Why do American's never ever ever mention the attempts during the War of 1812 to invade, conquer , annex Canada? Oh yes, they lost every attempt to do so thus in their natural manner just pretend that never happened. It's like Germany pretending they never invaded the USSR during WW2.
When details of Ghent reached the US Americans were astounded to discover that it contained NO clauses forbidding the seizure of US sailors, NO restrictions on support for natives & NO restraints on interference with US commerce at sea, primary causes of the conflict unresolved.Newspapers were quick to criticize a treaty that failed to mention the major causes of the conflict.Despite this the cessation of hostilities was widely welcomed- "it pleased God to restore peace to this bleeding land"
The US expanded but NOT into Canada, their primary goal! They only expanded west through Tecumseh's death (no one left to lead the Indian Confederation) after dishonourably reneging upon Article IX (sine qua non.)
Bladensburg, "the greatest disgrace ever dealt to American arms." President runs away leaving his wife behind.
The Penobscot Expedition, largest naval expedition of the American Revolutionary War and the US' worst naval defeat until Pearl Harbor.
At Saratoga, Burgoyne won the first battle even though outnumbered. The second, he was hugely outnumbered, surrounded, cut off from resupply. Surrender was his only option..
Clinton was meant to link up with him but due to ambiguous orders, he instead ran his own campaign, taking NYC, smashed Washington at Brandywine then occupied your capital for a year.
How about Camden where Cornwallis smashed Gates? What about Savannah where Campbell captured Howe's army, the remains fleeing? Charleston, the entire city captured..
..with the loss of 5000 troops (largest surrender of an American armed force until the 1862 surrender of Union forces at Harper's Ferry during the Antietam Campaign.) Waxhaws etc
The majority of major battles were Brit victories even though nearly always heavily outnumbered. Preceding the major British victory at Camden came the capture of Savannah (1778)..
Clinton captured a large portion of General Howe's army whilst driving the remnants to retreat into South Carolina, torn & tattered. We held NYC, Charleston & Savannah until the end.
Without the Euro powers (especially France) forcing a global war you'd have been smashed.After you gained independence, our empirical strength grew hugely; France ended up in revolution!
Feb 1815 GB held Maine, Prairie Du Chein, Fort St Mary & town, Cumberland Island, Georgia & Ft Bowyer (10 million acres of US territory.) You only held a scintilla of land in Ontario!
Now more than ever, even US historians (D Hickey, E Cohen, P Wilder, J Eisenhower et al) are finally admitting what we've always known, War of 1812 was nothing but an American debacle
Y'see marine dreamer, their pride doesn't get in the way of their facts. These erudite US historians admit it was a US screw up. Alas, your overt pride makes you talk shit.
BTW, apparently Richard Pearse (son of Cornish immigrants) a NZ farmer & inventor flew & landed a powered heavier-than-air machine on 31 March '03, nine months before the Wright bros..
majority of the major battles? Like Plattsburgh where 10,000 British tried invading and confronting 1,500 US regulars and failed...not even able to cross the lake?
Another major British attempt to cut off Lousiana in 1814-15 ....do you remember those as major battles?
What I can "remember" is that we were fully committed in Europe when you stabbed us in the back, thinking that annexing Canada would be a "mere matter of marching" & Madison running away leaving his wife behind. There's no excuses for that act of cowardice. BTW, we won Lundy's Lane, we held the field. N Point was also a victory; Ft McHenry, after sinking your own ships in the harbour (bottling yourselves in), you hid behind the walls! We just withdrew after burning DC
Your pathetic attempts at annexing Canada (with HUGE numerical superiority & logistical advantage) were to your utmost chagrin. I'll repeat, even American historians now liken the debacle of 1812 to that of your Vietnamese nightmare. Wanna argue with them? 'Course ya don't!
Only the first Afghan war was a loss; Anglo Turk- d'ya mean Gallipoli..? We won the final Boer war! Anglo Dutch wars? How far d'ya wanna go back?! Besides, we eventually ended with control of the seas..
As for the Somme, blame Haig, not those ultra-brave boys who were following orders. You'd have lost as many (if not more) had you actually BEEN THERE. You can't charge machine guns hence our inventing the tank to break the deadlock. Besides, in those days, high casualties was a reality of war. The Germans suffered just as greatly. Ultimately, we won WWI (the Triple Entente), NO THANKS TO YOU.
You lost the Seminole Wars (had to pay 'em to leave, even then some still stayed!); Red Cloud's War; 1812; played next to no role in WWI; part-timers in WWII (humiliated at Sidi Bou Zid, Kasserine Pass) AND lost the Philippines; embarrassed by continual failures in Cuba, messed up in Korea, defeated in 'Nam, screwed up in Somalia; Op Eagle Claw (LOL) and are now losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your war record is terrible.
For a country which takes excessive pride in flags, uniforms, marching bands and spends more than the rest of the planet combined on it's military, the record of America’s forces since World War II is poor. In dozens of quickie invasions against weak opponents, Americans indeed have prevailed BUT when faced with tough, determined enemies, they have remarkably often been defeated or stalemated.
The failure of America’s military could be explained by the notion that failure is only what happens when you seek the wrong success. A poorly-governed people, as Americans certainly are, keeps being sent to wars in which they have no vital interest or commitment. Whatever the reason, the record is unmistakable.
In battles or war generally, victory is not always easy to determine. There were many battles in history where victory was claimed or loss assumed in error.
Higher casualties don’t always mean losing a battle or even a war. The sacrifice of great numbers sometimes improves a strategic or tactical position, as General Grant in America’s Civil War well understood. Vietnam’s General Giap understood this also, for despite a horrific slaughter of his people, America suffered defeat.
It was an early sign of the coming defeat when body counts began to dominate American news. It is easy to kill large numbers of people, especially when you have complete air superiority and high-tech weapons, but constant killing may mean little progress against a serious opponent. Often, as in the Blitz, bombing people is completely counter-productive.
In recent weeks body counts re-appeared in Afghan, much the same way opium poppies re-appeared after US claims to victory over the Taliban (who'd suppressed opium.)The bodies are supposed to be Taliban but who can tell who a dead villager is? Even when the body is Taliban, how do we regard that as a victory? The Taliban is a loosely-knit organisation, a kind of political party and anti-invader guerrilla force; death does not intimidate where people typically live to 47.
Except in the bizarre mind of George Bush (moron), the Taliban is not a terrorist organization, so when one of them is killed, does it really represent a victory? Or is it viewed by many in Afghanistan as murder by unwelcome foreigners? Clearly, this is the view of many because the Taliban is becoming stronger, surprisingly so according to expert observers.
The recent refusal of NATO countries to commit more troops and resources to Afghanistan was telling.
Seeing little point in trying to occupy Afghanistan for years, they understand the impossibility of significantly changing so ancient and poor a land. They are not taken in by American Potemkin village projects for bettering life there, after having bombed the hell out of the place. NATO countries in general do not accept Bush’s tale about everyone’s security depending upon success in Afghan for the very good reason that it's false.
Another lost war is Iraq. US efforts there have done little but kill civilians, destroy the economy, now threaten to destroy the country itself. Even in Washington, the reality of civil war is dawning. America’s real goals aren't gonna be achieved, primarily to establish a regime friendly to US policy. Years of bloody chaos lie ahead. 3 separate warring rump states willing to do almost anything to gain an advantage including taking assistance from those most hostile to US policy..
US loss in Iraq is far greater than this. The illegal, unjustified invasion has muddied America’s reputation, aroused suspicions of it's intentions and put new geopolitical forces into play, only dimly perceived at this time. When is the US going to learn how stupidly unproductive war is? Furthermore, when is the US going to learn how bad it is at war despite it's monstrous expenditures preparing for it?
(Abridged) from "America Has Just Lost Two More Wars" -
@trouzerpants this isnt 2007. we pulled our combat troops out of iraq. and to date there has not been a civil war.We accomplished our goals in iraq so we can be said to have won that war.
How can leaving a country in disarray result in a victory? Like the journalist stated, the goal was to replace Hussein with a government friendly towards the UN. That has NOT happened, the opposite has. Iraq is in a far worse state that when we initially went in.
Again, where's the "victory" in Afghanistan? It's just as lawless, just as dangerous and will never be democratic. You don't seem to understand the basis for going to war, just as that journalist rightly elucidated.
@trouzerpants we didnt leave it in disarray at all. We left it in a drawdown of troops that had been planned for years. The original goal was to depose saddam and his WMD programs he didnt have. Regardless, we did et rid of him. iraq actually doesnt seem worse off.
as for afghanistan, that was a justified war. Our goal there was get osama bin laden, disrupt or destroy al qaeda and their taliban protectors, we have done all three/ democracy was not a goal there at all
@CodArk2 I gotta ask. With 16 9-11 hijackers coming from Saudi Arabia why didn't we attack there?
Yes the training ground in Afghanistan was a tactical target but considering Bin La-din's demands, we gave him almost everything he wanted. We pulled the troops out of Saudi Arabia & seriously dialed back upon support for Israel.
Hell man we took out Saddam who Bin La-din had made 3 attempts to assassinate himself.
I'd like to know why immediately after 9/11, special flights outta the country were arranged for the Saudi elites whereas all other flights were grounded..
Fuck with Saudi?!!! Christ no, can't do that. They're our mates. Gotta keep them sweet, no matter what..
@trouzerpants To be fair at that time Canada had no plans to expand the experimental tar sands project in Alberta. Declaring war upon the home nation of Mecca would have been a call to Jihad for every Muslim on the planet. All Middle East oil would have shut off at once.
Even Bush wasn't that stupid Thank God.
Now that the Tar Sands are in full gear & doubling every few years at least we have some options that wont hurt us just as bad as them.
@trouzerpants Still have to build those pipelines if we are going to supply Europe & the Pacific.
I didn't like Bowling for Columbine treatment of Heston & refused to watch Moore's work after that.
I know most of the info Moore put in to Fahrenheit & I don't disagree but he over hypes issues that are very complected. I don't disagree with his politics but I hate his style. I don't need to be force fed over dramatized sensationalism. Maybe Americans do but I don't. XD
Moore got stick for interviewing Heston when clearly he was suffering from dementia, I'll agree with that, however, his polemics (for my money) certainly ask the kinda questions that need asking..
Capitalism: A Love Story, Columbine, F 9/11, they all address controversial issues, albeit in a tongue-in-cheek manner.
If ya think he's sensationalist, check out Alex Jones!!
@Eddythebeast666 because the base of operations was in afghanistan, and the gov. there refused to turn them over. The US didnt pull back support for israel, and saddam was a different story altogether: we took him out supposedly for having WMDs and defying the UN. The US only had troops in saudi arabia to keep saddam from invading them, with him gone they were not needed
@Eddythebeast666 Most of al waeda was in pakistan and afghanistan, not saudi arabia. I mean if they came from mexico or russia should we have bombed them? Where they come from is irrelevant, bin laden was from saudi arabia too, but he was innot there in 2001. And that is why we pulled troops from saudi arabia, saddam threatened to invade them in the persian gulf war after invading kuwait
Iraq is in a far worse state than ever with groups of warring insurgents (all hostile to the west) running amok. Prior, there was infrastructure, now nowt but total chaos & anarchy.
As for Afghan, we're nowhere near achieving our goals. OBL's been dead for years (don't believe the recent SEALS story of killing him then dumping his cadaver into the sea BS), as for the Taliban, they're still taking toll. Of course creating a compliant gov is paramount whether they admit it or not..
"US and Nato far from goals in Afghanistan" - BBC News, Oct 2011
"After 10 yrs, US/Nato allies remain far from reaching goals.. US began the war with a frighteningly simplistic view, still lacked knowledge to achieve a successful end; most difficult task would be to create a legit government that ordinary Afghans could believe in, that would balance the influence of the Taliban." - Gen S McChrystal (retired)
War already surpassed Vietnam to become the longest war in US history..
"The BBC's Paul Wood, in Kabul, says that Western officials admit that parts of the country will remain violent after 2014 when Nato relinquishes its combat role. Without a peace deal with the Taliban, he says, few really expect the war to be brought to an end."
etc etc
I guess it's down to you if you wanna believe the propaganda your gov continually spins ya...
@trouzerpants the BBC is known for its anti american bent, so the same goes for you and propaganda, not to mention ..."after 2004"? that was 8 years ago. things have changed a lot since then, its not nearly as violent today as back then
@Eddythebeast666 antone with any objectivity. watching the BBC got unbiased news about america is like watching fox news for unbiased news about obama and his policies. I have watched the BBC, and its america bashing was obvious even to my 3 year old cousin. They go out of their way to point out what the US is doing wrong and how we are bad, and it didnt stop after bush left office. The BBC having an anti american bias is as obvious as fox having a right wing bias
@CodArk2 BBC is the news service of choice for the Commonwealth. If it has an American ax to grind you might want to consider how many Commonwealth nations the USA has pissed off.
Things like invading Grenada, Unilaterally declaring the North West passage international waters, sending a hit squad in to Pakistan or a hundred other little things that while understandable ignore the protocol that Sovereign nations use to get along with each other.
@Eddythebeast666 most of the commonwealth has more to be pissed at britain about than us. the hit squad into pakistan was because the hiu we went to war to capture or kill was there. In addition the ISI might have tipped him off that the US was coming. as for grenada, we invaded at the request of the OAS. the soviets and cubans were also meddling there, but they get a free pass apparently.You also single out the US on the NW passage, when the EU agrees with the US
@Eddythebeast666 The EU is a major trading bloc, thus they would have a mjor say in international trade. trade wise we are an inter connected world. its mostly inspired by nationalism in canada, not any real danger to canada's sovereignty. if the US did the same thing the rest of the world would expect us to shut up and let it be international waters
@CodArk2 You don't understand the issue or as least Bush didn't.
Canada has made huge investments in ice breakers, we have wanted the North west passage open since the first explores tried to find the damn thing.
If the US wants to make the coast of Alaska international waters GOD bless you. That is a huge chunk of the passage right there, which now any rust bucket can use regardless of how sea worthy they are.
I don't care how many spills you have clean up. That's your business.
@Eddythebeast666 Have you seen an oil tanker/ they are not rustbuckets, Rgw YS, russia, and several other nations also invested in ice breakers as well. canada just wants the "right" to bar traffic through the passage, and i can see why most of the world would be against that.
@Eddythebeast666 russia controls the northern sea route. Modern ships tend to be header to sink, especially commercial ships. Most ships using the passage would be canadain, US and european ships. Most unsade ships cant get near the artic anyway, the waters and conditions up there are different, most would go to panama
@CodArk2 That's your business but Canada has twice as much coastline at stake.
International waters can't be regulated beyond UN treaty standards which is mostly a joke. The US has always had much higher standards for your coastline up until Bush in his last act as president completely fucked both our nations with the most idiotic thing he did while in office.
Why? Was he still pissed because we didn't sign on in Iraq?
@Eddythebeast666 Mostly uninhabited rocky islands. Our shipps are not all that bad actually, there have been few oil spills from US ships (the biggest oil spill in the US was from a british owned oil platform). It had nothing to do with iraq either, most americans were more against france for that.
@CodArk2 Canada wants the passage open more then anyone on earth. The boast to our economy would be as big as the Panama canal was or damn near.
But "international waters"?!? Are you out of your fucking minds? Do you has any idea of what spill clean up will cost us in the Arctic?
Most of the shipping companies that will be using it wont be able to pay & under international law they wont have to & we certainly wont be able to get any money from what ever countries flags of connivance they fly.
@CodArk2 Canada wants the passage open more then anyone on earth. The boast to our economy would be as big as the Panama canal was or damn near.
But "international waters"?!? Are you out of your fucking minds? Do you has any idea of what spill clean up will cost us in the Arctic?
Most of the shipping companies that will be using it wont be able to pay & under international law they wont have to & we certainly wont be able to get any money from what ever countries flags of connivance they fly.
@Eddythebeast666 But making it internal waters gibes canada the right to close it. The panama canal is something the US built, then stupidly gave up to another nation. Also, we had to clean up that oil spill in the ulf of mexico, no money from the UK for that, course thats assuming there is a spill...oiltankers are huge ships, and dont sink easily.And with global warming, it wont be as risky in the future anyway with less ice.
@Eddythebeast666 No nation has a right to stop ships in international waters, which is why the US wants the NW passage being such. We dont want any nation controlling the passage because we dont want any nation wanting to bloc it off, canada, denmark, russia, whatever
@Eddythebeast666 i dunno if we would sue anyone. Usually companies are sued, not nations. I know ship captains, and they are not stupid, most would not sail in the arctic because of the harsh environment, even if you paid them a lot of cash.If the weather heats up then the conditions will be less extreme as well. I am sure something will be worked out, no one thinks spills or sinking ships are a good thing
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill wasn't just the fault of BP, there were others to blame, including Halliburton, BP and Transocean (according to wiki.)
Furthermore, BP has paid some compensation.
BTW - At the time, I was staying with a mate & his folks down in Lake Charles, LA (2010) whilst that oil was gushing out, making headline news everyday..
@trouzerpants ot wasnt all BPs fault, but it was their platform. and they havent paid out near the amount of damage done. I only used BP as an example because it was an example of a major spill by a multinational company. Rankers have not had many spills, or if they have, they are small ones (except exxon valdez). so the concern was overhyped
@CodArk2 have'nt paid enough damage? they have been over bullyed by the US Gov. it's not even there fault if anyones to be blamed it should be the "USA" company that was supposed to maintance the pumps. and weld it with cheap shit.
@GreyKnight665 Its not all the US companies failt either, BP does take some blame as well. If the situation were reversed and a US owned oil rig blew up and leaked off britain they would demand US gov and the company pat for the cleanup, even if a UK company was involved at some points. considering the economic damage the payment hasent even been close
@CodArk2 The parts of the Empire that are still pissed at Britain are certainly not part of the Commonwealth.
Even Quebec here in Canada has had a referendum that had they wanted to could have separated from the rest of Canada gotten independent Nation status.
I Know the situation behind those actions in Grenada & Pakistan. I don't disagree but I understand why they don't like you
How in Gods name doe the EU get a say over here when the North East Passage is not International waters numb skull?
The BBC is probably the most impartial news network in the world due to the unique way it's funded. Unlike US networks, the BBC is autonomous thus does not have to pander to anyone.
Iraq now better?
Jan '12 J McCain: Situation in Iraq is "unraveling." A wave of deadly attacks has raised fears of a deepening sectarian divide in a country sliding into political chaos. 4 explosions ripped through Baghdad on Friday. Earlier, 2 Shia pilgrims were killed in Baghdad by roadside bombs..
I have spent a great deal of time in the US & watched all the main news networks. Have you any idea how much propaganda they hit you with, day after day?
Fox isn't even news, it deliberately distorts events, it should be taken off air. Basically, they are all controlled by those with the money and power, those with agendas, those who propagate lies, spin and BS to keep you all blind, ignorant and oblivious to the truth. They can't afford for you to hear truth, it's too dangerous..
@trouzerpants BBC is anti american, or many of its stories have that bias. Many brits dont see it, because they arent american, and many are anti american themselves. Saying BBC isnt anti-US is like some on the right wing who say fox news doesnt have a conservative biasL everyone can see it but those that buy the propaganda. There is violence in iraq just as there is in every nation, but its not as bad as in 06, we pulled combat troops out last year
Iraq is probably gonna descend into sectarian violence. It's just a cauldron, simmering away..
As for the BBC, I have watched BBC News here and BBC America. How is it "biased" when, as explained, it's autonomous? Where's it's agenda? It isn't sponsored by anyone. You are wrong. As for your 3 year old cousin, if you take what he says seriously, you need help, mate
@trouzerpants thats because iraq was a narion the brits invented from three ottoan provinces. rraq has a basic flaw in that nation from britain, not the US. other nations are also having vilence, like syria, without any US presence at all.
@trouzerpants auonomy means its not biased? i have seen both BBC and BBC america, the BBC usually reports on what they US is doing wrong, what the US is not doing, unless its good. The british people tend not to like the US, so that bias will seep in as well, not being sponsored doesnt change that.. I was pointing out even a 3 year old can tell its biased against the US.i. BI guess you have to be over 30 to have an opinion. i know plenty of people over 30 that are dumber than a 3 year old
This action was legitimised using phoney "evidence" (WMD's), leaving the country in a position that has now become more unstable than ever.
You're overlooking when Saddam was "useful" (when fighting Iran), he was our mate. No one gave a shit about Iraqi internal conflict then. As far as I know, Iraq has always been fractious, always will be. The war (according to many expert analysts) has not improved the situation for the majority populace, on the contrary, it has made it worse.
As for the Brits not liking you, that isn't true either. If anything, it's your gov that's disagreeable. Politics. Imperialism. War for profit (oft resulting in our being dragged along) that causes enmity.
@trouzerpants Many brits take out their dislike of the goc. on americans themselves. i have seen it several times. Not all or even most americans like our gov. either, thats why our congress has like a 9 percent approval rating and the president only like 48 percent. We are not imperialist in the same sense as european powers were. and we actually lost more money going into war than we gained from it. as for dragging you into wars, you have dragged us into wars as well
@trouzerpants Ir was only stable under a dictatorship because it was three different provinces to begin with. If it wasnt for saddam iraq would have fallen apart in the 50s. I dont think the war made everything there better, but its not markedly worse either. militarily our objectives were achieved.
@trouzerpants Its impartial in the political sense, that doesnt mean that it does not have an anti american bias.
The brits put a king in power, the king was overthrown by saddam. The first gulf war was because saddam invaded kuwair. Ir was not to topple saddam at all. Clinton tried weakening him through sanctions, before bush took him out in the war in 2003. Europe and chin got all the oil, the Us saw little of it
*meant:- where is the motive for LACK OF impartiality (ie prejudice) when it's autonomous? It won't be biased when it has no reason to be.
Why would such an organisation be swayed one way or the other unless leaned on by those who hold the purse strings (as it is in the US)
The BBC maintains impartiality through the very nature of it's autonomy ie it has no master to serve, no sponsors to keep happy etc, due to the unique way it's funded.
@trouzerpants ieaq was a made up nation to begin with,a s i recall the british made it from three seperate ottoman provinces and made it one nation/ You are exagerating how things are there, its not 2006 anymore, iraq is more peaceful than it was then. In adfganistan, the US goals were, get buin laden, get his network, and fer the taliban out of power. Everyrthing else was secondary. We accomplished our main goals
@trouzerpants we faufgr for most of the second world war, so i have no idea where you get that the US was part timer. You started WW2 when you declared war, the other nations were attacked and fought. We let the Philippines become independent (thats how you did with your colonies). We actually did not mess up in korea. The iraq and adfgan wars are not being lost either, our goals were achieved
@trouzerpants I dont know why the American's didn't put everything into Lower Canada (ie Quebec and Montreal) instead of waste resources on Upper Canada. The upper province would have withered and starved had the lower province been taken. American's had too much arrogance , not enough sense in 1812.
Do you remember 2 failed landings at Sacketts harbor?
Big Sandy Creek? French Creek? Pensacola? 1st Bowyer? Chipawwa? Lundy's Lane? Thames? Ft Wayne? Ft McHenry? Ft Harrison? St Philip? St Michaels? Craney Island? North Point? Farnham Church? Caulks Field? Ganaoque? Ft George? Port Dover?
and please if youre going to mention post 1815 US army events...Id have to remind you of 3 failed wars in Afghanistan, loosing the Anglo Turk, Anglo Boer wars and two Anglo Dutch wars.
As well as being the only military since ancient times to loose 60,000 men in one day (killed or wounded July 1 1916.)
Or loosing 400,000 in casualties during one 5 month campaign gaining only 10km of ground.
..consecutive days and nights. If it was your president under it, he'd definititely have run. No, Churchill, Monarchy & the populace all stayed put. British stoicism.
"yet she fought in 40 other battles and had not a single enemy sailor or Marine board her. 40 battles and 0 defeats"
I'll repeat (AGAIN!!), Constitution only won victories against ships half it's size. When faced with an equal, it fled. For a more evenly matched 1 on 1, check out the Shannon v Chesapeake (Chesapeake reduced to a WRECK after approx 11 minutes!)
Do you not read my replies? Why do you keep writing such risible nonsense?
On 17 July, she FLED from HMS ships. If so brave, why not engage? 3 April, FLED from HMS Junon & Tenedos. Needing EXTENSIVE repairs (damaged inflicted by TINY ships)..
.. on 18 Dec she left Boston then FLED AGAIN from the 50-gun HMS Leander. Why not make a fight? Ironsides only picked fights with ships HALF HER SIZE.
The treaty has the possibility of totally ending the expansion of the US to the west....IF the British had won at Baltimore. Imagine what that world wouldve looked like.
America doubled and tripled after 1815, as UK only lost more and more ground on the N. Amer. continent. N. California used to be British territory...like Alaska. Now theyre American states.
and those at New Orleans and Baltimore didnt materialize. The British Chesappeake and Southern campaigns failed miserably. The defeat at Baltimore even changed the outcome of the negotiations.
Now, more than ever, even American historians (including D Hickey, E Cohen, P Wilder, J Eisenhower et al) are finally admitting what we've always known - the War of 1812 was nothing but an American debacle.
The US invaded British Canada had there forces defeated & chased back in to the US then as major British invasion forces threatened american coasts, burned there capitol, with 6 states threatening secession & there economy in ruins the US was forced to sign a treaty that addressed nothing of the issues that you went to war over.
You call that winning? LOL stupid Americans living in there dream world
Now, more than ever, even American historians (including D Hickey, E Cohen, P Wilder, J Eisenhower et al) are finally admitting what we've always known - the War of 1812 was nothing but an American debacle.
@USMarineRifleman0311 please i no more than you, your an idiot if you think you won the 1812 war. you tried to take canada and lost, you lost more men that the british and some of your own cities came under attack. That is what i call a loose for america and only an american would think otherwise
you couldnt tell me what 2+2 is let alone the political outcomes of 2 century old wars and territorial changes.
A week ago you tried arguing that training could overcome logistical deficiencies. Hell prior to that, you probably didnt even know what logistics were.
The capital of Canada was taken by the US forces and burned. The British capital of that province was torched beside the fact that you lost around 60% of the war's bloodiest battles
@USMarineRifleman0311 lol you make me laugh, what was it that America wonted out of the war. that was to take control of Canada yes you may of got the capital but did you keep it NO, did you take the country NO. it does not matter how many battles you won, you clearly didn't win the big ones and clearly lost and you didn't get your objectives and you lost more casualties. Also the British burnt out cities in america aswell and as such you had to sign the treaty as you lost
The US wanted to stop impressment, full acknowledgement of its independence, control of the Great Lakes and the NW territories. All 3 were successful.
All the big battles were American victories. The two of the biggest ones being New Orleand and Baltimore. The battles in Canada were relatively bloodless.
We lost more men because battled the indians and won decisively.
6 British landings on US ended in failure. 2 at Sacketss, attempted at Erie, Champlain cont
@USMarineRifleman0311 "The US wanted to stop impressment, full acknowledgement of its independence, control of the Great Lakes and the NW territories. All 3 were successful."
No. Impressment was dropped because the British refused to budge on the issue and the war in Europe ended.
The Great Lakes were demilitarised in 1818. Treaty of Ghent you agreed to give Native lands back in the Midwest. You did not "control" either of these.
@USMarineRifleman0311 that is my point you are just a brainwashed american, how can you say you won or it was even a second independence. your objective was to attack and take over Canada you LOST and even some of your town and country came under attack. You also lost more casualties in the war CONCLUSION YOU LOST
@USMarineRifleman0311 again you are a fucking idiot. do you no what happens in a war people fight and they fight for objectives, amercias one in 1812 was to take canada. they did not do this and instead there own country came under attack and was made to sign a treaty. AMERICAN therefore LOST THE WAR
@USMarineRifleman0311 how have i been disproven all you have said was the treaty was re-written thans one point try doing some maths, and the point i was making with was accurate ahd ligitemate was this. America's targets take canada this was not achieved and instead there own country came under attack and it only stopped with the creation of the treaty
Fighting didnt end for 4 months after the treaty had been swayed in favor of the US.
The war on the sea ended with 4 US victories.
The demands made by the UK on the US in the initial treaty were goals the UK didnt achieve after the gamble at Baltimore. Meaning you lost at your objectives.
The war was a draw before Baltimore and the siege of Ft McHenry.
@USMarineRifleman0311 british kept canada i would say that they did a better job than the americans did, also america had there capital burnt and surronding land in there country
@USMarineRifleman0311 Read the Treaty of Ghent again and tell me what the US achieved. Not one Article was written in favour of the US. You gained nothing.
You know exactly what happened in this war but your pride gets in the way. You declared war because you thought it would be a piece of piss - "a mere matter of marching." Except you bitched out when you couldn't take the heat. You signed a Treaty that admitted your failure to the world.
@USMarineRifleman0311 You know why the British casualties at New Orleans were so high?
Because they kept on trying, they fought on even as their lines were decimated by artillery they couldn't even see. Every man in that army would have fought and died to achieve their objective had Lambert not called a withdrawal. And even here the British excelled themselves, withdrawing with "Parade - ground precision", according to an American witness. They didn't run, they walked.
LONG LIVE THE KING AND CANADA...IF THE BRITISH WANTED TO BRING IN HER 200 SHIPS....IT WOULD HAVE CRUSHED THE US NAVY IN AN HOUR...SMALL PICKINGS FOR THE BRITISH NAVAY AT THE TIME.
I'll repeat, Constitution only won victories against ships half it's size. When faced with an equal, it fled. For a more evenly matched 1 on 1, check out the Shannon v Chesapeake (Chesapeake reduced to a WRECK after approx 11 minutes!)
Any excuses for Bladensburg, for your cowardly president running away, leaving his wife behind?
How about your laughable attempts at annexing Canada, even whilst GB had 99% of all forces occupied in Europe?
Constitution, 44 (often 50+) guns; 30×24-pounder long guns, 20×32-pounder carronades & 2×24-pounder bow chasers guns. It was a HEAVY-frigate; 2200 tonnes; crew=450+
On 17 July, she FLED from HMS ships. If so brave, why not engage? 3 April, FLED from HMS Junon & Tenedos. Needing EXTENSIVE repairs (damaged inflicted by TINY ships), on 18 Dec she left Boston then FLED AGAIN from the 50-gun HMS Leander. Why not make a fight? Ironsides only picked fights with ships HALF HER SIZE.
You're damned lucky that we were busy with Napoleon (REAL enemy) otherwise you'd have faced HMS Victory & other ships of the line. A single broadside from any of those would've blown the Constitution sky high. Of course, that's why you waited 'til 1812 (Boney's height of power) before invading, isn't it? You knew that for any chance of annexing Canada, you had to rely upon him. Laughably, you STILL lost the war, DC was turned to ash & Madison RAN AWAY LEAVING HIS WIFE BEHIND.
please dont brag about "fighting" Boney. Europe fought Boney the UK simply stood by as everyone else bled until Napoleon made a mad rush for Russia and was totally ditched that you struck in his weak rear and went for Paris.
Prussia and Russia easily did more to fight Boney than the UK.
British infantry was too scared to show its face on continental Europe
Too "scared" to fight Napoleon?! Why do you post such utter crap? Perhaps you've never heard of Nelson at Trafalgar or Arthur Wellesley's huge contribution during the Peninsular campaign (not to mention Waterloo.)
The British have never been intimidated by anyone, even when (often) massively outnumbered, as proven during the War of 1812, when 99% of all Brit forces were engaged in Europe.
As for your battle count, send me a link proving your claims.
Just the other day, you claimed that New Orleans was fought muzzle to muzzle with BOTH sides out in the open. Jackson (as you well know) was secured behind fortified earthwork redoubts.
During your failed Canadian invasions, after hearing whoops and screams from natives, you were too terrified to even cross the river (even though you had HUGE numerical superiority..)
the Battle of Britain was won because an American invented the airplane and got the oil industry going in the first place. Without Americans there wouldve been no RAF, meaning Hitler couldve landed his land troops with ease in England.
US provided the w. allies with 5/6ths of their oil. Your planes ran on US oil
The Blitz didnt involve foreign land troops on English soil. Was there a need to run?
The British officials fled York before it was burned as well.
"the Battle of Britain was won because an American invented the airplane and got the oil industry going in the first place"
"Without Americans there wouldve been no RAF, meaning Hitler couldve landed his land troops with ease in England."
That's like saying without our inventing internal combustion (Sam Brown, 19th C), you'd have lost both world wars as you'd have had no piston engines to power any of your vehicles.
Your replies are becoming ever more embarrassing..
Besides, the Wright Bros were influenced by the German Lilienthal, who, in turn was influenced by Sir George Cayley. The RAF is the oldest independent air force in the world.
You initially stated that without SUPERIOR AMERICAN OIL, the BoB could not have been won. Clearly you meant that without LL, we would have lost said battle..
@USMarineRifleman0311 Are you trying to make Americans look like complete morons? Half the 'facts' you quote about the War of 1812 are fictional, and your even worse when it comes to WW2. Your logic is painstakingly retarded. The Wright brothers weren't the only people in the world working on flight you moron. Wow, you really are a shitbrain. A complete, total, utter shitbrain. It says much about you that you have to troll youtube, instead of going on a proper history forum
Yes, he's a laughing stock, nothing but a complete and total fool. Don't even know how old he is, he could be just a kid (minors don't know shit.) If he's an adult, then that makes his rubbish even less excusable! Alas, whether he realises or not, he does Americans in general a great disservice. With his omnipresent nonsense, BS, lies, bunkum and tosh, he does not present them in the best possible light, contrarily, he merely reinforces the "retarded American" stereotype..
You talk as if it was our fault we buit line Jackson and you didnt besiege the city in return. You talk as if it was our fault we won decisively while loosing only a dozen men.
Common sense. The largest scale muzzle to muzzle battle in the open on the continent between the US and UK was Monmouth = US victory in the long term.
We also met in the open at Saratoga and Guilford courthouse...capturing one army and decimating another.
@USMarineRifleman0311 What I would like to see is the Americans fight Napoleon one on one in a fair fight on the field and see how easy it was.....your army didn't have the numbers, training or guts.....The English and the other Countries who fought with England did...seriously the American Army at that time was for the most part unprofessional...towards the end they copied British tactics and became more professional but NOT nearly enough to fight a world war with super powers....
@USMarineRifleman0311 What I would like to see is the Americans fight Napoleon one on one in a fair fight on the field and see how easy it was.....your army didn't have the numbers, training or guts.....The English and the other Countries who fought with England did...seriously the American Army at that time was for the most part unprofessional...towards the end they copied British tactics and became more professional but NOT nearly enough to fight a world war with super powers....
Why do American's never ever ever mention the attempts during the War of 1812 to invade, conquer , annex Canada? Oh yes, they lost every attempt to do so thus in their natural manner just pretend that never happened. It's like Germany pretending they never invaded the USSR during WW2.
blacbraun 4 days ago
Put it this way whatever anybody says BRITAIN WON THE 1812 WAR
Knightrider9091 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When details of Ghent reached the US Americans were astounded to discover that it contained NO clauses forbidding the seizure of US sailors, NO restrictions on support for natives & NO restraints on interference with US commerce at sea, primary causes of the conflict unresolved.Newspapers were quick to criticize a treaty that failed to mention the major causes of the conflict.Despite this the cessation of hostilities was widely welcomed- "it pleased God to restore peace to this bleeding land"
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
The US expanded but NOT into Canada, their primary goal! They only expanded west through Tecumseh's death (no one left to lead the Indian Confederation) after dishonourably reneging upon Article IX (sine qua non.)
Bladensburg, "the greatest disgrace ever dealt to American arms." President runs away leaving his wife behind.
The Penobscot Expedition, largest naval expedition of the American Revolutionary War and the US' worst naval defeat until Pearl Harbor.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
At Saratoga, Burgoyne won the first battle even though outnumbered. The second, he was hugely outnumbered, surrounded, cut off from resupply. Surrender was his only option..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Clinton was meant to link up with him but due to ambiguous orders, he instead ran his own campaign, taking NYC, smashed Washington at Brandywine then occupied your capital for a year.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
How about Camden where Cornwallis smashed Gates? What about Savannah where Campbell captured Howe's army, the remains fleeing? Charleston, the entire city captured..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
..with the loss of 5000 troops (largest surrender of an American armed force until the 1862 surrender of Union forces at Harper's Ferry during the Antietam Campaign.) Waxhaws etc
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
The majority of major battles were Brit victories even though nearly always heavily outnumbered. Preceding the major British victory at Camden came the capture of Savannah (1778)..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Clinton captured a large portion of General Howe's army whilst driving the remnants to retreat into South Carolina, torn & tattered. We held NYC, Charleston & Savannah until the end.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Without the Euro powers (especially France) forcing a global war you'd have been smashed.After you gained independence, our empirical strength grew hugely; France ended up in revolution!
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Feb 1815 GB held Maine, Prairie Du Chein, Fort St Mary & town, Cumberland Island, Georgia & Ft Bowyer (10 million acres of US territory.) You only held a scintilla of land in Ontario!
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now more than ever, even US historians (D Hickey, E Cohen, P Wilder, J Eisenhower et al) are finally admitting what we've always known, War of 1812 was nothing but an American debacle
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Y'see marine dreamer, their pride doesn't get in the way of their facts. These erudite US historians admit it was a US screw up. Alas, your overt pride makes you talk shit.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
BTW, apparently Richard Pearse (son of Cornish immigrants) a NZ farmer & inventor flew & landed a powered heavier-than-air machine on 31 March '03, nine months before the Wright bros..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants
majority of the major battles? Like Plattsburgh where 10,000 British tried invading and confronting 1,500 US regulars and failed...not even able to cross the lake?
Another major British attempt to cut off Lousiana in 1814-15 ....do you remember those as major battles?
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
@USM
What I can "remember" is that we were fully committed in Europe when you stabbed us in the back, thinking that annexing Canada would be a "mere matter of marching" & Madison running away leaving his wife behind. There's no excuses for that act of cowardice. BTW, we won Lundy's Lane, we held the field. N Point was also a victory; Ft McHenry, after sinking your own ships in the harbour (bottling yourselves in), you hid behind the walls! We just withdrew after burning DC
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Your pathetic attempts at annexing Canada (with HUGE numerical superiority & logistical advantage) were to your utmost chagrin. I'll repeat, even American historians now liken the debacle of 1812 to that of your Vietnamese nightmare. Wanna argue with them? 'Course ya don't!
Only the first Afghan war was a loss; Anglo Turk- d'ya mean Gallipoli..? We won the final Boer war! Anglo Dutch wars? How far d'ya wanna go back?! Besides, we eventually ended with control of the seas..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
As for the Somme, blame Haig, not those ultra-brave boys who were following orders. You'd have lost as many (if not more) had you actually BEEN THERE. You can't charge machine guns hence our inventing the tank to break the deadlock. Besides, in those days, high casualties was a reality of war. The Germans suffered just as greatly. Ultimately, we won WWI (the Triple Entente), NO THANKS TO YOU.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
You lost the Seminole Wars (had to pay 'em to leave, even then some still stayed!); Red Cloud's War; 1812; played next to no role in WWI; part-timers in WWII (humiliated at Sidi Bou Zid, Kasserine Pass) AND lost the Philippines; embarrassed by continual failures in Cuba, messed up in Korea, defeated in 'Nam, screwed up in Somalia; Op Eagle Claw (LOL) and are now losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your war record is terrible.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
For a country which takes excessive pride in flags, uniforms, marching bands and spends more than the rest of the planet combined on it's military, the record of America’s forces since World War II is poor. In dozens of quickie invasions against weak opponents, Americans indeed have prevailed BUT when faced with tough, determined enemies, they have remarkably often been defeated or stalemated.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
The failure of America’s military could be explained by the notion that failure is only what happens when you seek the wrong success. A poorly-governed people, as Americans certainly are, keeps being sent to wars in which they have no vital interest or commitment. Whatever the reason, the record is unmistakable.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
In battles or war generally, victory is not always easy to determine. There were many battles in history where victory was claimed or loss assumed in error.
Higher casualties don’t always mean losing a battle or even a war. The sacrifice of great numbers sometimes improves a strategic or tactical position, as General Grant in America’s Civil War well understood. Vietnam’s General Giap understood this also, for despite a horrific slaughter of his people, America suffered defeat.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
It was an early sign of the coming defeat when body counts began to dominate American news. It is easy to kill large numbers of people, especially when you have complete air superiority and high-tech weapons, but constant killing may mean little progress against a serious opponent. Often, as in the Blitz, bombing people is completely counter-productive.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
In recent weeks body counts re-appeared in Afghan, much the same way opium poppies re-appeared after US claims to victory over the Taliban (who'd suppressed opium.)The bodies are supposed to be Taliban but who can tell who a dead villager is? Even when the body is Taliban, how do we regard that as a victory? The Taliban is a loosely-knit organisation, a kind of political party and anti-invader guerrilla force; death does not intimidate where people typically live to 47.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Except in the bizarre mind of George Bush (moron), the Taliban is not a terrorist organization, so when one of them is killed, does it really represent a victory? Or is it viewed by many in Afghanistan as murder by unwelcome foreigners? Clearly, this is the view of many because the Taliban is becoming stronger, surprisingly so according to expert observers.
The recent refusal of NATO countries to commit more troops and resources to Afghanistan was telling.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Seeing little point in trying to occupy Afghanistan for years, they understand the impossibility of significantly changing so ancient and poor a land. They are not taken in by American Potemkin village projects for bettering life there, after having bombed the hell out of the place. NATO countries in general do not accept Bush’s tale about everyone’s security depending upon success in Afghan for the very good reason that it's false.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Another lost war is Iraq. US efforts there have done little but kill civilians, destroy the economy, now threaten to destroy the country itself. Even in Washington, the reality of civil war is dawning. America’s real goals aren't gonna be achieved, primarily to establish a regime friendly to US policy. Years of bloody chaos lie ahead. 3 separate warring rump states willing to do almost anything to gain an advantage including taking assistance from those most hostile to US policy..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
US loss in Iraq is far greater than this. The illegal, unjustified invasion has muddied America’s reputation, aroused suspicions of it's intentions and put new geopolitical forces into play, only dimly perceived at this time. When is the US going to learn how stupidly unproductive war is? Furthermore, when is the US going to learn how bad it is at war despite it's monstrous expenditures preparing for it?
(Abridged) from "America Has Just Lost Two More Wars" -
J CHUCKMAN
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants this isnt 2007. we pulled our combat troops out of iraq. and to date there has not been a civil war.We accomplished our goals in iraq so we can be said to have won that war.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2
How can leaving a country in disarray result in a victory? Like the journalist stated, the goal was to replace Hussein with a government friendly towards the UN. That has NOT happened, the opposite has. Iraq is in a far worse state that when we initially went in.
Again, where's the "victory" in Afghanistan? It's just as lawless, just as dangerous and will never be democratic. You don't seem to understand the basis for going to war, just as that journalist rightly elucidated.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants we didnt leave it in disarray at all. We left it in a drawdown of troops that had been planned for years. The original goal was to depose saddam and his WMD programs he didnt have. Regardless, we did et rid of him. iraq actually doesnt seem worse off.
as for afghanistan, that was a justified war. Our goal there was get osama bin laden, disrupt or destroy al qaeda and their taliban protectors, we have done all three/ democracy was not a goal there at all
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2 I gotta ask. With 16 9-11 hijackers coming from Saudi Arabia why didn't we attack there?
Yes the training ground in Afghanistan was a tactical target but considering Bin La-din's demands, we gave him almost everything he wanted. We pulled the troops out of Saudi Arabia & seriously dialed back upon support for Israel.
Hell man we took out Saddam who Bin La-din had made 3 attempts to assassinate himself.
I don't get it?
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@Eddythebeast666
I'd like to know why immediately after 9/11, special flights outta the country were arranged for the Saudi elites whereas all other flights were grounded..
Fuck with Saudi?!!! Christ no, can't do that. They're our mates. Gotta keep them sweet, no matter what..
BTW - Have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11?
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants To be fair at that time Canada had no plans to expand the experimental tar sands project in Alberta. Declaring war upon the home nation of Mecca would have been a call to Jihad for every Muslim on the planet. All Middle East oil would have shut off at once.
Even Bush wasn't that stupid Thank God.
Now that the Tar Sands are in full gear & doubling every few years at least we have some options that wont hurt us just as bad as them.
Still have to build those pipelines
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@trouzerpants Still have to build those pipelines if we are going to supply Europe & the Pacific.
I didn't like Bowling for Columbine treatment of Heston & refused to watch Moore's work after that.
I know most of the info Moore put in to Fahrenheit & I don't disagree but he over hypes issues that are very complected. I don't disagree with his politics but I hate his style. I don't need to be force fed over dramatized sensationalism. Maybe Americans do but I don't. XD
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@Eddythebeast666
Moore got stick for interviewing Heston when clearly he was suffering from dementia, I'll agree with that, however, his polemics (for my money) certainly ask the kinda questions that need asking..
Capitalism: A Love Story, Columbine, F 9/11, they all address controversial issues, albeit in a tongue-in-cheek manner.
If ya think he's sensationalist, check out Alex Jones!!
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants As I said I have no problem with Moore's politics.
Its the delivery, making documentary movies he has a system that works. Getting an alliterative perspective on important issues is vital.
He just reminds me too much of shows like "First Invasion 1812" taking very complicated events issues & over simplifying them.
Anyway I never managed to forgive the Heston thing. It was like watching Moses get kicked in the nuts.
Its just me, I know, I'm not the forgiving sort.
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@Eddythebeast666 because the base of operations was in afghanistan, and the gov. there refused to turn them over. The US didnt pull back support for israel, and saddam was a different story altogether: we took him out supposedly for having WMDs and defying the UN. The US only had troops in saudi arabia to keep saddam from invading them, with him gone they were not needed
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2 The money running that base came from Saudi Arabia & we never went after a lot of high profile supporters of those camps.
Israel oh Israel right.
How convenant that Saddam's removal was so useful.
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@Eddythebeast666 Most of al waeda was in pakistan and afghanistan, not saudi arabia. I mean if they came from mexico or russia should we have bombed them? Where they come from is irrelevant, bin laden was from saudi arabia too, but he was innot there in 2001. And that is why we pulled troops from saudi arabia, saddam threatened to invade them in the persian gulf war after invading kuwait
CodArk2 1 week ago
@Cod
Iraq is in a far worse state than ever with groups of warring insurgents (all hostile to the west) running amok. Prior, there was infrastructure, now nowt but total chaos & anarchy.
As for Afghan, we're nowhere near achieving our goals. OBL's been dead for years (don't believe the recent SEALS story of killing him then dumping his cadaver into the sea BS), as for the Taliban, they're still taking toll. Of course creating a compliant gov is paramount whether they admit it or not..
trouzerpants 1 week ago
"US and Nato far from goals in Afghanistan" - BBC News, Oct 2011
"After 10 yrs, US/Nato allies remain far from reaching goals.. US began the war with a frighteningly simplistic view, still lacked knowledge to achieve a successful end; most difficult task would be to create a legit government that ordinary Afghans could believe in, that would balance the influence of the Taliban." - Gen S McChrystal (retired)
War already surpassed Vietnam to become the longest war in US history..
trouzerpants 1 week ago
Few gains
"The BBC's Paul Wood, in Kabul, says that Western officials admit that parts of the country will remain violent after 2014 when Nato relinquishes its combat role. Without a peace deal with the Taliban, he says, few really expect the war to be brought to an end."
etc etc
I guess it's down to you if you wanna believe the propaganda your gov continually spins ya...
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants the BBC is known for its anti american bent, so the same goes for you and propaganda, not to mention ..."after 2004"? that was 8 years ago. things have changed a lot since then, its not nearly as violent today as back then
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2 "BBC is known for its anti american bent"
Known by whom? Right wing conservative groups that stick that label upon anything that does not support everything the USA does?
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@Eddythebeast666 antone with any objectivity. watching the BBC got unbiased news about america is like watching fox news for unbiased news about obama and his policies. I have watched the BBC, and its america bashing was obvious even to my 3 year old cousin. They go out of their way to point out what the US is doing wrong and how we are bad, and it didnt stop after bush left office. The BBC having an anti american bias is as obvious as fox having a right wing bias
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2 BBC is the news service of choice for the Commonwealth. If it has an American ax to grind you might want to consider how many Commonwealth nations the USA has pissed off.
Things like invading Grenada, Unilaterally declaring the North West passage international waters, sending a hit squad in to Pakistan or a hundred other little things that while understandable ignore the protocol that Sovereign nations use to get along with each other.
The US has to work on your international manners.
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@Eddythebeast666 most of the commonwealth has more to be pissed at britain about than us. the hit squad into pakistan was because the hiu we went to war to capture or kill was there. In addition the ISI might have tipped him off that the US was coming. as for grenada, we invaded at the request of the OAS. the soviets and cubans were also meddling there, but they get a free pass apparently.You also single out the US on the NW passage, when the EU agrees with the US
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2 The parts of the Empire that are still pissed at Britain are certainly not part of the Commonwealth.
Even Quebec here in Canada has had a referendum that had they wanted to could have separated from the rest of Canada gotten independent Nation status.
I Know the situation behind those actions in Grenada & Pakistan. I don't disagree but I understand why they don't like you
How in Gods name doe the EU get a say over here when the North East Passage is not International waters numb skull?
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@Eddythebeast666 The EU is a major trading bloc, thus they would have a mjor say in international trade. trade wise we are an inter connected world. its mostly inspired by nationalism in canada, not any real danger to canada's sovereignty. if the US did the same thing the rest of the world would expect us to shut up and let it be international waters
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2 You don't understand the issue or as least Bush didn't.
Canada has made huge investments in ice breakers, we have wanted the North west passage open since the first explores tried to find the damn thing.
If the US wants to make the coast of Alaska international waters GOD bless you. That is a huge chunk of the passage right there, which now any rust bucket can use regardless of how sea worthy they are.
I don't care how many spills you have clean up. That's your business.
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@Eddythebeast666 Have you seen an oil tanker/ they are not rustbuckets, Rgw YS, russia, and several other nations also invested in ice breakers as well. canada just wants the "right" to bar traffic through the passage, and i can see why most of the world would be against that.
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2 Tankers are the least of my worries. Even a small freighter with benign cargo has large enough fuel capacity do do huge damage.
Russia controls the North east passage numb skull haven't you been following the conversation?
All we is the right to deign access to unsafe ships. A right no one has in International waters.
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@Eddythebeast666 russia controls the northern sea route. Modern ships tend to be header to sink, especially commercial ships. Most ships using the passage would be canadain, US and european ships. Most unsade ships cant get near the artic anyway, the waters and conditions up there are different, most would go to panama
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2 That's your business but Canada has twice as much coastline at stake.
International waters can't be regulated beyond UN treaty standards which is mostly a joke. The US has always had much higher standards for your coastline up until Bush in his last act as president completely fucked both our nations with the most idiotic thing he did while in office.
Why? Was he still pissed because we didn't sign on in Iraq?
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@Eddythebeast666 Mostly uninhabited rocky islands. Our shipps are not all that bad actually, there have been few oil spills from US ships (the biggest oil spill in the US was from a british owned oil platform). It had nothing to do with iraq either, most americans were more against france for that.
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2 I'm not worried about most US ships. Your insurance companies have solid standards.
International waters means any ship from any nation has a right to sail there.
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@CodArk2 Canada wants the passage open more then anyone on earth. The boast to our economy would be as big as the Panama canal was or damn near.
But "international waters"?!? Are you out of your fucking minds? Do you has any idea of what spill clean up will cost us in the Arctic?
Most of the shipping companies that will be using it wont be able to pay & under international law they wont have to & we certainly wont be able to get any money from what ever countries flags of connivance they fly.
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@CodArk2 Canada wants the passage open more then anyone on earth. The boast to our economy would be as big as the Panama canal was or damn near.
But "international waters"?!? Are you out of your fucking minds? Do you has any idea of what spill clean up will cost us in the Arctic?
Most of the shipping companies that will be using it wont be able to pay & under international law they wont have to & we certainly wont be able to get any money from what ever countries flags of connivance they fly.
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@Eddythebeast666 But making it internal waters gibes canada the right to close it. The panama canal is something the US built, then stupidly gave up to another nation. Also, we had to clean up that oil spill in the ulf of mexico, no money from the UK for that, course thats assuming there is a spill...oiltankers are huge ships, and dont sink easily.And with global warming, it wont be as risky in the future anyway with less ice.
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2 No Canada does not have the right to stop ships in international waters we have no sovereignty there. Only in Canadian waters.
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@Eddythebeast666 No nation has a right to stop ships in international waters, which is why the US wants the NW passage being such. We dont want any nation controlling the passage because we dont want any nation wanting to bloc it off, canada, denmark, russia, whatever
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2 I think you misunderstood the part where Bush declared the North west passage international waters.
While most of that is Canadian a good chunk of that is Alaska coast as well.
Who are you going to sue when a freighter from Ethiopia sinks in the middle of Alaska crab fishing grounds?
Do you think they have the money to clean up even a small arctic spill?
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
@Eddythebeast666 i dunno if we would sue anyone. Usually companies are sued, not nations. I know ship captains, and they are not stupid, most would not sail in the arctic because of the harsh environment, even if you paid them a lot of cash.If the weather heats up then the conditions will be less extreme as well. I am sure something will be worked out, no one thinks spills or sinking ships are a good thing
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill wasn't just the fault of BP, there were others to blame, including Halliburton, BP and Transocean (according to wiki.)
Furthermore, BP has paid some compensation.
BTW - At the time, I was staying with a mate & his folks down in Lake Charles, LA (2010) whilst that oil was gushing out, making headline news everyday..
I just told locals I was Australian..
(jk)
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants ot wasnt all BPs fault, but it was their platform. and they havent paid out near the amount of damage done. I only used BP as an example because it was an example of a major spill by a multinational company. Rankers have not had many spills, or if they have, they are small ones (except exxon valdez). so the concern was overhyped
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2 have'nt paid enough damage? they have been over bullyed by the US Gov. it's not even there fault if anyones to be blamed it should be the "USA" company that was supposed to maintance the pumps. and weld it with cheap shit.
GreyKnight665 5 days ago
@GreyKnight665 Its not all the US companies failt either, BP does take some blame as well. If the situation were reversed and a US owned oil rig blew up and leaked off britain they would demand US gov and the company pat for the cleanup, even if a UK company was involved at some points. considering the economic damage the payment hasent even been close
CodArk2 5 days ago
@CodArk2 thats the thing BP took 100% of the blame.
GreyKnight665 4 days ago
@GreyKnight665 Eh? for the war of 1812 lol. well you've got to blame someone i suppose.
davethemouse1 3 days ago
@CodArk2 The parts of the Empire that are still pissed at Britain are certainly not part of the Commonwealth.
Even Quebec here in Canada has had a referendum that had they wanted to could have separated from the rest of Canada gotten independent Nation status.
I Know the situation behind those actions in Grenada & Pakistan. I don't disagree but I understand why they don't like you
How in Gods name doe the EU get a say over here when the North East Passage is not International waters numb skull?
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CodArk2 The parts of the Empire that are still pissed at Britain are certainly not part of the Commonwealth.
Even Quebec here in Canada has had a referendum that had they wanted to could have separated from the rest of Canada gotten independent Nation status.
I Know the situation behind those actions in Grenada & Pakistan. I don't disagree but I understand why they don't like you
How in Gods name doe the EU get a say over here when the North East Passage is not International waters numb skull?
Eddythebeast666 1 week ago
The BBC is probably the most impartial news network in the world due to the unique way it's funded. Unlike US networks, the BBC is autonomous thus does not have to pander to anyone.
Iraq now better?
Jan '12 J McCain: Situation in Iraq is "unraveling." A wave of deadly attacks has raised fears of a deepening sectarian divide in a country sliding into political chaos. 4 explosions ripped through Baghdad on Friday. Earlier, 2 Shia pilgrims were killed in Baghdad by roadside bombs..
trouzerpants 1 week ago
I have spent a great deal of time in the US & watched all the main news networks. Have you any idea how much propaganda they hit you with, day after day?
Fox isn't even news, it deliberately distorts events, it should be taken off air. Basically, they are all controlled by those with the money and power, those with agendas, those who propagate lies, spin and BS to keep you all blind, ignorant and oblivious to the truth. They can't afford for you to hear truth, it's too dangerous..
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants BBC is anti american, or many of its stories have that bias. Many brits dont see it, because they arent american, and many are anti american themselves. Saying BBC isnt anti-US is like some on the right wing who say fox news doesnt have a conservative biasL everyone can see it but those that buy the propaganda. There is violence in iraq just as there is in every nation, but its not as bad as in 06, we pulled combat troops out last year
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2
Iraq is probably gonna descend into sectarian violence. It's just a cauldron, simmering away..
As for the BBC, I have watched BBC News here and BBC America. How is it "biased" when, as explained, it's autonomous? Where's it's agenda? It isn't sponsored by anyone. You are wrong. As for your 3 year old cousin, if you take what he says seriously, you need help, mate
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants thats because iraq was a narion the brits invented from three ottoan provinces. rraq has a basic flaw in that nation from britain, not the US. other nations are also having vilence, like syria, without any US presence at all.
CodArk2 1 week ago
@trouzerpants auonomy means its not biased? i have seen both BBC and BBC america, the BBC usually reports on what they US is doing wrong, what the US is not doing, unless its good. The british people tend not to like the US, so that bias will seep in as well, not being sponsored doesnt change that.. I was pointing out even a 3 year old can tell its biased against the US.i. BI guess you have to be over 30 to have an opinion. i know plenty of people over 30 that are dumber than a 3 year old
CodArk2 1 week ago
Comment removed
trouzerpants 1 week ago
This action was legitimised using phoney "evidence" (WMD's), leaving the country in a position that has now become more unstable than ever.
You're overlooking when Saddam was "useful" (when fighting Iran), he was our mate. No one gave a shit about Iraqi internal conflict then. As far as I know, Iraq has always been fractious, always will be. The war (according to many expert analysts) has not improved the situation for the majority populace, on the contrary, it has made it worse.
trouzerpants 1 week ago
As for the Brits not liking you, that isn't true either. If anything, it's your gov that's disagreeable. Politics. Imperialism. War for profit (oft resulting in our being dragged along) that causes enmity.
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants Many brits take out their dislike of the goc. on americans themselves. i have seen it several times. Not all or even most americans like our gov. either, thats why our congress has like a 9 percent approval rating and the president only like 48 percent. We are not imperialist in the same sense as european powers were. and we actually lost more money going into war than we gained from it. as for dragging you into wars, you have dragged us into wars as well
CodArk2 1 week ago
@trouzerpants Ir was only stable under a dictatorship because it was three different provinces to begin with. If it wasnt for saddam iraq would have fallen apart in the 50s. I dont think the war made everything there better, but its not markedly worse either. militarily our objectives were achieved.
CodArk2 1 week ago
@trouzerpants Its impartial in the political sense, that doesnt mean that it does not have an anti american bias.
The brits put a king in power, the king was overthrown by saddam. The first gulf war was because saddam invaded kuwair. Ir was not to topple saddam at all. Clinton tried weakening him through sanctions, before bush took him out in the war in 2003. Europe and chin got all the oil, the Us saw little of it
CodArk2 1 week ago
@CodArk2
Sorry, I meant GW2, not GW1.
trouzerpants 1 week ago
Anyway, it's late here.
G'night
trouzerpants 1 week ago
Comment removed
trouzerpants 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*meant:- where is the motive for LACK OF impartiality (ie prejudice) when it's autonomous? It won't be biased when it has no reason to be.
Why would such an organisation be swayed one way or the other unless leaned on by those who hold the purse strings (as it is in the US)
The BBC maintains impartiality through the very nature of it's autonomy ie it has no master to serve, no sponsors to keep happy etc, due to the unique way it's funded.
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants ieaq was a made up nation to begin with,a s i recall the british made it from three seperate ottoman provinces and made it one nation/ You are exagerating how things are there, its not 2006 anymore, iraq is more peaceful than it was then. In adfganistan, the US goals were, get buin laden, get his network, and fer the taliban out of power. Everyrthing else was secondary. We accomplished our main goals
CodArk2 1 week ago
@trouzerpants we faufgr for most of the second world war, so i have no idea where you get that the US was part timer. You started WW2 when you declared war, the other nations were attacked and fought. We let the Philippines become independent (thats how you did with your colonies). We actually did not mess up in korea. The iraq and adfgan wars are not being lost either, our goals were achieved
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants The US did not win WW1, we did help though. It was a stupid war to fight ro begin with, and we should have stayed out of it altogether
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants I dont know why the American's didn't put everything into Lower Canada (ie Quebec and Montreal) instead of waste resources on Upper Canada. The upper province would have withered and starved had the lower province been taken. American's had too much arrogance , not enough sense in 1812.
blacbraun 4 days ago
@trouzerpants
Do you remember 2 failed landings at Sacketts harbor?
Big Sandy Creek? French Creek? Pensacola? 1st Bowyer? Chipawwa? Lundy's Lane? Thames? Ft Wayne? Ft McHenry? Ft Harrison? St Philip? St Michaels? Craney Island? North Point? Farnham Church? Caulks Field? Ganaoque? Ft George? Port Dover?
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants
the surrender of the union army compares tiny to the Singapore surrender of 1942, where 120,000 Brit commonwealth surrendered to 30,000 Japs.
120,000 in one day without a fight.
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants
and please if youre going to mention post 1815 US army events...Id have to remind you of 3 failed wars in Afghanistan, loosing the Anglo Turk, Anglo Boer wars and two Anglo Dutch wars.
As well as being the only military since ancient times to loose 60,000 men in one day (killed or wounded July 1 1916.)
Or loosing 400,000 in casualties during one 5 month campaign gaining only 10km of ground.
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
"You talk as if it was our fault we buit line Jackson.."
No, I was replying to your earlier statement that it was fought by both sides "out in the open." I really don't know why I bother with you...
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
"The Blitz didnt involve foreign land troops on English soil. Was there a need to run?"
The Blitz was an indiscriminate bombing campaign with bombs raining down for 76..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
..consecutive days and nights. If it was your president under it, he'd definititely have run. No, Churchill, Monarchy & the populace all stayed put. British stoicism.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"yet she fought in 40 other battles and had not a single enemy sailor or Marine board her. 40 battles and 0 defeats"
I'll repeat (AGAIN!!), Constitution only won victories against ships half it's size. When faced with an equal, it fled. For a more evenly matched 1 on 1, check out the Shannon v Chesapeake (Chesapeake reduced to a WRECK after approx 11 minutes!)
Do you not read my replies? Why do you keep writing such risible nonsense?
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
On 17 July, she FLED from HMS ships. If so brave, why not engage? 3 April, FLED from HMS Junon & Tenedos. Needing EXTENSIVE repairs (damaged inflicted by TINY ships)..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
.. on 18 Dec she left Boston then FLED AGAIN from the 50-gun HMS Leander. Why not make a fight? Ironsides only picked fights with ships HALF HER SIZE.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
the british provincial capital York was burned to the ground as well as 20 other canadian towns
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
@Knightrider9091
canada didnt exist until 1930s...what in gods name are you babbling about again.
The Chesappeake campaign was a disaster for the British, their only achievement was Washington
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
The treaty has the possibility of totally ending the expansion of the US to the west....IF the British had won at Baltimore. Imagine what that world wouldve looked like.
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
America doubled and tripled after 1815, as UK only lost more and more ground on the N. Amer. continent. N. California used to be British territory...like Alaska. Now theyre American states.
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
and those at New Orleans and Baltimore didnt materialize. The British Chesappeake and Southern campaigns failed miserably. The defeat at Baltimore even changed the outcome of the negotiations.
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now, more than ever, even American historians (including D Hickey, E Cohen, P Wilder, J Eisenhower et al) are finally admitting what we've always known - the War of 1812 was nothing but an American debacle.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The US invaded British Canada had there forces defeated & chased back in to the US then as major British invasion forces threatened american coasts, burned there capitol, with 6 states threatening secession & there economy in ruins the US was forced to sign a treaty that addressed nothing of the issues that you went to war over.
You call that winning? LOL stupid Americans living in there dream world
Knightrider9091 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now, more than ever, even American historians (including D Hickey, E Cohen, P Wilder, J Eisenhower et al) are finally admitting what we've always known - the War of 1812 was nothing but an American debacle.
trouzerpants 3 weeks ago
sorry american but you didn't win the 1812 war if anything you lost, you had more casualties than the British and couldn't take Canada
Knightrider9091 3 weeks ago
@Knightrider9091
They know, it's only the overtly prideful, jingoistic pricks (the kind who even claim victory in Vietnam) that talk shit.
trouzerpants 3 weeks ago
@Knightrider9091
You dont possess the understanding of simple history let alone something as complex as the War of 1812.
I'll repeat myself again. 62 victories on land for the US, 38 for the British.
26 US naval victories, 13 defeats. 4 ties.
We fought more enemies and your indian allies, which were massacred in the years that followed for back stabbing us.
USMarineRifleman0311 3 weeks ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 please i no more than you, your an idiot if you think you won the 1812 war. you tried to take canada and lost, you lost more men that the british and some of your own cities came under attack. That is what i call a loose for america and only an american would think otherwise
Knightrider9091 3 weeks ago
@Knightrider9091
you couldnt tell me what 2+2 is let alone the political outcomes of 2 century old wars and territorial changes.
A week ago you tried arguing that training could overcome logistical deficiencies. Hell prior to that, you probably didnt even know what logistics were.
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
@Knightrider9091
The capital of Canada was taken by the US forces and burned. The British capital of that province was torched beside the fact that you lost around 60% of the war's bloodiest battles
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 lol you make me laugh, what was it that America wonted out of the war. that was to take control of Canada yes you may of got the capital but did you keep it NO, did you take the country NO. it does not matter how many battles you won, you clearly didn't win the big ones and clearly lost and you didn't get your objectives and you lost more casualties. Also the British burnt out cities in america aswell and as such you had to sign the treaty as you lost
Knightrider9091 2 weeks ago
@Knightrider9091
The US wanted to stop impressment, full acknowledgement of its independence, control of the Great Lakes and the NW territories. All 3 were successful.
All the big battles were American victories. The two of the biggest ones being New Orleand and Baltimore. The battles in Canada were relatively bloodless.
We lost more men because battled the indians and won decisively.
6 British landings on US ended in failure. 2 at Sacketss, attempted at Erie, Champlain cont
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USMarineRifleman0311 "The US wanted to stop impressment, full acknowledgement of its independence, control of the Great Lakes and the NW territories. All 3 were successful."
No. Impressment was dropped because the British refused to budge on the issue and the war in Europe ended.
The Great Lakes were demilitarised in 1818. Treaty of Ghent you agreed to give Native lands back in the Midwest. You did not "control" either of these.
Your independence was never in danger.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Knightrider9091
War of 1812 is known as the second war of independence, meaning we got something out of it at your expense.
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 that is my point you are just a brainwashed american, how can you say you won or it was even a second independence. your objective was to attack and take over Canada you LOST and even some of your town and country came under attack. You also lost more casualties in the war CONCLUSION YOU LOST
Knightrider9091 2 weeks ago
@Knightrider9091
I truly hope you dont reproduce
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 ha ha your so funny you no i am right so that the best you can come up with
Knightrider9091 2 weeks ago
@Knightrider9091
Do you realize we walked away from the war with complete control of the Great Lakes and NW territories?
We gained territory...we even bought a good 1/4 canada in the yrs following
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
@Knightrider9091
your only qualification for arguing is your ability to read. In 3 months you havent cited a single battle or detail that required in depth research.
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 again you are a fucking idiot. do you no what happens in a war people fight and they fight for objectives, amercias one in 1812 was to take canada. they did not do this and instead there own country came under attack and was made to sign a treaty. AMERICAN therefore LOST THE WAR
Knightrider9091 2 weeks ago
@Knightrider9091
Im proud of you...you can read.
The treaty of Ghent was re-written in favor of the US after the British defeat at Baltimore. It was only ratified after we got our terms.
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 you still missing the point the Americans LOST the 1812 war just accept it and move on
Knightrider9091 2 weeks ago
@Knightrider9091
So you are disproven on 3 seperate claims and then resort once again to opinionated argument?
Do you even understand English?
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 how have i been disproven all you have said was the treaty was re-written thans one point try doing some maths, and the point i was making with was accurate ahd ligitemate was this. America's targets take canada this was not achieved and instead there own country came under attack and it only stopped with the creation of the treaty
Knightrider9091 2 weeks ago
@Knightrider9091
Fighting didnt end for 4 months after the treaty had been swayed in favor of the US.
The war on the sea ended with 4 US victories.
The demands made by the UK on the US in the initial treaty were goals the UK didnt achieve after the gamble at Baltimore. Meaning you lost at your objectives.
The war was a draw before Baltimore and the siege of Ft McHenry.
New Orleans only reaffirmed US' sway in the war.
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 british kept canada i would say that they did a better job than the americans did, also america had there capital burnt and surronding land in there country
Knightrider9091 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USMarineRifleman0311 Read the Treaty of Ghent again and tell me what the US achieved. Not one Article was written in favour of the US. You gained nothing.
You know exactly what happened in this war but your pride gets in the way. You declared war because you thought it would be a piece of piss - "a mere matter of marching." Except you bitched out when you couldn't take the heat. You signed a Treaty that admitted your failure to the world.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USMarineRifleman0311 You know why the British casualties at New Orleans were so high?
Because they kept on trying, they fought on even as their lines were decimated by artillery they couldn't even see. Every man in that army would have fought and died to achieve their objective had Lambert not called a withdrawal. And even here the British excelled themselves, withdrawing with "Parade - ground precision", according to an American witness. They didn't run, they walked.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USMarineRifleman0311 Compare this with the US performance. How many times did American troops break and scatter under lesser circumstances?
Detroit, Queenston Heights, Frenchtown, Beaver Dam's, Stoney Creek, Crysler's farm, Chateauguay, Bladensburg etc.
Cowards. That's all you were. But nevermind, keep on dreaming the American Dream USMarineRifleman! Hoorah! Semper Fi.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
LONG LIVE THE KING AND CANADA...IF THE BRITISH WANTED TO BRING IN HER 200 SHIPS....IT WOULD HAVE CRUSHED THE US NAVY IN AN HOUR...SMALL PICKINGS FOR THE BRITISH NAVAY AT THE TIME.
41STFT 3 weeks ago
@41STFT
not one on one...frigate on frigate..not even 2 on 1 did the royal navy win
certainly not on fresh water lake battles. You cant sail a ship of the line up to a lake
USMarineRifleman0311 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USMarineRifleman0311
I'll repeat, Constitution only won victories against ships half it's size. When faced with an equal, it fled. For a more evenly matched 1 on 1, check out the Shannon v Chesapeake (Chesapeake reduced to a WRECK after approx 11 minutes!)
Any excuses for Bladensburg, for your cowardly president running away, leaving his wife behind?
How about your laughable attempts at annexing Canada, even whilst GB had 99% of all forces occupied in Europe?
trouzerpants 3 weeks ago
Constitution, 44 (often 50+) guns; 30×24-pounder long guns, 20×32-pounder carronades & 2×24-pounder bow chasers guns. It was a HEAVY-frigate; 2200 tonnes; crew=450+
On 17 July, she FLED from HMS ships. If so brave, why not engage? 3 April, FLED from HMS Junon & Tenedos. Needing EXTENSIVE repairs (damaged inflicted by TINY ships), on 18 Dec she left Boston then FLED AGAIN from the 50-gun HMS Leander. Why not make a fight? Ironsides only picked fights with ships HALF HER SIZE.
trouzerpants 3 weeks ago
You're damned lucky that we were busy with Napoleon (REAL enemy) otherwise you'd have faced HMS Victory & other ships of the line. A single broadside from any of those would've blown the Constitution sky high. Of course, that's why you waited 'til 1812 (Boney's height of power) before invading, isn't it? You knew that for any chance of annexing Canada, you had to rely upon him. Laughably, you STILL lost the war, DC was turned to ash & Madison RAN AWAY LEAVING HIS WIFE BEHIND.
LOL
trouzerpants 3 weeks ago
@trouzerpants
please dont brag about "fighting" Boney. Europe fought Boney the UK simply stood by as everyone else bled until Napoleon made a mad rush for Russia and was totally ditched that you struck in his weak rear and went for Paris.
Prussia and Russia easily did more to fight Boney than the UK.
British infantry was too scared to show its face on continental Europe
USMarineRifleman0311 3 weeks ago
@USM
Too "scared" to fight Napoleon?! Why do you post such utter crap? Perhaps you've never heard of Nelson at Trafalgar or Arthur Wellesley's huge contribution during the Peninsular campaign (not to mention Waterloo.)
The British have never been intimidated by anyone, even when (often) massively outnumbered, as proven during the War of 1812, when 99% of all Brit forces were engaged in Europe.
As for your battle count, send me a link proving your claims.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Just the other day, you claimed that New Orleans was fought muzzle to muzzle with BOTH sides out in the open. Jackson (as you well know) was secured behind fortified earthwork redoubts.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
During your failed Canadian invasions, after hearing whoops and screams from natives, you were too terrified to even cross the river (even though you had HUGE numerical superiority..)
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Moreover, you recently stated that the BoB was won through SUPERIOR AMERICAN OIL, even though LL wasn't signed in 'til the year later.
Man, you've gotta stop lying.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
I reiterate (again), any excuses for Bladensburg, for your cowardly president running away, leaving his wife behind?
During the Blitz, both the Royal Family and Churchill stayed put.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
I could say that US forces were too scared to show their faces during the important periods of WWI AND WWII.
Whaddya think about that?
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
All I can assume is that you're an Anglophobe. Thankfully, you're in the minority.
Are you Caucasian? Where does your consanguinity lie?
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants
the Battle of Britain was won because an American invented the airplane and got the oil industry going in the first place. Without Americans there wouldve been no RAF, meaning Hitler couldve landed his land troops with ease in England.
US provided the w. allies with 5/6ths of their oil. Your planes ran on US oil
The Blitz didnt involve foreign land troops on English soil. Was there a need to run?
The British officials fled York before it was burned as well.
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USM
"the Battle of Britain was won because an American invented the airplane and got the oil industry going in the first place"
"Without Americans there wouldve been no RAF, meaning Hitler couldve landed his land troops with ease in England."
That's like saying without our inventing internal combustion (Sam Brown, 19th C), you'd have lost both world wars as you'd have had no piston engines to power any of your vehicles.
Your replies are becoming ever more embarrassing..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Besides, the Wright Bros were influenced by the German Lilienthal, who, in turn was influenced by Sir George Cayley. The RAF is the oldest independent air force in the world.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
You initially stated that without SUPERIOR AMERICAN OIL, the BoB could not have been won. Clearly you meant that without LL, we would have lost said battle..
(YT's screwing up)
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
..oblivious to the fact the BoB was fought in 1940 & LL wasn't signed in 'til the following year.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 Are you trying to make Americans look like complete morons? Half the 'facts' you quote about the War of 1812 are fictional, and your even worse when it comes to WW2. Your logic is painstakingly retarded. The Wright brothers weren't the only people in the world working on flight you moron. Wow, you really are a shitbrain. A complete, total, utter shitbrain. It says much about you that you have to troll youtube, instead of going on a proper history forum
sagajagan 1 week ago
@sagajagan
Yes, he's a laughing stock, nothing but a complete and total fool. Don't even know how old he is, he could be just a kid (minors don't know shit.) If he's an adult, then that makes his rubbish even less excusable! Alas, whether he realises or not, he does Americans in general a great disservice. With his omnipresent nonsense, BS, lies, bunkum and tosh, he does not present them in the best possible light, contrarily, he merely reinforces the "retarded American" stereotype..
trouzerpants 1 week ago
@trouzerpants
You talk as if it was our fault we buit line Jackson and you didnt besiege the city in return. You talk as if it was our fault we won decisively while loosing only a dozen men.
Common sense. The largest scale muzzle to muzzle battle in the open on the continent between the US and UK was Monmouth = US victory in the long term.
We also met in the open at Saratoga and Guilford courthouse...capturing one army and decimating another.
USMarineRifleman0311 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USMarineRifleman0311 What I would like to see is the Americans fight Napoleon one on one in a fair fight on the field and see how easy it was.....your army didn't have the numbers, training or guts.....The English and the other Countries who fought with England did...seriously the American Army at that time was for the most part unprofessional...towards the end they copied British tactics and became more professional but NOT nearly enough to fight a world war with super powers....
41STFT 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USMarineRifleman0311 What I would like to see is the Americans fight Napoleon one on one in a fair fight on the field and see how easy it was.....your army didn't have the numbers, training or guts.....The English and the other Countries who fought with England did...seriously the American Army at that time was for the most part unprofessional...towards the end they copied British tactics and became more professional but NOT nearly enough to fight a world war with super powers....
41STFT 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants
yet she fought in 40 other battles and had not a single enemy sailor or Marine board her. 40 battles and 0 defeats
USMarineRifleman0311 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USMarineRifleman0311 Why do you consistently throw scoreboards around as if it constitutes victory?
Vietnam suffered dreadfully yet still broke the U.S will to fight. The Allies suffered far greater casualties in both World Wars yet still won.
See where im going? You win by achieving objectives.
Ninja1275 3 weeks ago