Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Buy your amazon goods through FJ's link.
Just click this link and search for any product you want. FJ gets a commission on everything you buy.

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #10 - damnusername (11/02/2013) [-]
Yea, I dont remember what I was taught about that, but I think it was that that war was a total ****** for all involved and that the only reason canada might have won was that the american president said he'd take over canada in a week or something like that.
User avatar #12 to #10 - DmOnZ ONLINE (11/02/2013) [-]
Uhhhh, no... Canada (or the British I guess) actually took land from the United States after a failed pre-emptive strike from them. It was given back in the treaty signed at the end that pretty much said, if you don't **** with us again, we won't burn your big house down and give you back what we are currently occupying.
User avatar #13 to #12 - damnusername (11/02/2013) [-]
oh. well I haven't read about it in a while and my memory is pretty ****** so.

I guess I learn new stuff every day.
User avatar #14 to #13 - DmOnZ ONLINE (11/02/2013) [-]
It's a total cock up of egos mostly. Some Canadians believe that we had our foot on the president's throat, when in reality we just retaliated in a way that showed we could handle ourselves and we weren't going to be a pushover nation. Some Americans believe that the Canada burnt down the white house, and that the war of 1812 was in retaliation to it and the treaty was Canada pleading for forgiveness. In reality the US attacked because they were afraid the British occupying Canada were mounting up for an assault. Citizens got pissed off because those who died in the first assault were civilians in the militia (who the british used as canon fodder) and retaliated with what can be defined as guerrilla tactics and gained a minuscule amount of land to show that we meant business.
User avatar #227 - amsel (11/03/2013) [-]
Canada wasn't even Canada during the War of 1812. And the primary objective of the United States was never to take over Canada (while it was a possibility). It was mostly about America's pent up rage against the British, and the Native Americans' pent up range against the colonists. The British were more interested in the Napoleonic wars, and Canada only had the troops that Britain sent. The outcome was really that the Native Americans lost, the new Americans turned their anger into patriotism, the Canadians decided to work on their own independence to avoid getting caught up in other wars for Britain, and Britain got slightly distracted from their Napoleonic wars for a couple of seconds.
User avatar #233 to #227 - ZeDoodler (11/03/2013) [-]
When we went to make a grab for Canada, it was more of a " **** it, why not. Let's try and take more British land. That'll really piss 'em off."

And it did.
#356 - anonymous (06/22/2014) [-]
Boring. Too much profanity.
#355 - anonymous (01/25/2014) [-]
I think this is funny, because us here in Europe only hear about the Napoleonic wars. I myself did not hear about the North American war of 1812 until I stumbled upon it as a teenager.
#237 - dbjorgo (11/03/2013) [-]
The war of 1812 ranks right up there with World War 1 on the list of wars that were ******* pointless. I don't mean that by end results, but rather what they were fighting over
User avatar #224 - theshadowed (11/03/2013) [-]
Napoleonic Wars are really ******* interesting.

I think they're made out to be less important than they were. You don't get taught about in until A-level in Britain, and even then its only the Congress of Viena
#217 - anonymous (11/03/2013) [-]
all these comments are pointless, the US and Britain had a little skrimish, no harm no foul, no real victors and at the end was the start of an alliance between US and Britain, and canada remained cold and useless.
#173 - tinypoodle (11/03/2013) [-]
So many conflicting opinions that all think they are facts.. How can any of you say most of this with complete certancy when all you really are is a person on the internet, like everyone else.. You werent there. Ive read tons of opinions on the matter and i honestly have no idea what to believe so im going to just research it for myself and assume everything here is ******** until proven otherwise..
#161 - revengeforfreeze (11/03/2013) [-]
MFW commentsection
#129 - anonymous (11/03/2013) [-]
Contrary to popular belief, Canadian militia were not present at the burning of Washington; General Ross and over 4,000 British regulars landed on the eastern coast of Maryland and march inland. They were met by 6,000 American militia near Bladensburg. Although the Americans had more men, they weren't a match for the British regulars, and neither was their commander. The American army fled, and the redcoats marched into Washington.
User avatar #124 - ihatem (11/03/2013) [-]
Man if we got that Andy Jackson victory that occurred after the war was over before we decided so, who knows how long we would have fought with the changed morale. Andy was a badass though.
User avatar #116 - dongers (11/03/2013) [-]
yea the top panel is exactly how i was taught in school, i brought up the question of the british having you send their military all the way across the pacific ocean and the teach pretty much said that didnt matter
0
#80 - anonymous Comment deleted by sequel [-]
#81 to #80 - sequel (11/03/2013) [-]
lol sry wat did u say?
lol sry wat did u say?
#15 - SILENCEnight (11/02/2013) [-]
**SILENCEnight rolled a random image posted in comment #6246014 at Safe For Work Random Board ** as a history student, i approve.
 Friends (0)