What has Canada done for the world...?
- Thread starter Cobster
- Start date
Considering the source of this AS comment, we'll file it under 'worthless'. Even your fellow american members on here think your 'nuts' and I'm being polite.
Sure thing Archie. Next time some pissed off fanatics blow up your buildings and ravage the Pentagon...feel free to land all your planes elsewhere.
*Yawn.*
You are so cute Archie. Feel free to sign up and serve. Show us your patriotism. Prove your manliness. Or better yet come to Canada, and sign up and fix our military.
If I remember correctly, the last country who tried to invade us, landing troop on our shore, got sent back home with out help from the US. Oh wait, it was the US.
We don't seem to have any problem protecting our border from Mexican or Guatmaleans Archie. So how is that working for your country?
And we don't need an army, we have your country by the balls with its addiction to oil.
Call your congressman, or Obama perhaps and suggest the rematch. They may make it part of their re-election platform.
It has been shown many time that history isn't one of your strong suits.
Just like we scorched Washington. It was called Upper and Lower Canada and most of the combatants who turned back the US Army were not regular front line troops, but were militia and depot battalions. Most of regular soldiers were in Europe fighting Napoleon.
Here you go, a simple description of the "side show" if you are to believe the Brits....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
OTB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
OTB
An excellent summary.
It was quite obvious a side show, no argument, but many US army groups were turned a way on three fronts, and the boundaries remained the same. It sounds like a repulse to me. About the only place the US had any success was on the water, especially Lake Champlain and then New Orleans.
You can can hint all you want at your knowledge of history, but your posting history already speaks to it. You will be hard press to find anyone here who think you know what you're talking about when it comes to historical events.
No need to try and change the subject by bringing in 1867 or 1776. You screwed up on your take on 1812 and that's that. I'm no genius by any stretch, but next to you, many would look like Mensa candidates.
*Yawn*, now you sound more like Mr. T. Why don't you go pester your congressman to invade us or something productive, other than just making an ass of yourself here.
Actually until Japan attacked a large number of Americans where pro-Hilter. There was a faction that was pro-helping demcoracy but Hilter was the party of pro bussinness and capalism (like China today, a mix of dictatorship and capalism) - the same Americans who supported his econmic policies ignored his human righths records, as we do currently with China.
In fact one conspiracy theory about Pearl Harbor is that FDR engineered it to drag the US into the war on the side of his buddy Churchill, whom he'd already been helping out more than a little.
Conrad Black is quite interesting on the delicate dance (unintended irony regretted) he did to keep the appeasers and isolationists from even more extreme stances while waiting for a casus belli even they could support. We're all doing the same sort of dance with Syria, having learned little and having just as many 'money has no smell' profiteers propping up tame politicians as ever.
Take a peek at the travesty forcing the budget Bill through in Ottawa as we speak. But we just ignore what's going on, having learned little or nothing from the thirties. At least, now they don't wear uniforms in parliament; we pretend they think and vote individually.
Which is an utterly ridiculous theory.
If Kimmel had left the aircraft carriers in harbor on that day, then the US would have been totally screwed. Kimmel was obviously not part of any theoretical conspiracy: the man was destroyed by Pearl Harbor. Even if he were in on it, the conspiracy would also assume that the US somehow knew that aircraft carriers were ready to take over from battleships as the primary weapon of the Navy, which was anything but the case. For the FDR/Pearl Harbor conspiracy to work, it would have to believe that FDR was willing to give up a large chunk of the US west coast to the Japanese in order to defeat the Germans in Europe.
