I think we have always hated Canadians since the Loyalists became traitors and went North.
No, the Loyalists were loyal... hence the name. The rebels (George Washington and his cronies) were traitors. Damn those traitors. Just think... all of North America could have been Canada.
Typical Canadian Computing SetupShow Image(http://www.nitch.ca/BlogImages/wintercomputer.jpg)
I think we have always hated Canadians since the Loyalists became traitors and went North.Show Image(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Flag_of_the_United_Empire_Loyalists.svg/250px-Flag_of_the_United_Empire_Loyalists.svg.png)
Typical Canadian Computing SetupShow Image(http://www.nitch.ca/BlogImages/wintercomputer.jpg)
Maybe it's just me, but I seem to recall a time when there was really no animosity between Americans and Canadians. In fact, I suspect the animosity now was created by muckrakers like Michael Moore. What do you guys think?
I like Michael Moore.
And anyway if Americans didn't tell Canada what to do it wouldn't be Canada anymore.
Canadian TV has a very long history of making fun of Americans, American "culture" and all sorts of Americanisms like not knowing where Canada is physically located relative to the US and the (should be but isn't) absolutely criminal idea that any private citizen should own a firearm.
And anyway if Americans didn't tell Canada what to do it wouldn't be Canada anymore.
How can Americans tell Canada what to do when they can't even find it on a map?
In "Bowling For Columbine" he essentially says that America should be more like Canada. I believe he says that in Sicko too. Personally I don't agree with his opinions, and BFC (the only movie of his I've seen) is really more sensationalism than facts. I also don't like when anyone says one country should be like another. Differences are good.
Canada is becoming more like the United States every day. It's actually like a corporate takeover. Corporations control the government in the US (you actually think you have a democracy down there?) and now they're finalizing their takeover of Canada. It all started in 1984, when Prime Minister Mulroney sold out the country.
So, actually, ripster is partly right. Americans do tell Canada what to do - but this is what has destroyed Canada and made it a franchise of corporate America. Do you want fries with that?
good beer
Aaah.. but you see. There is where you are wrong... Cause that comes from Ireland (http://www.murphys.com/index.php?page=products)...
AND, it ALSO comes from: (Thada!) Ireland! (http://www.guinness.com/en-gb/thebeer-draught.html) ... :)
And Denmark.
But anything is better than American beer (except for a handful of good microbreweries, and a few things from Abita).
And Germany, and Czech Republic (If you like Pilsners)
And Denmark.
But anything is better than American beer (except for a handful of good microbreweries, and a few things from Abita).
Americans get back bacon, poutine, good beer, Rush, and Bob & Doug McKenzie.
Canadians get television, money, and their armed forces from the US.
It all evens out.
No no! ALL good beer are from Ireland... the rest is just moderately good... except beer from the US... that is probably just water with some beer flavour in it...
;)
Canadian TV has a very long history of making fun of Americans, American "culture" and all sorts of Americanisms like not knowing where Canada is physically located relative to the US and the (should be but isn't) absolutely criminal idea that any private citizen should own a firearm.
Ok... now... Is not Canada situated on the American continent, hence being a part of America? Shouldn't Canadians then also be referred to as Americans? And so also Mexicans and Brazilians (Both on American continents... Mexico on the north continent but in an area that is called central America and Brazil on the south American continent... but still... America). Should not US citizens then be called something like "USA-dians" or "US-ans"? Not Americans. You wouldn't call only the people of, say France, for Europeans, and then call the rest of the Europeans for where they come from. :P
humm
Show Image(http://www.akirathedon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/doldo.jpg)
Never take that Dildo Tour. You'll get ****ed.
Actually I have a friend that's a Newfie. Now THERE'S a goldmine of jokes.
The world's second largest country by total area, if largely uninhabitable.Show Image(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_C-7IX8a74lg/SuT9YanvY0I/AAAAAAAAMFU/AGgVNmRENNE/s400/1stumb+canada+we%27re+bigger+were+on+top+if+this+was+prison+youd+be+our+*****.jpg)
I've seen this kind of comment before - usually by confused Europeans.
No, that's not the way it works. People from the USA are called Americans. Canadians can be called "North Americans", but never "Americans".
There's no up in spaceShow Image(http://www.aussie-shop.com/maps/UpsideDown%20Detail.jpg)
I couldn't agree more, I heard other people with the "american" nonsense. People from the united states are AMERICANS, period.
"up" would be considered the north pole, and all of space that occupies that upper half (infinity, sure).
"down" would be considered the soul pole, and also all the space that occupies that half.
I couldn't agree more, I heard other people with the "american" nonsense. People from the united states are AMERICANS, period.
I've seen this kind of comment before - usually by confused Europeans.
No, that's not the way it works. People from the USA are called Americans. Canadians can be called "North Americans", but never "Americans".
The USA is the only country in the "Americas" whose common name (even if by abbreviation) contains the word "America". A few countries may have America in the formal name, but are not referred to as such.
Because of this, the name "American" is most aptly applied to those who are citizens of the United States of America.
Besides, what would you call Americans if not Americans? United Statsians? USans? You can call someone from Canada a Canadian, or someone from Mexico a Mexican, or someone from Peru a Peruvian, but someone from the US can only be called American.
No.. I'm not confused... I know that the common way is to call US citizens for Americans. But I still think it's wrong. I can't think of any other case where you call a habitant of a certain country for the name of the continent AND there's other countries on that continent (eg. you call Australian for their continent name.... but then again.. there is no other countries on that continent).I take the other point of view on this issue. I'll explain why.
Michael Moore kicks ass. If only all US citizens were like him mentally...the world might have some respect for the US as a nation...
I couldn't agree more, I heard other people with the "american" nonsense. People from the united states are AMERICANS, period.
Meh. Seems to me the U.S.A. is not only lacking a language of its own, they haven't even got a proper name for its citizens. Or even a decent name for the country, when you think about it. (United States of America is a description of how it was formed, not a name.) What a bunch of slackers! They've had centuries to sort this out. :tongue:
But it wasn't until Pierre Elliot Trudeau came along that we had a Prime Minister who decided that TV shows like Mission: Impossible and American magazines like the Reader's Digest were brainwashing Canadians, so that they were unable to see the genius of Mao Tse-Tung in going around and slaughtering all the landlords.
Elements of the Canadian intelligentsia, thus, have been encouraged since then to become dupes of world Communism, sadly. The great masses of ordinary Canadians are presumably suffering this in silence, even as the great masses of ordinary Americans supported Spiro Agnew in similar silence.
quad, that was hi-larious! ;)Glad you liked it. I hope you read my spirited defense of your right to be called an American, as well.
Glad you liked it. I hope you read my spirited defense of your right to be called an American, as well.
Of course, while we Canadians are properly grateful for America's role in World War II, we're also quietly proud that we joined in to save civilization when the war started, without waiting for the Japanese to bomb Halifax or something.
Glad you liked it. I hope you read my spirited defense of your right to be called an American, as well.
kicked your ass in revolutionary war: check
saved your ass in wwii: check
'nuf said :-P
Though most of your points are correct, I'd like to point out that you spelled "defence" wrong. In proper English (and Canadian) spelling, there is no "s" in "defence". (...or "offence")I tend to use American spelling so not as to confuse most of the people on this discussion group.
I'm surprised the Americans don't call a fence a "fense".
Though most of your points are correct, I'd like to point out that you spelled "defence" wrong. In proper English (and Canadian) spelling, there is no "s" in "defence". (...or "offence")
I'm surprised the Americans don't call a fence a "fense".
kicked your ass in a war you started: check (War of 1812 - Americans lost the first war they ever fought! unbelievable)
not stupid enough to join illegal Iraq war: check
I take the other point of view on this issue. I'll explain why.
Although its official name has changed, at one time Brazil's official name was Los Estados Unidos do Brazil. The United States of Brazil. Canada is The Dominion of Canada. West Germany was the Bundesrepublik Deuchtsland, the Federal Republic of Germany.
Thus, following that pattern, a name like The United States of America would seem to imply that the country is America, and it happens to be a United States; that's its form of government. (It's also a Republic, of course, but there's no reason why two terms can't apply to its form of government.)
It can be called "The United States", just as Canadians once occasionally referred to their country as "The Dominion" in some contexts, or as Americans will sometimes call their country "The Republic", as in a sentence like "Corruption in government is a threat to the well-being of the Republic". This, however, is synecdoche: the name of a part (or, in this case, an attribute or quality) is used as the name of the whole. (Synecdoche is said to be a case of metonymy; however, in metonymy, the name of the whole is used as the name of a part or a quality, so it would seem that synecdoche is metonymy in reverse. However, I may not be understanding the references I hastily consulted, not being well enough acquainted with the classical figures of speech.)
But what about the fact that South America isn't part of the U.S.A.?
North, South, and Central America, in English, are known as "The Americas", and never as America. (In some of the Romance languages, such as French and Spanish, however, this is not true, so in those languages there is an issue.)
Still, this part of the world is called the Americas because of a map by Amerigo Vespucci.
There are other names for it as well.
For example, the television network CBS is called the Columbia Broadcasting System. Because the United States is part of the New World, which became known to Western Civilization as a result of the voyage of Christopher Columbus.
With the possible exception of Quebec, all of Canada is British, and Guyana and Jamaica and the Turks and Caicos Islands are other present or former British colonies still within the Commonwealth.
Yet, one Canadian province calls itself British Columbia, and no one objects that this is unfair to Jamaicans or Ontarians.
And, of course, there is the República de Colombia.
If we're going to object to the United States being America, because that name includes three continents, doesn't exactly the same objection apply to Colombia? Aren't they unfairly stealing our name?
No. The United States of America is America, just as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the République Française is France. And people will just have to deal with it.
Meh. Seems to me the U.S.A. is not only lacking a language of its own, they haven't even got a proper name for its citizens. Or even a decent name for the country, when you think about it. (United States of America is a description of how it was formed, not a name.) What a bunch of slackers! They've had centuries to sort this out. :tongue:
With that reasoning we could argue that the we should call each person in USA for the name on the state they come from. So a person from Texas should be known as a Texacain and a person from Florida should be known as a Floridainian ... :)Well, in the U.S., people are referred to, at times, as Texans and Floridians - or Californians, or Montanans, or Idahoans.
dude! at least read wikipedia before posting such things!
-war of 1812 was started by the british (yea, go google it, thank you) - the US was actually neutral in the war between england and france, of which the 1812 war was but a small sideshow.
kicked your ass in revolutionary war: check
saved your ass in wwii: check
dude! at least read wikipedia before posting such things!
-war of 1812 was started by the british (yea, go google it, thank you) - the US was actually neutral in the war between england and france, of which the 1812 war was but a small sideshow. The brits were at war with france at the time, if you remember your history. The issue was with the british policy of impressment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment)(look it up), their seizing american ships travelling to france, their blockading american ports, etc)
-oh yea, and in the meanwhile, "canada" (actually part of the british dominion at the time) decided to invade the US for the british (yea, go look it up). The US and the british had various skirmishes along the us-'canada' border, including 'canada' occupying Maine (go look it up)
-because of the british blockade of american ports, certainly one way for the US to put pressure on the british at the time was to threaten its north american dominion (which had occupied maine (then part of massachusetts) and causing other grief). However canadians to this day like to imagine themselves to have (for some reason) 'narrowly escaped' an 'american invasion' of their country. Probably left-leaning canadians who love to imagine the US as some kind of evil bogeyman. Sorry, but canada hadnt even been invented yet in any contemporary sense. This was the US vs the British in a war the british started as a sideshow to their war with France (and napolean).
-"lost" the war? where'd you read that? Is that what they're teaching you in canada? Lets see, kicked british ass at new orleans (whcih effectively ended the war, by the way, thank you andrew jackson), successful defense of fort mchenry against the entire british fleet (jeez), a success that inspired our national anthem.
-So what 'loss' are you coming up with? The burning of the white house? But why did the british make the detour to DC on their way to the much more strategically important port of baltimore? have you ever thought about that? It was in retaliation for the americans burning down the governors mansion (and parliament building) in York (today's toronto) in one of those northern skirmishes with the brits. In other words, it was a 'tit for tat' by the british after the americans had humiliated them first. After burning it down the british vacated DC, they had no other interest there. It was pure retaliation for York. The american sec of defense was understandably sacked, and the new secretary successfully defended fort mchenry against the entire british fleet at baltimore. So - is that what you're calling the 'loss' of the war? dude, read wikipedia at the very least.
-Do you realize the treaty after the war returned everything to the status quo? And the british ended the practices that led to the war? yea, some 'loss'. So here a brand new nation, with scarcely any army, no navy to speak of, took on the mightiest empire on earth (for a second time), and won (in a war that even at the time people referred to as 'the second war of independence'). If all you remember is that the white house was burned, you've missed the bigger picture.
Wow, Brits/Canadians sure have a different view of history than is taught to Americans. lol Pretty interesting. The part about our national anthem and it being created as a result of the war of 1812 was sort of his whole point that we won that war...how could you have missed it?
The "bombs bursting in air" were bombs landing on the Americans. Sure, "the flag was still there" in the morning - something to sing and be happy about if you've spent the night getting bombed, I guess.
lol! dude, you have a much higher opinion of america than americans do, if you think we're so powerful that we cant even be attacked. (what a strange definition of american strength, btw). On that point again, you might want to brush up on history ;)
so ya, feel free to hate or fear america as irrationally as you like, drawing selectively from history to imbue your sense of moral (or other) superiority - thats your right. But this isnt the right example to try to use.
OK, OK.... America "won". They always "win". They can't possibly lose. Happy now? :wink:
i think my point was that going from one lopsided argument to another is precisely the problem with your approach ;)
why cant you take each situation on its own terms? instead of being so willing to tar entire nations with a single ("for/against") brush?
iThey "always" win? They "always" lose? Wars are rarely "completely" won or lost; most nations and people live in the vast gray area in between. If you cant deal with gray, thats a problem. The left seems as incapable of dealing with gray as the right.
54-40 or FIGHT! We'll let you keep Sarah Palin as a hostage.Since I live in Edmonton, Alberta... ah, it's only at latitude 53° 34', so even this arctic area would become part of the United States.
We're the most populous nation on this continent, we win.
All you European's are Chinese as far as I'm concerned.
We won every naval engagement against England but one, during the war of 1812, which is what the war was really about in the beginning. We captured like 8 English vessels. We hardly just got our buts kicked.
The war was started because the English wouldn't recognize American citizens cause they were still pissed about loosing the colonies, and kept abducting them.
They also wouldn't allow us to trade with France, who had helped us during the Revolution.
A grand total of less than 0.8% of the Royal Navy. Given the times, Britain would hardly have sent the brightest tools in the box to deal with a comparatively minor issue.
Incidentally Wikipedia lists the capture of just 5 Royal Navy ships (and 5 US Navy ships). I would guess that one of you is wrong.
To put it into context, the Royal Navy (whilst outnumbered) captured 21 ships in just one battle (The Battle Of Trafalgar in 1805).
There's two sides to every story, and some of those "abducted" American citizens were deserters from the Royal Navy which given Britain was at war with France for the whole of the period in question, could well count as 'desertion in the face of the enemy' and be punishable by summary execution.
International laws on blockades were not put into place until 1856, but Britain's blockade of France would have been more or less in compliance with those laws. Or to put it another way, shipping goods to a nation at war, is likely to make the enemy of that nation a touch grouchy. Would the US have behaved any differently in a similar situation ? I doubt it.
Even if that were all true,
Britain was blockading, or even at war with France, who had saved the US during the revolution, so in attacking Britain, it was hardly unprovoked or needless. America was an ally of France then.
the same as it was doing for sailors, is hardly the point. The fact is that a brand new country was able to go head to head, 1 on 1, and some cases outmatched even and sack British vessels.
So if it looks like your argument is weak, you accuse your opponent of lying ? There are more graceful ways of conceding defeat :)
You are aware of the Napoleonic wars ? Running during the period in question and considered over here to be a far more serious matter; whilst Britain probably wasn't in serious danger of annihilation (one of my supposed ancestors once said to the House of Lords "I do not say, my Lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea.") but it was a far more serious matter than the war with the US. Which is why the British didn't allocate enough resources to that one.
The US an ally of France ? Perhaps a lukewarm ally.
Napoleon Bonaparte, upon completion of the agreement, stated, "This accession of territory affirms forever the power of the United States, and I have given England a maritime rival who sooner or later will humble her pride."
Or more accurately, a new nation was able to harass in a minor way the rag tail of the Royal Navy whilst the best men and ships of the line were busy elsewhere.
It seems that most serious historians regard the result of the war of 1812-15 as being inconclusive - neither side won or lost.
The queen in britain actually doesn't really "rule". She just sits on her fat ass all day in her fancy palace.
Modern day kings and queens are a waste of taxpayer money.
We'll give California, Texas and Arizonaback to the Mexicans. Good riddance.
Wow, you Americans really like to rewrite history to hide shame. Nothing must interfere with the delusional belief that you "Never lost a war". I don't need to consult Wikipedia. I took history in university, studied Canada/US relations (I don't think Americans even have a course on that) and have many history books written in the late 1800's. I took a particular interest in the War of 1812. Here, I'll read you a passage:wow a british book biased against the us...imagine that
"The calm verdict of history finds much ground of extenuation for the revolt of 1776; but for the American declaration of war in 1812, little or none. A reckless Democratic majority wantonly invaded the country of an unoffending neighbouring people, to seduce them from their lawful allegiance and annex their territory. The long and costly conflict was alike bloody and barren. The Americans annexed not a single foot of territory. They gained not a single permanent advantage. Their seaboard was insulted, their capitol destroyed. Their annual exports were reduced from £22,000,000 to £1,500,000. Three thousand of their vessels were captured. Two-thirds of their commercial class became insolvent. A vast war-tax was incurred, and the very existence of the Union imperilled by the menaced secession of the New England States. The "right of search" and the rights of neutrals - the ostensible but not the real causes of the war - were not even mentioned in the treaty of peace."
That sounds like losing to me.
Do you realize that even your national anthem is about the War of 1812? I bet less than 1% of Americans know that.
So what's the point of all this again? Sorry, I forgot.I think it was people talking about educational books written in different countries are biased toward the country of the writer...
I think it was people talking about educational books written in different countries are biased toward the country of the writer...
why is the argument weak?
the british were pressing americans into their navy, boarding our ships, and blockading ports, all intensely hostile actions against an officially neutral nation and continuing despite official complaints against them. That isnt provocation?
You forget in this era it is the british that is the world's superpower, and unapologetically holding most of the world under its unapologetically imperial rule. Nice try passing that mantle off to the poor americans of 1812!
now who's making excuses? They didnt allocate enough resources? Thats like saying "we lost the war because we didnt fight correctly". No ****!
i wonder how your countrymen, especially descendents of the fleets and divisions that invaded the US in 1812, will respond to you for calling these British regulars (which they were) a mere 'rag tail'. I suspect you wont get much support from them on that one.
I understand you want to minimize what the americans achieved in their 'second war of independence', but like a500, you're choosing the wrong example.
thats only true in terms of territory because the treaty of ghent proposed each side vacate conquered territory. It certainly isnt true in any other sense. The fact remains that the US defeated whole british divisions and fleets (baltimore and new orleans)
If you have issues with accepting that, that really isnt history's problem :) You can take consolation in the fact that Britain continued to rule the rest of the world with its brutal empire for another 150 years -- if thoughts of empire console you so.
kicked your ass in revolutionary war: check
saved your ass in wwii: check
'nuf said :-P
Ruined global economy: check.
Try the end of the 19th century. At the beginning of the 19th century, Britain may have been one of the European powers, but certainly wasn't the world's superpower. Britain didn't really achieve naval supremacy until the Battle of Trafalgar; even so Britain's standing army was around 220,000 men whereas France had 2.5million under arms.
As to holding most of the world under a brutal imperialistic yoke, nice try, but that didn't happen until much later either :-
I suspect most won't realise there was a war with the US in 1812; out of half a dozen history books I have covering the period (and the ones slanted in favour of British history), the war of 1812 is mentioned in the indices just once. It might be mentioned in the text itself as a passing thought.
To quote a Scottish newspaper editor questioned by Madison in 1814, "Half the people of England do not know there is a war with America and those who did had forgotten it".
Did AJ defeat a British division ? Yes.
The British suspended impressment in 1812 before the US started the war. You won that one without a fight but fought anyway :)
random insult having nothing to do with the thread randomly thrown at america, "just because": check
Wasn't your post just random insults nothing to do with the thread too? Pot. Kettle. Black.
We'll give California, Texas and Arizonaback to the Mexicans. Good riddance.
This is a pretty funny thread. Arguing 19th century history on a keyboard forum. roflol
i actually learned a lot, lol. (I also recently saw a pbs documentary on the war of 1812, and this thread gave me a chance to see how much of that i could remember, lol). There was also a really interesting episode where the americans made these wooden 'submarines' (called 'turtles') and tried to attach bombs to the hulls of the british fleet. Fascinating stuff.
Oh is that the 1 person manned bicycle ball submarine with a hand drill? I thought those were total failures at implanting bombs but were decent beginner submarines.
you forget britain's indian empire is taking off right about now. are you seriously questioning british might at the turn of the 19th century? Or seriously equating american power at that time with british power? If you are, you're alone in that. Britian didnt stumble into empire (despite later mythmaking), it had everything it needed by the end of the 1700s, including the technologies. Napolean was the the last hurdle it defeated; America was the last hurdle that it could not defeat. Both of these were settled issues by 1815 and it settled for India and settled in for its long imperial run. None of this could have happened if it was not already a superpower by the early 1800s. Like I said, if you're equating america (scarcely 30 years old as a nation, with no standing armies or navies) with england in 1812, well, lets just say I think you're nuts :)
indeed.
No I'm not forgetting that the East India Company was beginning to carve out an empire that eventually became part of the British Empire.
No I'm not questioning British might at the time, but it wasn't "the global superpower" you claimed it was - not until the end of the 19thC; I note that you've gone from claiming Britain was "the superpower" to "a superpower".
No I'm not equating British power with American power - where did I do that ?
You seem to be under the impression that Britain fought Napoleon so it could become the British Empire without the French getting in the way. Not quite like that; Napoleon wanted to invade and make us all eat frog's legs, so it was a war of survival even if Napoleon's plans to invade were a little unrealistic.
What always surprises me is that those brutal imperialists didn't try to hang on to huge swathes of European territory that their armies had passed through. Odd that.
Oh and you'll want to take a good hard look at what the US did in the 19thC before getting too hot under the collar about British imperialism. The British invaded lands belonging to other people, destroyed the native system of government, and setup their own government with the British in power over the natives. So exactly what did the British do that the US didn't ?
"Thrown off the continent" ? I guess that shows the typical US attitude towards your continental neighbours. Take a look at that map I linked to earlier - notice those pink bits on the continent of America ? Guess what they are.
I note you don't comment on the important bit - that AJ didn't stop those nasty redcoats from being a nuisance - the peace treaty did that.
Whether it ended in 1812 or 1814 doesn't matter a great deal - it wasn't ended as a result of a peace treaty with the US.
Through one of those quirks of the legal system, it is still officially legal for impressment to take place :)
I think we have always hated Canadians since the Loyalists became traitors and went North.I was puzzled by the defective version of the Union Jack in your post - as it had the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew, but not the one of St. Patrick - but I see from the image URL you were intentionally using the older version of the Union Jack that predated the annexation of Ireland, as was used by the Loyalists.
You'll need years of deprogramming sessions to get that stuff out of your head. :wink:
you're really going to extreme nitpicking lengths at this point.
soundly and decisively defeated at N.O.
in the 19th century the US had nowhere near the global reach of the brits (there you go trying to draw equivalences between them again in that era).
if you're equating manifest destiny with british empire - again, wrong example because of the difference in scale.
since the topic here is specifically whether america 'won' against the brits, and since you so graciously acknowledged that AJ did in fact beat a british division, I found that part to be the "important bit".
again you seem to be quibbling ... and if you think the war didnt help influence its end.
So how was the US any less imperialistic in attitude than Britain ?I'd be more worried about a comparison of Britain to France, or Germany... or Belgium.
Britain was a relatively benign colonial power.
How come the Queen is on all the Canadian coins?She used to be on all the Canadian banknotes. Now, she is only on the $20 bill, with former Prime Ministers on the other.
I liked the moose better than the people in Quebec.
mike said stuff
Britain was a relatively benign colonial power.
America, **** Yeah!
America, **** Yeah!
America, **** Yeah!
re: -theft, and "same as an acre" - disagree. context is everything and scale matters along with intent and
re: native americans and US western expansion - this didnt happen in the way you're describing until after civil war; in 1812 (which you keep wanting to leave while making arguments about 1812) u.s. not yet even in a position to realistically consider west coast. Louisiana purchase itself was a happy surprise
re: AJ finishing the job at N.O.:
british division (11,000 in force) casualties: 2500 (including 2 generals killed)
AJ's militia (4000 in force) casualties: 300.
looks pretty decisive.
Rubbish. Scale matters in the effects of a crime on other people, but it doesn't matter in terms of whether an action is a crime or not.
Louisiana purchase - this is one of the biggest examples of behaviour used to illustrate imperialistic US behaviour during the 19th century.
Imperialistic behaviour didn't start in 1776 or later ... it was far earlier than that. All the US (and probably mostly the citizens) did was carry on with an old tradition.
You're totally missing the point ... the battle was decisive, but that left 8,500 red coats still left[0], and probably growling for revenge (they weren't green troops). They carried on fighting without trying NO again - standard military tactics to try and draw the defending troops out. Would that have worked ? Probably not as AJ was hardly green either. In fact they had taken one fortification and were preparing to attack another just as the formal notification of the peace treaty arrived.
0: And I have figures of 14,000 troops and 1,500 casualties on the British side. With three "general officers" killed ... not two Generals.
lol, by a handful of leftist canadians and defensive 21st century brits, i'm sure
absolutely untrue, first of all. Perhaps you're thinking of columbus and the spanish.
true: plans, policy, intent, ideology.
Presumably you think equivalence will get the brits off the hook.
again this is a 'woulda, coulda, shoulda'
So you want to argue that if peace treaty had not been signed then british would have won.
mike said some more stuff...
55ft. tall fire-breathing AJ.
AJ already Rulez Da World.Well, yes, at the current state of inflation, the $20 bill is the most popular denomination... which is presumably the reason that, in Canada, it is the one on which the Queen's portrait was left.
Or the Queen dies. Then you'll have to put some King on it.I was thinking of U.S. currency - specifically, after a little inflation, instead of Andrew Jackson being on the most used banknote, eventually it will be Ulysses S. Grant's turn, and then Benjamin Franklin's turn after that.
Can't we just all be friends?
There is no need for all this. Canada and the USA are best pals.Of course we are. But no two countries are identical.
Can someone shed some light on the Euro really? was it created because countries were too small to have their own currency? or cuz people frequently travel to italy and france and germany so much that they all decided to just have one currency for them all, is it cuz of all the easy to use rail cars?
This would also lead me to believe that between Euro nations, coming in and out and traveling between isn't as security intensive as it is with the United States and every other country, I remember When I took a bus trip to Niagra Falls the Canada side, they didn't even check all our passports just grabbed one passport, looked fine and let the whole bus in.
Wonder if it is the same way within the Euro countries. (i don't think US/Canada passport relations are the same now tho? is it?)
Can someone shed some light on the Euro really?Basically, having a single currency means that now countries within the European Union don't have to be concerned at all about their balance of trade with other countries using the Euro.