sure you do not expect me to lay up on that. You know me by now.

We like to vent and drink a lot too! :smile:

 

[Tyr]

We like to vent and drink a lot too! :icon_smile:

Alcool and tang is just putrid

 

[darkbeaver]

Is that when you lost your cherry?


I humbly apologize.
I couldn't resist

Trex

He should have seen it coming, you can't apologize for every oportunity taken you know.:smile:

 

[darkbeaver]

Hate of empirialists and tyrany is by no means an unnatural act. In fact it's rather more the ethically acceptable choice of free men than it is of the cowed slave.

 

[Praxius]

And I never said Canadians can't fight. In college I did a report on the Royal Newfoundland Regt. of which my G-Mothers cousin fought and died with during WWI. It was a great report (If I must say) and I got an A. It talked about the dedication and unwavering bravery during the Battle of Beaumont-Hammel in the Somme. My favorite quote from the British General was...

"... it's assault failed because dead men can advance no further."

The fighting capabilities and spirit of Canadian soldiers is not a target here.

Then what's with the "Weak" comment eh?

It is accepted that the burning of Washington was in retaliation for the burning of York. Tit for tat and all's fair in war.

Well the whole point was that with given resources, we can get things done very much in the same manner as you guys..... just a little differently and like a whole mafia family situation where the whole family gets involved.... and we got plenty of room for family to stay over if they wish..... which if they were smart in the winter, they won't, because the only place they'll be able to stay in up in the artic.... fun fun...

From what I have read was they were dispatched from Bermuda and landed at the Chesapeake.

Ah, from what I read, they were dispatched from there, did their stuff in the Chesapeake campaign and well:

George Cockburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Cockburn played a major role in the War of 1812 as second in command to Admiral Sir John Borlase Warren to the end of March 1814 and then to Warren's successor, Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane for the rest of the war. He cruised relentlessly up and down the Chesapeake Bay and other parts of the Atlantic coast in 1813 and 1814, seizing American shipping, disrupting commerce, and raiding the ports. In the Chesapeake, Cockburn was responsible for carrying out government instructions to encourage the emigration of the enslaved Black population. In addition he implemented Cochrane's own plan of recruiting a Corps of Colonial Marines from among the Black refugees. The most important of Cockburn's actions was the capture and burning of Washington on 24 August 1814 as an advisor to Major General Robert Ross."

bassically from what I gathered, he went all along the Atlantic Coast on various other missions, but was sen the order to go into Washington, from the previous link:

"On August 24, 1814, the advance guard of British troops made a march to Capitol Hill; they were too few in number to occupy the city, so General Robert Ross intended to eliminate as much of it as possible. He sent a party under a flag of truce to agree to terms, but they were attacked by partisans from a house at the corner of Maryland Avenue, Constitution Avenue, and Second Street NE. This was to be the only resistance the soldiers met. The house was burned, and the Union Flag was raised above Washington....."

and goes on with more details on what occured after they got to the white house....

but anyways, it sounded to me that he did a mission on Canada's behalf. *shrugs*

Burning Washington was not the sole action of the Chesapeake Campaign, it was the first. The same troops that burned the White House boarded their ships and moved on to Baltimore where they were beaten and forced to retreat back to their ships and left the United States.

Well that goes along with the above about having too few to occupy Washington, later on in the link, they talk about also being smashed by a huricane that also damaged their ships.

But anyways, I never said it was the sole action, as you said it was the first of the campaign..... I never said anything about being the entire campaign.... I just said they acomplished their mission of going into Washington, burning the place and leaving, read further in the link and it explains it pretty well.

As the same US Forces that burned York where eventually turned back from Canada so was the same for the British troops that burned Washington.

That's all I'm saying.... we ain't weak, and yes you clarified above about the military, but what did you mean about the weak comment?

Usually when we all get into these topics of comparison, it ends up on the military force comparisons, so one can only assume you may have been refering to that as being weak.... I dunno, I can't read your mind all the time, sometimes I can only guess.

But losses do not always determine the outcome of a war or battle. The US lost more men during the Revolution than the British did. Did we lose?

No.... you guys gained something in that.... there wasn't anything really gained in the 1812 for either side, except one side lossed more lives.

Everything went right back to the way it was and the British toyed with the idea of getting concessions but when it was drawn out for them that although they were successful in some battles their invasions were all repulsed... including the invasion that did originate from Canada and may have contained Canadian Militia.

The US started the war because it was being pushed around by the British, particularly on the high seas with the pressing of US sailors. The US had a very small navy and Canada was the only place to strike at British interests. In the end the war was just as costly for the British to continue as it was for the US. There was no surrender, it was a cease fire and everything went back to the way it was.

Indeed, which would explain Nova Scotia's history of ship building, etc.... lots of "British Loyalist" heritage around here.... along with Scottish of course.

But Like I said, I was merely nit picking

Well when some big mouth likens the US to a "fat smelly kid" I am sure you do not expect me to lay up on that. You know me by now.

We like to vent and drink a lot too! :smile:

Oh I know how you'd respond.... I just think the words could have been chosen a bit better :lol: I could a handled fat smelly kid and not have to pull the weak card...... man.... that was harsh..... getting all misty eyed now, geez.

 

[Avro]

Don't confuse anti-Americansim with anti-neocon loons like Bush. Canadians like Americans, just not extremist right wing nut jobs.

 

[EagleSmack]

Then what's with the "Weak" comment eh?

Well I told you where the weak comment came from. If some jerk wants to shout his mouth off he has to be prepared to get it back.

Ah, from what I read, they were dispatched from there, did their stuff in the Chesapeake campaign and well:

bassically from what I gathered, he went all along the Atlantic Coast on various other missions, but was sen the order to go into Washington, from the previous link:

and goes on with more details on what occured after they got to the white house....

By details you mean that they left Washington to do the same to Baltimore and Ross got killed and the British retreated.

but anyways, it sounded to me that he did a mission on Canada's behalf. *shrugs*

I agree to that. The British did it on Canada's behalf. In that wiki site I am sure you read where the British troops came from... Europe... fresh from the Pennisula Wars.

Well that goes along with the above about having too few to occupy Washington, later on in the link, they talk about also being smashed by a huricane that also damaged their ships.

But they had enough to go on to Baltimore where those same British Troops were turned back... minus one British General. I hope he enjoyed the fun because he spent the remainder of the campaign pickeled in a barrel of rum.

But anyways, I never said it was the sole action, as you said it was the first of the campaign..... I never said anything about being the entire campaign.... I just said they acomplished their mission of going into Washington, burning the place and leaving, read further in the link and it explains it pretty well.

If the sole mission of the campaign was to burn Washington then they would have boarded ships and left for the high seas. Instead they pushed up the Chesapeake and were turned back before Baltimore.

That's all I'm saying.... we ain't weak, and yes you clarified above about the military, but what did you mean about the weak comment?

Again, the weak comment was made when one of the posterss likened America to a "smelly fat kid". So in turn I used the weak comment in response. Obviously you didn't like it and now you know how I felt.

No.... you guys gained something in that.... there wasn't anything really gained in the 1812 for either side, except one side lossed more lives.

What was gained was a message to Britain that we are going to stand up to them and make things difficult and costly for them if they continue their old ways.

Oh I know how you'd respond.... I just think the words could have been chosen a bit better :lol: I could a handled fat smelly kid and not have to pull the weak card...... man.... that was harsh..... getting all misty eyed now, geez.

Well when certain posters stop being a$$es I will stop retaliating in kind. Simple. Nothing personal to my forum pals here as they know where I am coming from.