Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#24 - imonaboatman
Reply +191 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
MFW the top panel is exactly like they taught us when I was in school.
User avatar #190 to #24 - nitsuan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
What school did you go to? I am in one of the worst states for education and we are taught we lost. They say it was more of a tie, but considering the repercussions it was pretty much a loss.
User avatar #278 to #190 - imonaboatman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/04/2013) [-]
I went to a pretty good high school, actually. What my teacher said was something along the lines of 'The British kept ******* with America but America was like no **** you Britain and then they started fighting and **** and the British went to the white house and then we beat the living **** out of them in New Orleans after the treaty was signed." But in school-appropriate terms, of course.
User avatar #284 to #278 - nitsuan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/04/2013) [-]
So basically they only mentioned good stuff? lol (minus the White House being burnt down by the British)
User avatar #287 to #284 - imonaboatman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/04/2013) [-]
Pretty much. My teacher spent days going on about how Britain got beat in the Battle of New Orleans (after the war was over).
User avatar #195 to #190 - yologdog
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
We never lost. We just made us more trouble then we were worth and they left.
#286 to #195 - anon id: 8e0ce7eb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/04/2013) [-]
Wrong war, you dumb beaver.
#136 to #24 - bann
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
I was taught it was when the British sacked the white house and some crazy bitch ran inside to save a painting of OG Wash
User avatar #2 - dxninjaxo
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
ive learned that canada won, is that not what other people learned?
User avatar #56 to #2 - guywithafork
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
America also thinks they won the Vietnam war.
#3 to #2 - itsmedumbass
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Canadian here, and I have no idea why the history is changed south of the border.
Canadian here, and I have no idea why the history is changed south of the border.
User avatar #5 to #3 - emrakul
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
You see, I was taught that we won (side effect of living near New Orleans) and then, in higher grades, that the war was basically inconclusive.
User avatar #4 to #2 - sequel [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I think people are still debating on who benefited more from the war, but we know for certain the US didn't win.

The main thing the internet is debating on is..
Who fought the US? Canada or the British Empire?
User avatar #17 to #4 - DmOnZ
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I believe that if you Moved to Canada, regardless of whether it was a British colony, you were Canadian (unless you were a part of the British army). While the british did fight, most of those engaging the US forces were Canadian militia. While Canada wasn't an established independent country until 1867, it was still identified as Upper and Lower Canada, and those who moved there or were born there were identified by the British empire as Canadian Citizens living under British Rule. Think of it as any other British Colony. Those who were moved to or lived in Australia were Australians recognized as British Citizens.
User avatar #11 to #2 - DmOnZ
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
User avatar #21 to #2 - nervaaurelius
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Doesn't count. You guys were still apart of the British Empire.
#6 to #2 - dodosareextinct
Reply +35 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
I learned that no one won, is that not what other people learned?
User avatar #7 to #6 - ishallsmiteyou
Reply +39 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
Technically speaking, Canada won. The primary US objective was to capture the Canadas (Canada, in 1812, was divided into East and West Canada) and the americans failed to complete said objective. The Canadian's objective was to stand our ground, and they did.
User avatar #279 to #7 - damping
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/04/2013) [-]
No, the US's primary objective was to stop England from harassing our trade routes with France and to stop them limiting our expansion west. The main reason we attacked Canada was so we had some negotiating power. Plus Canada didn't win, they were not a country. Either the US won or England won.
User avatar #78 to #7 - srskate
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
I was pretty sure the war of 1812 arose because the brtis were being douchebags by sinking our ships and impressing our soldiers.
User avatar #353 to #7 - InflictorOfPain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2013) [-]
How can canada win if it didn't exist as an independent country? That's BS, since you were part of the British empire. And the Brits invaded the US and they also failed. The whole war started because the Brits kept supplying native insurgents with weapons and they attacked US citizens.
#215 to #7 - anon id: 8583f618
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
How could a nation with a birthdate of 1867 win a war in 1812?


Didn't Canada try to take New Orleans during the war and failed?
User avatar #252 to #215 - ishallsmiteyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
it was a colony, smartass. Just like America or the Falkland Islands.
User avatar #132 to #7 - ugottanked
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
didnt the canadians burn down the white house? i have forgotten that one fact if they did or not
User avatar #354 to #132 - InflictorOfPain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/01/2013) [-]
Burning down one building is still kind of irrelevant. The whole canadian city of toronto was torched by the US.
User avatar #182 to #132 - ishallsmiteyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
the whitehouse was torched by actual british soldiers during the counter invasion.
User avatar #276 to #182 - ugottanked
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
ah, my mistake. now i feel like a dumbass
#64 to #7 - anon id: 950459de
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
upper and lower canada
#27 to #7 - anon id: 5ab2f008
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
If that's the case, than Poland attacked Russia, and not Germany.
User avatar #23 to #7 - dxninjaxo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
yeah i guess. if i think of it like in risk where if you get attacked and u survive, you've won the fight. Also from the comments i've sorta learned that by "inconclusive" it just means America doesn't want to admit they lost lol.
#20 to #7 - anon id: dabebec9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
>make objective - to lose
>lose
>win
>always win
>instant war victor
User avatar #60 to #20 - zonryu
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
but thats a paradox

>lose
>become winner my your lose
>fail objective by completing objective that made you win
>failing the objective makes you lose
>comleted objective again and wins
>fail again for same reason
User avatar #19 to #7 - gilliam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
The invader is losing as long as the war is not won, the defender is winning as long as it is not lost.
User avatar #8 to #7 - datbear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
well the british had a war goal to take the Michigan area and make it a huge reserve for native americans
User avatar #9 to #8 - ishallsmiteyou
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
That was just one objective of many. Technically Canada still one, although the British counter invasion failed.
User avatar #16 to #9 - datbear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
well, I guess america with its 12000 army and its 17 ships were kinda destine to fail.
#82 - anon id: 1f716fea
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
The problem I have with Americans is that I live next to them. If they decides to start a new world order then we will be the first to be invaded. It's like living right next to a psychopath and you don't know when he's going to try and kill everyone.
1. Average Canadian is richer than Americans.
2. Canadians pay less tax per person than Americans.
3. U.S. students flocking to study in Canada for cheaper fees.
4. Americans are the latest economic refugees, and they’re heading to Canada.
5. Canada: Richer than America and more economically powerful than Europe.
6. Canada Best Place In The World To Raise Children.
7. Canada can fairly claim to be the best-governed country in the world.
8. The most prosperous nation in the Americas, Canada ranks first in personal freedom.
9. Called itself the land of freedom...has Patriot Act, NDAA, gun control, soda size limits, trans fat bans, eminent domain, gay marriage bans, the drug war, highest incarceration rate.
User avatar #240 to #82 - Mudicon
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
yeah but you're still canada
#83 to #82 - sequel [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Thanks for making this picture I saved relevant.
User avatar #86 to #82 - datbear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
yeah well its pretty easy to be a cool country when you government is not ****
#153 to #82 - anon id: 07456104
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
and in Canada, we all have our own personal Box of Faith.
#209 to #82 - anon id: 8583f618
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Canada is ranking no. 11 on the UN's HDI scale.

USA ranks no. 3......

User avatar #106 to #82 - OsamaBinLadenz
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Put in this perspective, I sort of don't care to live in America anymore.
User avatar #133 to #82 - imashitbricks
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
The soda size thing happened in one state and is not in effect anymore.
User avatar #165 to #82 - HonkIfIDriveWell
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
More economically powerful than Europe? The entirety of Europe? Canada? You're having a laugh.
User avatar #99 to #82 - mrawesomepotato
Reply +29 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Plus every Canadian was born with the secret of why kids love the taste of cinnamon toast crunch. Americans will never know that.
#160 - dtox
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
so sick of all of these people having **** fits and waving their patriotic dicks around.

The war of 1812 shouldn't have even happened, it was a textbook example of how NOT to fight a war.

The US got ****** up, the british got ****** up, canada was still british, EVERYONE blundered around at almost every major point of the conflict.

There is NOTHING to be proud of from this fight.
User avatar #221 to #160 - theshadowed
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Its not like Britain could do much, or Canada for that reason. We were bogged down in Europe.
User avatar #18 - killingsin
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
In this post and comment section we have an exceptional example of one of the more unfortunate side effects of nationalism.(the original concept not any modern political view)

History is written by the survivors.
#31 - anon id: e8f2e1ef
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
We burned down your White House...and this time...we weren't sorry.
#103 to #31 - anon id: 5d33fd83
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Sorry you still were French and British controlled you have no glory Canada
#244 to #31 - anon id: fd152caf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
¨We burned down your White House¨. No, ¨they¨did it, neither you or anyone in Canada today was a part of it.
I get being proud of you nationality, but don´t try and pretend that you had anything to do with your country's history. The accomplishments done throughout a country's history belong to those whose actions helped atchieve it, and in this case those people came and went before you were born.
User avatar #75 to #31 - swagloon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
The British Navy burn down the white house; and no it's not the "Canadian" either, they were soldiers coming from Europe after beating the France in a big battle.
User avatar #76 to #31 - achimp
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Canadians didn't. The British did. BIg difference.
User avatar #123 to #76 - pseudobob **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
approximately 44 years of difference if math serves me right. and not much other than that.
#88 to #76 - Crusader
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #114 to #31 - xdeathspawnx
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
actually you didn't. Brittish troops are responsible for the Burning of Washington, not Canadian ones. And even if it had been canadian troops you can't really say that Canada burned down the whitehouse because it wasn't even a country yet, it was still a Brittish colony.
#41 to #31 - bogdaneight
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Great, and we kicked your ass at the Battle of the Thames, Fort McHenry and New Orleans. Besides D.C wasn't really settled yet anyway.
Great, and we kicked your ass at the Battle of the Thames, Fort McHenry and New Orleans. Besides D.C wasn't really settled yet anyway.
User avatar #69 to #41 - apatheticalcare **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
I was under the impression that those were British forces.
User avatar #71 to #69 - bogdaneight
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
It was a combination of the two at the Thames, but yeah it was bassiclly all Brits at New Orleans and Fort McHenry. I was just trying to make a point.
User avatar #73 to #71 - apatheticalcare **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
I guess should've just said Battle of Thames and not include those two to avoid confusion. Sorry, I'm easily confused. I'm just a hoser.
#184 - EdwardNigma
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Everyone else is talking about America and Canada and ****.

And I'm sitting here thinking "Yeah the Napoleon thing was pretty cool."
User avatar #220 to #184 - theshadowed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
******* intense war. Nelson and Wellington best British leaders
User avatar #109 - slenderguy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
we also burnt down detroit, it was **** before, don't blame us.
User avatar #149 to #109 - playerdous
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Can you burn it down again, please.
#65 - ronrod
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Alright I see this so many times; and let me see if I have this right. Canadians (some) are bragging about burning a building of country that wasn't even half of what it is today, In a war that was between the U.S. and GB. Two things here:

1. If GB (or Canada since they want to take "glory') won then why did they take the U.S. back under their control? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding something)
2. Do any of you Canadians or Brits honestly think you could stand a chance against the full might of the U.S. Military today?

Burning a building doesn't destroy a country. So stop pretending to be so hardcore for fighting (and still losing to in the end) what was essentially the east coast of a developing country just because you set a some things on fire..but hey if that's all you have to hang your hats on...then maybe we as Americans should let you guys brag about it...

This whole thing kind of reminds me of the Cubs (MLB team for those who may not be familiar)...their fans always brag about how great a team they are, but they haven't won a championship since 1908. Not saying Brititan hasn't won a war since, but we all know when it comes to America you can't win if you could there wouldn't be an America to begin with (see Revolutionary War). I don't care about specifics at this point, I'm sure I'm missing spots here and there, but we all know the U.S. has the best military around. Sorry if you can't deal with that.

Red thumb me all you want if it makes you feel better
User avatar #85 to #65 - Crusader
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
We don't have to withstand the full might of the USA
1 - The USA can't use chemicals weapons or nukes on any major population centers, considering 90% of our population is within 100 miles of the border, making it so the USA would be shooting themselves in the foot
2 - It would quickly go from USA vs Canada/Britain to USA vs The World
3 - A large portion of the US military is Canadian
User avatar #101 to #85 - callmenotime
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
The topic is sort of dumb.

The US and Canada would never every consider fighting each other. Our relations are fantastic.

Assuming there was a war SOLELY between the US and Canada, it's honestly pretty clear that the US Military has a massive advantage.

Though, in a real world situation, this would never happen.
User avatar #141 to #85 - reginleif
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
The British wouldn't toss their lives away for Canada. C'mon be realistic.

Inb4 treaties, treaties are only as good as the nations signing them, and let's face it, Britain really is the ********* ally to ever ally in the history of alliances.

It isn't a day in the UN if the English isn't trying to backstab you for personal gain.

You really want to trust the safety of your country on ENGLAND? And no, it wouldn't become a US vs the world scenario because the US runs the Seas with it's glorious Navy made of freedom and ****. There is no plausible way for the English (or anybody excepting the Russians to land near the Americas. Also the close proximity of Canada in concentrations would just make it easier for us to keep you guys in check, given that it means there's less ground to cover.
User avatar #191 to #141 - destructodan **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
why is Britain a **** ally?
User avatar #163 to #65 - hudis
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Jesus, are you listening to yourself? "The full might of the U.S. military"? Stop pretending military might is anything even remotely worth merit, admiration or even respect anymore. It's ******* primitive.
#177 to #163 - ronrod
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
SO you're saying that militaries don't mean anything?
User avatar #183 to #177 - hudis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
I'm saying that it's a backward thing to be proud of or to speak of in such a context, i.e. "Do any of you Canadians or Brits honestly think you could stand a chance against the full might of the U.S. military today?"

Military power means something in that it gives control over one's population, weaker allies and enemy nations. Thing is, that may have been considered prestigious in the 16th century, but these days it's more a frustrating factor that many feel is in the way of the world actually getting anywhere that isn't clogged up with rivalry, power-play and ego-tripping. Consider that some countries haven't been at war for about 200 years. That's pretty much the longest stretch of peace for any people in human history; war and military might is something that should be of the past, or at least the value some people put in it.
#189 to #183 - ronrod
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
I posed it in such away given the topic at hand. As long as people have different oppinions wether it be religious, political, etc...there will always be conflict. I agree that we should all find a way to be at peace, but I don't believe that it can be done.
#72 to #65 - goldsignet
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
why bring modern day warfare into the equation? i like how old wars could be won through grit and determination, whereas nowadays its whoever spent the most trillions of taxpayer money that wins. if war was then what it is now, this wouldnt even be a conversation, considering that at that time britain was even more powerful in comparison to to other countries than the states is now, meaning the revolution would have just been another quelled rebellion. just be glad that at some point down the line, it was the americans who scoffed at how fat, greedy, and corrupt other countries were instead of vice versa.
User avatar #77 to #72 - satrenkotheone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
We should revert back to trench warfare.
#79 to #77 - goldsignet
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
nah, im just saying leave the past past and the present present. the states could probably defeat any one (possibly two) army in symmetrical warfare, but for the difficulty of fighting a transcontinental war in the 1800s? give people their props.
User avatar #74 to #65 - apatheticalcare **User deleted account**
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
I guess burning down a relatively significant government building isn't pretending to be hardcore but more of a huge middle finger or mooning somebody.
User avatar #271 to #65 - ponchosdm
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
I think GB has not won a war since WWII(with everyone else(even if US takes the credit)), because, they are peacefull, they defend do not attack, US only makes war with undeveloped countries, it is almoust like a bully, and today I am pretty sure, nobody could win against US army, too many forces and money on it.
User avatar #272 to #271 - destructodan **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
we won the Falklands war
User avatar #273 to #272 - ponchosdm
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
haha sorry forgot about the argenti(ns/nians?)
User avatar #275 to #273 - destructodan **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Argentinians. I think
#290 to #271 - ronrod
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/04/2013) [-]
I'm sure GB has won more often than it's lost in a majority of it conflicts even the ones with out the US. Also, it's not like we start things with these "undeveloped countries" there's always someone doing something that causes the U.N. to call on the U.N. leaders. Besides there aren't to many things we get into that some part of, if not all of, the EU is involved in.
#87 to #65 - anon id: a1a39884
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
" I don't care about specifics at this point, I'm sure I'm missing spots here and there, but we all know the U.S. has the best military around. Sorry if you can't deal with that.

Red thumb me all you want if it makes you feel better"

I agree with some of your points but I hate arrogant doucebags like yourself who think everyone who thumbs you down "can't deal with it" or some ******** like that. Does it make you feel better to pretend everyone who disagrees with you is just butthurt and wrong?
#179 to #87 - ronrod
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Not being an arrogant douchebag. I was simply reffering to the people who just want to look at that certain aspect (buring the capital building) and nothing else. I don't care if people disagree with me or even debate me. As long as they can do so intellegently. If someone does then I'll gladly jump into specifics and what not.
User avatar #107 to #65 - OsamaBinLadenz
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Okay, as an American I have to say to your "full might of the American military" ********:
The UN.
That is all. The UN
**** your dreams.
******.
User avatar #281 to #107 - damping
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/04/2013) [-]
Our spending is more than all other countries combined on the Military, plus England, Canada, France, Japan, and South Korea would probably all ally with us since they are our bitches.
#178 to #107 - ronrod
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Not sure where you're going with that the U.S. was the driving force behind the U.N.
Elaborate?
User avatar #253 to #178 - OsamaBinLadenz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Not like a pretty big part of the world make up the U.N. or anything.
I'll let you in on a secret: even if we were able to use nukes, which I hope we would never resort to, it's been proven that we couldn't even wipe all of China off the map.

With miitary forces combined such as China, Britain, France, Russia, Mexico, Germany, and... you know... a **** ton of other military forces out there, not only are we outnumbered, their combined wealth would **** us over as well.
#146 to #107 - stigman **User deleted account**
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Finally someone who makes sense.
#154 - finblob
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
>mfw I didn't even know America and Canada had a war.
>mfw I didn't even know America and Canada had a war.
User avatar #159 to #154 - themurp
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
They didn't. Canada didn't exist as a country.
User avatar #296 to #159 - finblob
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/05/2013) [-]
That explains why I didn't know about it.
#135 - mkchillin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
The Brits burned down the white house and Andrew Jackson humiliated them and killed their Napoleonic war hero in New Orleans after the peace treaty was signed.We'll call it a draw__
The Brits burned down the white house and Andrew Jackson humiliated them and killed their Napoleonic war hero in New Orleans after the peace treaty was signed.We'll call it a draw__
User avatar #138 to #135 - achillesengland
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
That isn't humiliating, it just makes Andrew Jackson a coward for killing when a man believed they were at peace
#357 to #138 - anon id: 287b9516
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/27/2014) [-]
Not really: by that logic, the British were cowards for invading a country they had just made peace with.

But it's inconsequential: nobody really knew about it at the time, anyway.
User avatar #226 to #138 - Logicaltightrope
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Neither side knew they were at peace. Word had not reached America from Europe, so both sides fought it out in New Orleans without knowing.
User avatar #225 to #138 - killergoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
ARE YOU A ******* IDIOT. The peace treaty was signed before the battle, but news of the treaty had yet to cross the Atlantic to America. Andrew Jackson killed a man who he was fighting against not a man wanting peace.
User avatar #258 to #225 - achillesengland
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Not really, read the comment I was replying to and you will see how it is understandable that I was not aware of this fact. From the point of view I was seeing it from that is how it looked.
User avatar #266 to #258 - killergoo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
I now see how the comment looked and how it was written made America look worse. But I believe that you should read into a topic before arguing about it. I had the luxury of watching a whole movie about it just on Thursday in history class. So this whole post kind of rustled my jimmies by how inaccurate it is.
User avatar #223 to #138 - theshadowed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
If you're referring to Packenham, Wellingtons brother-in-law, then he was killed leading an attack.
User avatar #139 to #138 - mkchillin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Well, I included that part for dramatic effect; it took a long time for info to be relayed across the Atlantic so as far as the brits and americans back on US shores went, the war continued to rage on so technically we we were not at peace
User avatar #140 to #139 - achillesengland
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Practically we were not at peace, but technically we were. But it's cool as long as Horatio Nelson and the Duke of Wellington survived we were still able to show the French who's boss
User avatar #142 to #140 - mkchillin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Eh I'm not a huge fan of the french but I liked that they had their 15 minutes under Napoleon. Definitely badass how you guys halted their domination and put them back in their place though
User avatar #143 to #142 - achillesengland
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
They're a very badass country actually, they're just kind of stereotyped as not. When we had our great empire they also had one that rivaled it and they of course invaded and took England in 1066 AD
User avatar #155 to #143 - USSRviper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Actually the french never,Normans were vikings who were given parts of northern France as a reward for beating off invading tribes. So we were invaded and conquered by the vikings in 1066
User avatar #193 to #155 - achillesengland
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
True, but they were very influenced by French culture by the time they invaded England, as seen by their use of knights and other French tactics and customs. So they had basically left behind many of their viking/pagan roots.
User avatar #62 - brobafett
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
America:
>The first white house is burnt down.
Canada:
Has Quebec.

Whose the real inner here?
#63 to #62 - Greevon
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Yes... which one is Quebec?
#96 to #63 - chuckbillrow
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
i want you to understand that what you did to Canada is basically the same as what i just did to America
User avatar #128 to #96 - brobafett
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
But that's correct. Texas America is best America.
User avatar #105 to #96 - vatra
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Well yes. That was essentially the point, it has been a long standing joke that most of the world sees the US as Texas, California, and the south (not even named, just the south)
#67 - superwheels
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
I'm from Canada, and I can tell you that we didn't gain our independence until 1867. That means that in 1812, Canada and England were essentially the same thing. The British army was the one occupying and defending the Canadas at that point so Canada can't take a lot of credit for it.
I'm from Canada, and I can tell you that we didn't gain our independence until 1867. That means that in 1812, Canada and England were essentially the same thing. The British army was the one occupying and defending the Canadas at that point so Canada can't take a lot of credit for it.
User avatar #282 to #67 - damping
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/04/2013) [-]
Thank you, we got Canadian patriots here touting that they beat the US.
#349 to #67 - adanac
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/17/2013) [-]
actually there had already been a large "Canadien" national movement in Quebec and later the rest of Canada. Most of Canada identified itself separate from Britain but unlike america didnt really care of gaining independence due to the fact of economic trade, defenses etc... Due to Britain's other conflicts they couldn't afford to fully supply enough troops to defend all of Canada, that is why most of Canada's defenses were made up of militia forces with a with a mixture of British, French and Canadian leaders.
User avatar #25 - mylazy
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
The way I see it is that there were 2 winners, one relatively unaffected party, and one loser in that war. The US won in the sense that the things that the war was started over ended. Canada won the war by preventing the US from invading. GB was relatively unaffected because that war meant virtually nothing to them. Finally, we have the Native Americans or Indians (whichever your prefer). They lost that war. In that war they lost much of the land that they had held onto in the area between the US and Canada as well as one of their greatest leaders. Just my views.
#28 to #25 - anon id: 76b9e4f0
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
So, to summarize your comment, all the white people either won in some aspect or just didn't care enough, and the only losers were the non-whites caught up in a white conflict. Sounds about right
User avatar #10 - damnusername
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(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.
#254 - helenwheels
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
The winner of the war writes the histrory.
The winner of the war writes the histrory.
User avatar #350 to #254 - jackirl
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/24/2013) [-]
That's one of the central problems with history. The issue with subjective vs objective interpretation, the fact you need to know the history of the historian to understand what's put in front of you is pretty ******* stupid.
#164 - anon id: 165c9503
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
**** those wars, what about WW1 and WW2 (the biggest wars ever) didn't Britain win them?
User avatar #171 to #164 - synchron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
It wasn't just Britain. France, sort of, helped in the Allied cause, and you can't ever forget America.
User avatar #175 to #171 - disturbeddude
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Because america doesn't let you forget
User avatar #230 to #171 - goblingang
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
WW1: USA didn't have a huge role, the canadian and australian regiments are what really helped us out on the british front. But they were still necessary for our victory.

WW2: USSR had the largest role in the defeat of nazi germany. Most german forces were diverted east and yet the red arny still advanced the furthest and the fastest. However americans were pivotal on the western front.
#206 to #164 - anon id: 8583f618
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Allied won. So every member of the Allied Force won.
User avatar #30 - mrtowelman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Canada wouldn't be that assertive with their explanation.
#40 to #30 - turbanmasher
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Canadians love bragging about burning down the white house. I do at least.
User avatar #42 to #40 - mrtowelman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
My entire view on Canada is different now.
User avatar #58 to #42 - guywithafork
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Sorry about him, he had a few too many moose. Beers.
#43 to #42 - turbanmasher
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Only country to successfully invade the usa
User avatar #26 - newdevyx
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
Could someone enlighten me about this war in the USA? i might have missed it in the history class or we may have not been taught about it. i remember being taught about the war where Americans fought for their independence in the 1770's and the civil war in the 1880's if i remember correctly. in exchange i can share some information on Finland's history if you're interested. I like history and i like sharing history with some people who are interested in it.
#39 to #26 - solarisofcelestia
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
The war of 1812 was an armed conflict between the United States and Canada, who at the time were still considered British colonies loyal to the empire. At the time the United States maintained a philosophy of "manifest destiny" a belief that all of the land in the North and South American continents (the "new world" as it was considered) was the soul property of their newly formed nation. Thus as pioneers expanded westward they sought to take the land from any who weren't recognized as citizen of the United States. This meant fighting and displacing aboriginal tribes to the west, Spanish Mexicans to the south, and Canadians in the north.
It is possible that from the perspective of the Americans, they considered this better for those they invaded. The aboriginals were considered uncivilized and destroying their culture was for their benefit. For the Canadians, the United States were previously English colonies and Canada was currently considered a union of English colonies. So invading them was thought to be removing the final remains of Imperial influence in North America, and showing the colonists their new non-imperial way of life. This invasion didn't sit well with the Canadians and they defended Canada along the boarder to the United States. During the war the American capital was attacked and burnt by Canadian forces. The war was bloody, as all are, but eventually peace was found.
The British Empire on the other hand had its own problems with Napoleon leading France. But that conflict was on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, so most Canadian settlements didn't even know they were at war with the French. This lack of knowledge boosted tolerance between English and French Canadians.
User avatar #283 to #39 - damping
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/04/2013) [-]
Wow Canadian Educations must be awful.
User avatar #29 to #26 - nyuORlucy
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
america literally wanted territory from canada. it was still until british control at that time so it was again brits vs patriots. it lasted i think 2 years and nothing happened
#37 to #29 - turbanmasher
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
"The most famous episode was a series of British raids on the shores of Chesapeake Bay, including an attack on Washington that resulted in the British burning of the White House, the Capitol, the Navy Yard, and other public buildings, in the "Burning of Washington"."
#32 to #26 - anon id: 5ad8113d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
American war was 1860's, not 80's
just a heads up
User avatar #181 to #32 - newdevyx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/03/2013) [-]
you're right. checked it. i remembered it was in the 1880's
User avatar #1 - thatguyontheright
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/02/2013) [-]
The war of 1812 Song (Original)