Did any amerikunts victory ever happen when its

1 won by amerikunts alone
2 amerikunts were outnumbered, outgunned, outmaneuvered and amerikunts won by bravery, strategy and resourcefulness

EVER?

are they beings too fatso obesity drunkards incestuous retarded mongrels to not doings these or always hidings behind (is it actually, under?) their mommys skirts?



===========================================
I am old Christiankiller
Sorry for offensive to our good religion christian brothers
I am not hating christians

Nope, never. Well, unless you count the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Mexican War, no never.

We'll not even talk about the Civil War.




Provost

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929

The Battle of the bulge

To CO German forces form CO US forces

" NUTS "

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr You did not win the war of 1812

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge

Battle of the Bulge:

US forces had a strengh of 840.000, attacking Germans had ~ 500.000 Men. US was not outnumbered there and had Air-superiority.

Strength: US

840,000+ men [1],
424 medium tanks and tank destroyers,
394 artillery guns

German:
500,000 men,
500 medium tanks,
1,900 artillery guns and Nebelwerfers


Casualties and losses

American: 89,500
(19,000 died,
47,500 wounded,
23,000 captured or missing)[2][3]

British: 1,408
(~200 killed,
~1,200[1] wounded or missing)[4]

German:
91,132 killed, wounded, captured or missing[5]

---------------------------------------------
A German Soldier doesnt die, he goes to hell and regroups !

"Nope, never. Well, unless you count the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Mexican War, no never."

Erm... I hate to sound picky but...

a) The French and the Spanish fought in the American Revolution.

b) The UK was fighting them again in 1812.

c) The US didn't win the War Of 1812.

You took the words right out of my mouth brianm.

The Revolutionary war and the War of 1812 are definate non starters, however the Mexican war is a definate yes.

The Spanish-US war as well. How do you suppose the Philippines became a US protectorate? And Cuba gain its independence?

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."


"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

You're right.

So that's Mexican-American war and Spanish-American war.

Looks like Anglo got owned.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."


"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

With respect, Gentleman, while Britain was fighting the French and Spanish during the war of 1812, I hardly remember the US receiving any support from Napoleon aiding it in its war with Britain. Frankly, it's hardly the US's fault that Britain had so many enemies at the time that it found itself fighting multiple foes.

The US did win the War of 1812. In the treaty the British agreed to all US demands that started the war, including impressment of US citizens and the claimed right to stop on the high seas US flagged vessels. I understand why you might not like to recognize the US victory, but tell me, if Britain did, in fact, win the war, exactly what it it win? What did the US concede in order to convince Britain to cease hostilities?

There were many in Whitehall who wanted to re-exert British sovereignty over what were still largely viewed as wayward colonies, but that simply didn't happen.




Provost

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929

"You're right.

So that's Mexican-American war and Spanish-American war."

i thinkeds in both cases amerikunts sides having more troops? maybe not in mexican versus amerikunts war, but certainly spaniards bullfighters match with obesity amerikunts, too many amerikunts incestuous are fighting?


"Looks like Anglo got owned."

neither mexican nor spaniards are beings anglo
what are you polack dildo dancings gayiety makings rubbish talk?

===========================================
I am old Christiankiller
Sorry for offensive to our good religion christian brothers
I am not hating christians

mr fatso obesity incestuous drunkard cowboy
http://www.arthistoryclub.com/art_history/Treaty_of_Ghent
"In signing the treaty, the Americans ended up abandoning both of their primary goals in starting the war: to expand their territory by seizing control of the British colonies to the north in what would later become Canada, and to stop the forcible boarding of sovereign U.S. ships on the high seas by the warships of the British Royal Navy searching for deserters and enforcing the British blockade against Napoléon. However, as the Napoleonic Wars ended, the second issue began to fade on its own.
See also "

personally dont care about either amerikunts or britsh1t goods things both killed each other, i hope they both end each others existence

world will be relieveds


===========================================
I am old Christiankiller
Sorry for offensive to our good religion christian brothers
I am not hating christians

Here we go...

Any fatsos obesity Amerikunts victory SINGLEHANDEDLY ?

Yes they have... 2. OWNED.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."


"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Provost

""With respect, Gentleman, while Britain was fighting the French and Spanish during the war of 1812, I hardly remember the US receiving any support from Napoleon aiding it in its war with Britain.""

Actually we were just fighting France and her allies at the time of the war of 1812 not Spain (who were in fact allies to Britain at the time), we were fighting in Spain (Peninsular war) however and were very heavily committed there at the time that the US started the war by invading Canada.

Although you are correct that the US didn't receive any direct aid from, nor was an ally of, France during the war frankly you may as well have been. When Napoleon attempted to implelment the "continental system" against Britain in the early years of the 1800s it was designed specifically to blockade Britains maritime trade and stop her supplying financial and material aid to those other countries in Europe struggling against France. In retaliation to this practise Britain put in place what would eventually become a far more effective naval blockade of French controlled areas of Europe that would in time reduce French maritime imports to just 5% of the total putting enormous pressure on the French logistical capability to transport all it needed over land, often through less than friendly areas. The direct reason for Napoleons invasion of Russia was because Russia refused to comply by Frances demand to stop maritime trade with the UK, similarly the US was unwilling to cease trade with continental Europe and found it increasing embittered by the British demand to cease. It was often during the boarding of these US ships attempting to break the British blockade that we were discovering increasing numbers of RN deserters serving on US merchant shipping (at its height almost 20% of all US merchant seamen were RN deserters). Suggesting that Britain didn't have the right to return these deserters to face British justice was one of the many excuses the US used to justify a blatant invasion of Canada. Although it's true that the RN also pressed in to service some US seamen while they were recovering these deserters is undoubtedly true but to suggest it was anything like the real reason for the US invasion of Canada and the US starting a war with the most powerful naval force in the world at the time is unbelievable.


""Frankly, it's hardly the US's fault that Britain had so many enemies at the time that it found itself fighting multiple foes.""

Again on the surface absolutely true however the US attempts to breach the blockade of French controlled areas in Europe was an in-direct attempt to to undermine the war effort against a dictatorial regime bent on the invasion and control of central European states being carried out by Britain and at various times Austria, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Prussia (and other German states). so no it's not directly the US fault that Britain was in conflict with Napoleon and his allies but every bit of trade the US attempted with France sustained Frances ability to make war and support those allied to her, and so in-directly the US actions certainly contributed to the number of enemies Britain had to deal with at the time.

To say that it's not the US fault that Britain was involved in fighting multiple foes is also completely unsustainable when its considered that the US herself decided to be one of those multiple foes when it invaded Canada and began the war of 1812 at a time when Britain was already heavily engaged in a conflict against what was the most powerful country in Europe at the time. In fact lets face it the reason Madison attempted to seize Canada at this time was specifically because Britain was so heavily committed against Napoleon at the time and he thought we were too committed to do anything about it, he was wrong.


""The US did win the War of 1812. In the treaty the British agreed to all US demands that started the war, including impressment of US citizens and the claimed right to stop on the high seas US flagged vessels.""

Im afraid not, the practise of impressing US citizens ceased in 1814 officially after Napleons defeat and imprisonment on Elba, at that time the blockade of Europe also stopped officially (although it had been over in reality for some time, as Napoleon and French forces withdrew in to France the blockade reduced) and the number of RN ship and as a consequence crews needed was reduced, in fact the impressment of US seamen was being discussed diplomatically before the invasion of Canada and was well on its way to being solved. The practise of stopping US flagged vessels on the high seas would have ceased at the same time if it wasn't for the fact that by this time the UK and the US was at war.


""I understand why you might not like to recognize the US victory, but tell me, if Britain did, in fact, win the war, exactly what it it win? What did the US concede in order to convince Britain to cease hostilities?""

Canada, which is what the US started the war for in the first place.


""There were many in Whitehall who wanted to re-exert British sovereignty over what were still largely viewed as wayward colonies, but that simply didn't happen.""

That may have been the case after the US started the war but not before, and im not frankly convinced it was ever the intention, just a US myth to justify why it had gone to war in the first place and then lost it. As i've said Britain was heavily committed to the struggle against Napoleon. Huge amounts of Britain national income went on maintaining the wars with France or supporting other countries wars with france. In 1812 Britain was fighting, alonside Portugal and Spain, a French force in the Peninsular numbering between 200,000 and 250,000 men, far more than the US would ever have been able to put under arms at the time. We simply didn't have the financial , material or manpower resources to attempt the invasion and occupation of a country the size of the US, simple.

The war of 1812 was nothing but a disaster for the US and a terrible distraction from more important things for the UK and although the treaty dictated the return to a status quo between the nations and a general feeling that the war had ended in a draw (this was before the US myth was created to show they won the war, justifying its start) this assessment is way too generous to the US. Not only did Britain defeat the attempts by the US to invade Canada (alongside the Canadians of course) but it also managed to take the fight on to US territory for the vast majority of the duration of the war, largely dictate the pace of the war after the failure of the invasion of Canada, burn the White house and Captal building in Washington, displace the US seat of government, win the majority of the battles and ensure that the US was financially bankrupt after the conflict (that was supposed to last a matter of months at most by American estimates). By any reasonable standards, even if you believe that Britain got nothing from a war forced upon us in which we managed to defend and repel attempts at invading Canada, the US made a very bad mistake initiating the conflict and suffered far worse financially and miltarily than the UK as a result of starting the conflict.

"Here we go...

Any fatsos obesity Amerikunts victory SINGLEHANDEDLY ?

Yes they have... 2. OWNED."


if i ask, are there humans in poland?

you answer, yes.

does it mean anybody got owned?

moron polack, PWND!


now how we know these 2 are beings singlehanded victoryeds in adverse conditions? amerikunts claiming winnings against britsh1t and gay-mans earlier, but a gay-man and two britsh1ts spoil their dreams.

we needs spaniards and mexicans to come to shatters more amerikunts myths maybe?


===========================================
I am old Christiankiller
Sorry for offensive to our good religion christian brothers
I am not hating christians

Actually we were just fighting France and her allies at the time of the war of 1812 not Spain (who were in fact allies to Britain at the time), we were fighting in Spain (Peninsular war) however and were very heavily committed there at the time that the US started the war by invading Canada.


First, Jason, I would like to thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response. I know from my time in the UK, that the War of 1812 is somewhat a bone of contention, historically between our nations. I think there may be some misconceptions on both sides. Perhaps our discussion can dispel some of them.

The US did not begin the War of 1812 by invading Canada. It began the war on June 18, 1812 with a Congressional declaration of war. This was based upon three interconnected provocations: Impressment; seizure of neutral US shipping to the European continent which the US, at the time alleged to be in violation of international law, and continued British support of hostile Indian action throughout the Northwest Territories (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin).

Also, the US did not invade Canada until after British forces in July 1812 invaded the US, installed artillery overlooking FT. Mackinac in Michigan, forcing its surrender. American forces did invade Canada. This was, a fiasco and posed little or no real threat to British Canada.

The direct reason for Napoleons invasion of Russia was because Russia refused to comply by Frances demand to stop maritime trade with the UK, similarly the US was unwilling to cease trade with continental Europe and found it increasing embittered by the British demand to cease. It was often during the boarding of these US ships attempting to break the British blockade that we were discovering increasing numbers of RN deserters serving on US merchant shipping (at its height almost 20% of all US merchant seamen were RN deserters). Suggesting that Britain didn't have the right to return these deserters to face British justice was one of the many excuses the US used to justify a blatant invasion of Canada. Although it's true that the RN also pressed in to service some US seamen while they were recovering these deserters is undoubtedly true but to suggest it was anything like the real reason for the US invasion of Canada and the US starting a war with the most powerful naval force in the world at the time is unbelievable.

My, Jason, interesting spin. The US did, in fact, as a neutral oppose the naval blockade and wanted the right, as a neutral to trade with both sides. Under the international law at the time, this was perfectly legal and permissible. In its desperate struggle, however, with Napoleon departed from existing international law and began preying on innocent US commerce. In doing so, the British were arrogant enough to begin impressment of US citizens under the guise of seeking deserters. Individual RN commanders took sailors from US ships without any due process nor even any evidence that the sailors so impressed were, in fact, deserters from the RN. This amounted, frankly, to kidnaping US nationals to keep the RN ships complements covered, with no trial, no appeal and no redress.

Again on the surface absolutely true however the US attempts to breach the blockade of French controlled areas in Europe was an in-direct attempt to to undermine the war effort against a dictatorial regime bent on the invasion and control of central European states being carried out by Britain and at various times Austria, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Prussia (and other German states). so no it's not directly the US fault that Britain was in conflict with Napoleon and his allies but every bit of trade the US attempted with France sustained Frances ability to make war and support those allied to her, and so in-directly the US actions certainly contributed to the number of enemies Britain had to deal with at the time.

Jason, I know the standard UK template is the fight against Napoleon was the fight against tyranny. There may even be some truth in that spin. To the US, however, the tyranny, attacks on US property and citizens was not coming from Paris, but rather the tyrant in London. The continued British supply and encouragement of Tecumseh and other predatory attacks on US settlers in the Northwest Territory (My ancestors included, by the way) only further convinced large numbers of Americans that the British still looked on the US not as a sovereign state but rather a vassal to be exploited as desired.

To say that it's not the US fault that Britain was involved in fighting multiple foes is also completely unsustainable when its considered that the US herself decided to be one of those multiple foes when it invaded Canada and began the war of 1812 at a time when Britain was already heavily engaged in a conflict against what was the most powerful country in Europe at the time. In fact lets face it the reason Madison attempted to seize Canada at this time was specifically because Britain was so heavily committed against Napoleon at the time and he thought we were too committed to do anything about it, he was wrong.

The US attempted to invade Canada to cease its use as a supply route and the instigator of continuing attacks on US citizens on US soil from Canada. The US was not exploiting Britains many enemies, but rather were tired of American rights being trappled by continuing British tyranny.

Im afraid not, the practise of impressing US citizens ceased in 1814 officially after Napleons defeat and imprisonment on Elba, at that time the blockade of Europe also stopped officially (although it had been over in reality for some time, as Napoleon and French forces withdrew in to France the blockade reduced) and the number of RN ship and as a consequence crews needed was reduced, in fact the impressment of US seamen was being discussed diplomatically before the invasion of Canada and was well on its way to being solved. The practise of stopping US flagged vessels on the high seas would have ceased at the same time if it wasn't for the fact that by this time the UK and the US was at war.

The US had three goals in going to war in 1812: End impressment of US citizens; end seizure of US shipping which had been neutral; and, end British interference in the Northwest territories. All three of those objects were achieved.

Canada, which is what the US started the war for in the first place.

With respect, Jason, thats simply not true. The US made no serious effort to wrest Canada from Britain. Its invasion was designed to prevent Britain from supplying hostile tribes which prevented US expansion into the Northwest Territories which the US believed the British were trying to seize back for themselves. The war ended any threat to US sovereignty to Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.

That may have been the case after the US started the war but not before, and im not frankly convinced it was ever the intention, just a US myth to justify why it had gone to war in the first place and then lost it. As i've said Britain was heavily committed to the struggle against Napoleon. Huge amounts of Britain national income went on maintaining the wars with France or supporting other countries wars with france. In 1812 Britain was fighting, alonside Portugal and Spain, a French force in the Peninsular numbering between 200,000 and 250,000 men, far more than the US would ever have been able to put under arms at the time. We simply didn't have the financial , material or manpower resources to attempt the invasion and occupation of a country the size of the US, simple.

The myth, Jason, is that the US began the war with the aim of seizing Canada. The US wanted nothing but to develop its trade and industry through international trade and the free use of the seas which the tyrant in London was directly attacking the US and its interests, kidnaping its citizens and impressing them into military service and supplying hostile Indians allowing and encouraging their depredations on innocent US citizens. It was Britain that forced the war through its actions rather than the US.

The war of 1812 was nothing but a disaster for the US and a terrible distraction from more important things for the UK and although the treaty dictated the return to a status quo between the nations and a general feeling that the war had ended in a draw (this was before the US myth was created to show they won the war, justifying its start) this assessment is way too generous to the US. Not only did Britain defeat the attempts by the US to invade Canada (alongside the Canadians of course) but it also managed to take the fight on to US territory for the vast majority of the duration of the war, largely dictate the pace of the war after the failure of the invasion of Canada, burn the White house and Captal building in Washington, displace the US seat of government, win the majority of the battles and ensure that the US was financially bankrupt after the conflict (that was supposed to last a matter of months at most by American estimates). By any reasonable standards, even if you believe that Britain got nothing from a war forced upon us in which we managed to defend and repel attempts at invading Canada, the US made a very bad mistake initiating the conflict and suffered far worse financially and miltarily than the UK as a result of starting the conflict.

The US suffered many defeats in the war, no question about that. The US achieved its war aims. You can try to paint this as a defeat if youd like, but there is nothing further from the truth. After the War of 1812, the British never again attempted to interfere with US commerce in international waters, never again kidnaped US citizens for impressment into service and ceased arming and supplying Indians threatening the security of what would soon become additional states.

Having achieved its war aims, despite its defeats, clearly shows that the US won the war, not lost.




Provost

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_War_of_1812

Treaty of Ghent show the only losers in this whole war were the native Americans. once the Indian coalition fell apart the buffer state ceased to be. Article 9
It was a draw not a US victory. The US could not afford the war and most in the UK thought is a silly waste of time.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=008/llsl008.db&recNum=231

I do like article 10

Provost

""The US did not begin the War of 1812 by invading Canada. It began the war on June 18, 1812 with a Congressional declaration of war. This was based upon three interconnected provocations: Impressment; seizure of neutral US shipping to the European continent which the US, at the time alleged to be in violation of international law, and continued British support of hostile Indian action throughout the Northwest Territories (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin).

Also, the US did not invade Canada until after British forces in July 1812 invaded the US, installed artillery overlooking FT. Mackinac in Michigan, forcing its surrender. American forces did invade Canada. This was, a fiasco and posed little or no real threat to British Canada.""

You're correct of course, i didn't mean to suggest that the US invasion was some sneak attack that came out of the blue. All involved on the British side were aware of a deteriorating situation and the declaration of war by the US in June. I was refering to the first large scale manouver of the war being the invasion of Canada by the US. Certainly actions had taken place along the border before the invasion like the attack on Fort Mackinac but by the time of the attack all were aware of an impending invasion and the movement of US troops up to the border taking place and the small attack on Mackinac was an attempt to de-stabilize those US preparations and position British troops in a position to best counter those movement in preparation for attack on Canada by the US army. It was a sensible strategic move that cannot seriously be considered an attempt to invade the US but more reasonably a pre-emptive move to try to prevent an already under way aggressive US invasion of British territory.

In short we would never have been there if you hadn't already been making preparations for invasion.

You're also correct about there being tensions and even small scale incursion BY BOTH SIDES along the US/Canada border since the end of the war of independence. This was why British support of hostile Indian action throughout the Northwest Territories had been taking place, to support British moves along the border, however it's important to explain why these border skirmishes were taking place. The Treaty of Paris at the end of the AWI had specifically stated , amongst other things, that all properties and lands that had belonged to those American colonists that had remained loyal to the crown would be returned to them and they would be able to return un-hindered to those properties and lands if they chose. Almost 30 years later the US had failed to return any of those lands and honour that part of the treaty (because the individual states flatly refused to do it after the treaty had been signed). This blatant refusal to honour this part of the treaty gave Britain the right to query other parts of it and we did this by refusing to recognise the established border line between the US and Canada proclaimed in the same treaty.

In short if the US had honoured the treaty of Paris in full in the first place then none of the tensions, skirmishes, incursion and support for the hostile Indian action would ever have been happening.


""The US had three goals in going to war in 1812: End impressment of US citizens; end seizure of US shipping which had been neutral; and, end British interference in the Northwest territories. All three of those objects were achieved.""

Certainly all three objectives eventually came to pass but how many came to pass because of the US invasion of Canada and the war of 1812, one maybe. The end of impressment of US citizens and the end of seizure of US shipping occurred not because of any US victory but because the war with France had been won and as direct result the blockade of France and other European ports was no longer neccessary and consequently the RN was able to reduce the number of ships at sea and the neccessity to crew those ships diminished.

No blockade then no seizure of ships attempting to breach the blockade and far fewer ships neccessary so far fewer crewman neccessary to man those ships.


""With respect, Jason, thats simply not true. The US made no serious effort to wrest Canada from Britain. Its invasion was designed to prevent Britain from supplying hostile tribes which prevented US expansion into the Northwest Territories which the US believed the British were trying to seize back for themselves. The war ended any threat to US sovereignty to Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.""

If the invasion was simply to prevent the supplying of hostile tribes in the US then it was a very badly thought out move, and i don't believe it was. If the main focus of attention had been the hostile tribes then a far more sensible and safe move would have been to move on the tribes themselves as US forces did in fact do later in the war defeating them at the battle of the Thames killing Tecumseh and effectively breaking the will of the tribes to continue fighting. A direct invasion of Canada to neutralize the Indian tribes guaranteed a clash with British/Canadian forces and risked (however remote the US thought it might be) escalating what was an irregular small scale problem with local Indians in to a large scale war with Britain and all that entailed. I don't think even Madison was foolish enough to believe that such a monumental risk was the right move if his intention was simply to end Indian aggressive actions. Madisons intention were clear to the British in Canada then and they are clear now, to seize an opportunity to extend US control and influence north while Britain was so heavily employed fighting in another part of the world against what may have seemed then, in 1812, as an enemy that may very well have won the Napoleonic wars, Napoleon and France.


""The US suffered many defeats in the war, no question about that. The US achieved its war aims. You can try to paint this as a defeat if youd like, but there is nothing further from the truth. After the War of 1812, the British never again attempted to interfere with US commerce in international waters, never again kidnaped US citizens for impressment into service and ceased arming and supplying Indians threatening the security of what would soon become additional states.""

The US didn't achieve any of its war aims except the neutralization of the native tribes within the US. Britain never again attempted to interfere with US commerce and never again impressed US citizens because, as i said, the need to do these things evaporated with the victory over Napoleon. the several attempts by the US to take Canada were wholly and completely unsuccessful.

As i said...

Not only did Britain defeat the attempts by the US to invade Canada (alongside the Canadians of course) but it also managed to take the fight on to US territory for the vast majority of the duration of the war, largely dictate the pace of the war after the failure of the invasion of Canada, burn the White house and Captal building in Washington, displace the US seat of government, win the majority of the battles and ensure that the US was financially bankrupt after the conflict.

If this is a description of a US victory then i would have been interested to see what more could have happened to the US before its called a defeat. A British victory, no question.

if i ask, are there humans in poland?

you answer, yes.

does it mean anybody got owned?

moron polack, PWND!

Any fatsos obesity Amerikunts victory SINGLEHANDEDLY ?

Yes they have... 2. OWNED.

You can't weasel your way out of this one. Remember, you like strict conditions in these things... no ifs or buts... LOL.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."


"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

You're correct of course, i didn't mean to suggest that the US invasion was some sneak attack that came out of the blue. All involved on the British side were aware of a deteriorating situation and the declaration of war by the US in June. I was refering to the first large scale manouver of the war being the invasion of Canada by the US. Certainly actions had taken place along the border before the invasion like the attack on Fort Mackinac but by the time of the attack all were aware of an impending invasion and the movement of US troops up to the border taking place and the small attack on Mackinac was an attempt to de-stabilize those US preparations and position British troops in a position to best counter those movement in preparation for attack on Canada by the US army. It was a sensible strategic move that cannot seriously be considered an attempt to invade the US but more reasonably a pre-emptive move to try to prevent an already under way aggressive US invasion of British territory.

Jason, I wasnt questioning the wisdom of the attack on Ft. Mackinac, merely used it as an example that British Canada, having heard of the US declaration of war took preemptive action. Certainly, after the declaration, there was nothing wrong with the conduct of British Canada, but you seemed to have tried to paint them as passive and the US invasion as sinister when both sides took offensive measures to enhance their tactical and strategic positions.

In short we would never have been there if you hadn't already been making preparations for invasion.

Thats certainly something well never know, but frankly, based upon their supplying of US enemies and encouraging raids on US citizens, I think your view is more wishful thinking, than an accurate assessment.

You're also correct about there being tensions and even small scale incursion BY BOTH SIDES along the US/Canada border since the end of the war of independence.

True, the Treaty of Paris left the border largely undefined and there were many border disputes from both sides.

This was why British support of hostile Indian action throughout the Northwest Territories had been taking place, to support British moves along the border, however it's important to explain why these border skirmishes were taking place.

Britains support of hostile Indians, had nothing to do with border disputes and everything to do with undermining US sovereignty in the North west Territories.

The Treaty of Paris at the end of the AWI had specifically stated , amongst other things, that all properties and lands that had belonged to those American colonists that had remained loyal to the crown would be returned to them and they would be able to return un-hindered to those properties and lands if they chose. Almost 30 years later the US had failed to return any of those lands and honour that part of the treaty (because the individual states flatly refused to do it after the treaty had been signed). This blatant refusal to honour this part of the treaty gave Britain the right to query other parts of it and we did this by refusing to recognise the established border line between the US and Canada proclaimed in the same treaty.

Well, actually, no, Jason. I had not read the Treaty in more than 30 years so I went back and looked it up. Article 5 actually said: It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty's arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States. And that persons of any other decription shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice and equity but with that spirit of conciliation which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties since the confiscation.

And it is agreed that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.

As you can see, it applies to real British subjects and Loyalists who had not taken up arms against the US were entitled to restitution. Persons of any other description were allowed I year to seek restitution. It also was not an affirmative obligation. But the Congress would earnestly recommend. Do you have evidence that the United States Congress did not make its earnest recommendation?

In short if the US had honoured the treaty of Paris in full in the first place then none of the tensions, skirmishes, incursion and support for the hostile Indian action would ever have been happening.

Im sorry, Jason, but this argument is simply specious. There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. None. Frankly, even had the US decided to ignore this provision, why would that give the British the right to arm hostile Indians to murder and plunder innocents? The British government had no standing to complain. Individual British subjects and former Loyalists who remained to become US citizens might, but not the Crown.


Certainly all three objectives eventually came to pass but how many came to pass because of the US invasion of Canada and the war of 1812, one maybe. The end of impressment of US citizens and the end of seizure of US shipping occurred not because of any US victory but because the war with France had been won and as direct result the blockade of France and other European ports was no longer neccessary and consequently the RN was able to reduce the number of ships at sea and the neccessity to crew those ships diminished.

No blockade then no seizure of ships attempting to breach the blockade and far fewer ships neccessary so far fewer crewman neccessary to man those ships.

The point remains, Jason, that the war aims of the US were, in fact, achieved. I suppose that you would, in the same vein, argue that the US and UK didnt win WWII because Germany and Japan the Soviet Union actually won the war. If you meet your war objectives and the war ends with you having done so, you win the war.

If the invasion was simply to prevent the supplying of hostile tribes in the US then it was a very badly thought out move, and i don't believe it was.

Then I think you are wrong. General Hulls whole invasion was a ill thought out and ill executed military maneuver. After crossing the border, General Hull issued a proclamation demanding surrender. His invasion force consisted almost exclusively of untrained militia. His invasion began on mid July and by mid August he had withdrawn to US territory without engaging in anything other than minor skirmishing.

If the main focus of attention had been the hostile tribes then a far more sensible and safe move would have been to move on the tribes themselves as US forces did in fact do later in the war defeating them at the battle of the Thames killing Tecumseh and effectively breaking the will of the tribes to continue fighting. A direct invasion of Canada to neutralize the Indian tribes guaranteed a clash with British/Canadian forces and risked (however remote the US thought it might be) escalating what was an irregular small scale problem with local Indians in to a large scale war with Britain and all that entailed.

Then, again, you would be wrong. As with most military fiascos the Canadian invasion was based on poor intelligence. The US, erroneously believed that the Canadians were yearning to be free of the yoke of British tyranny. That upon US forces crossing the border and demanding surrender, as General Hull did, that they would rise up against their British masters and join the great tide of North American freedom.

,b>I don't think even Madison was foolish enough to believe that such a monumental risk was the right move if his intention was simply to end Indian aggressive actions.

Well, you are free to believe that, but theres no evidence to support such view.

Madisons intention were clear to the British in Canada then and they are clear now, to seize an opportunity to extend US control and influence north while Britain was so heavily employed fighting in another part of the world against what may have seemed then, in 1812, as an enemy that may very well have won the Napoleonic wars, Napoleon and France.

If that were the case, Jason, why send a ragtag force of militia? Why quit after one invasion? If that were truly the goal, why was it abandoned after 30 days and no other serious attempts made to do so? It, frankly, doesnt makes sense.

The US didn't achieve any of its war aims except the neutralization of the native tribes within the US. Britain never again attempted to interfere with US commerce and never again impressed US citizens because, as i said, the need to do these things evaporated with the victory over Napoleon. the several attempts by the US to take Canada were wholly and completely unsuccessful.

The point is, however, that the US did achieve its goals. You can argue that they werent achieved through their efforts and Id largely agree with you, but thats hardly the point.

Not only did Britain defeat the attempts by the US to invade Canada (alongside the Canadians of course) but it also managed to take the fight on to US territory for the vast majority of the duration of the war, largely dictate the pace of the war after the failure of the invasion of Canada, burn the White house and Captal building in Washington, displace the US seat of government, win the majority of the battles and ensure that the US was financially bankrupt after the conflict.

Yes, you said that. Largely its true. The problem is that it is also largely irrelevant. The US achieved its war aims and was willing to discuss peace.

If this is a description of a US victory then i would have been interested to see what more could have happened to the US before its called a defeat. A British victory, no question.

Thats very simple. It would have to fail to meet its war aims, e.g., Vietnam. This really isnt that hard. Next thing youll tell me how General Jackson was defeated at New Orleans and its impact on the peace, right?




Provost

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929

"You can't weasel your way out of this one. Remember, you like strict conditions in these things... no ifs or buts... LOL."

where did you see ifs or buts in my response?

LOL

a question was asked? some responses were given, which require further investigation to assess the accuracy of the claimant's statements.

that was all mate, go hump some kangaroos for all you like, but when you post, use some logic, granted you may lack that faculty.

the best option will be not to take part in a repartee when you lack that faculty.


===========================================
I am old Christiankiller
Sorry for offensive to our good religion christian brothers
I am not hating christians

Oh, but when I did the EXACT same thing in the thread about why Australia is superior to all Muslim nations, you did what I'm doing here.

So again. OWNED.

So troll, face it, you are a retard with a short memory lol.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."


"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

I always love the War of 1812 discussions, I grew up in Niagara (I recall a 7th grade class trip to all the battlefields in the Region) and have went over both versions of events in the past and had many discussions with Americans regarding it. Of course being a Canadian we spent most of the time studying the natives and highlighting how "whitie" (as Panda would say) screwed them over (and how us 12 year olds 200 years later should feel guilty about it ).

Just a couple of minor points;

"Also, the US did not invade Canada until after British forces in July 1812 invaded the US, installed artillery overlooking FT. Mackinac in Michigan, forcing its surrender. "

I was under the impression that the primary reason for the surrender was a fear of massacre by the Indians (certainly a reasonable fear). Roberts exaggerated the numbers of natives he commanded and claimed he would take no responsibility for their actions after he released them to attack. Most likely the surrender saved the lives of the 61 men (and whatever civilians were in the fort) under his command, as most of the natives were "unhappy" with their treatment by the US government and citizens.

As for the reasons of and events leading up to, the war, there is a fairly decent (lots of references) at wikipedia herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_War_of_1812, the origins box at the right goes through each event fairly well. As with most wars, there appear to be valid and reasonable grievances on both sides and with the advantage of understanding the intent of both sides it seems rather silly. Of course the leaders on both sides didn't have the advantage of being Monday morning quarterbacks (what's the equivalent English expression?) when it came to determining the other sides intent and certainly talk of an invasion of Canada in Congress sounds pretty much the same in London regardless of whether it was for conquest or merely as a bargaining chip.

---

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw

Provost

""Jason, I wasnt questioning the wisdom of the attack on Ft. Mackinac, merely used it as an example that British Canada, having heard of the US declaration of war took preemptive action.""

Ok that's fine, however you did state "Also, the US did not invade Canada until after British forces in July 1812 invaded the US, installed artillery overlooking FT. Mackinac in Michigan, forcing its surrender.", i was just pointing out that to say that British troops crossing the border in order to position themselves better to receive an already underway US invasion of Canada is IMO unreasonable.


""Certainly, after the declaration, there was nothing wrong with the conduct of British Canada, but you seemed to have tried to paint them as passive and the US invasion as sinister when both sides took offensive measures to enhance their tactical and strategic positions.""

That wasn't my intention, i apologise, and i would be reluctant to paint the British as passive in general throughout the 19th century, especially when it came to border disputes or anything that may effect British trade interests. However statements like this from your earlier post could certainly be described as attempting to paint the US as wholly passive and the British as the only aggressive party involved where as its clear that US designs on Canada were a long standing interest in Congress.

"The myth, Jason, is that the US began the war with the aim of seizing Canada. The US wanted nothing but to develop its trade and industry through international trade and the free use of the seas which the tyrant in London was directly attacking the US and its interests, kidnaping its citizens and impressing them into military service and supplying hostile Indians allowing and encouraging their depredations on innocent US citizens. It was Britain that forced the war through its actions rather than the US."

Several times in Congress in the run up to the invasion of Canada US representatives stated clearly that an invasion would be desirable even suggesting on one occassion (by Thomas Jefferson no less) that it would be as easy as just "a matter of marching".


""Well, actually, no, Jason. I had not read the Treaty in more than 30 years so I went back and looked it up.

I apologise if i got the wording of the treaty wrong, my copies of the treaty of Paris, the treaty of Ghent, the declaration of independence and the 17th century English bill of rights are in my other coat(joke), but it dosn't change the fact that in Canada, and especially amongst the now influential former loyalist American Canadians, this was a major bone of contention within the Canadian government, and to a lesser extent the British government.


""The point remains, Jason, that the war aims of the US were, in fact, achieved. I suppose that you would, in the same vein, argue that the US and UK didnt win WWII because Germany and Japan the Soviet Union actually won the war. If you meet your war objectives and the war ends with you having done so, you win the war.""

""Thats very simple. It would have to fail to meet its war aims, e.g., Vietnam. This really isnt that hard.""

""The point is, however, that the US did achieve its goals. You can argue that they werent achieved through their efforts and Id largely agree with you, but thats hardly the point.""

All three of these statement miss the point completely if you don't mind me saying so Mike. The whole issue of what your saying is that the claim of a victory in the war is justified because what you claim were the 3 main reasons for the war (forced impressment of US seamen, hindering trade with continental Europe and support for the tribes) were solved at the end of the war of 1812. The fact is though that the US could have sat back and done absolutely nothing and 2/3rd of these issues would have been resolved within a couple of years at most, and certainly before 1815 and the end of the war and signing of the treaty of Ghent. The facts are that the imposition of the practice of forced impressment of, so called, US seamen (a large number were not that at all but RN deserters serving aboard US merchant shipping as you know) was carried out the further the war with France and the only reason it came to an end in 1814 was because the war with France had come to an end (we thought, in fact the Waterloo campaign was still to come but we didn't know that at the time). Similarly the issue of stopping US trade with continental Europe was a by product of the British blockade of French controlled territories to further the war with Napoleon, and the only reason it came to an end was because of the ending of the war with Napoleon. Both issues had nothing to do with the US directly, not in the reasoning behind their implementation and certainly not the decision to stop them. Neither issue was even mentioned in the treaty of Ghent and absolutely no demand by the US was ever made during the talks running up to the treaty being signed and Britain never made any promise to US representatives, either officially or un-officially, never to do it again, they were never even asked to.

To claim a victory when 2 out of the 3 reasons you state were the cause of the invasion of Canada were solved as a result of something completely out of the control of the US, and would have been solved regardless of US actions makes no sense. If we disregard the fact that expansionism on behalf of the US was the real reason for the invasion and concerntrate on these three reason you claim were the reason then in reality the US went to war with the most powerful naval power in the world to stop troublesome tribes along the border, why risk catastrophic economic results with a war over a relatively small matter that was eventually solved anyway with the Creek wars, especially considering the effects of the war on US trade and economy.

Truth is that the invasion of Canada and the war of 1812 probably extended the practice of forced impressment and the blockade longer than it may have been neccessary without the war of 1812, through diverting British financial and material resources away from the war with France and her allies to a relatively small war on another continent un-connected with the fight against Napoleon, and as a consequence perhaps prolonging the final defeat of France.


""If that were the case, Jason, why send a ragtag force of militia? Why quit after one invasion? If that were truly the goal, why was it abandoned after 30 days and no other serious attempts made to do so? It, frankly, doesnt makes sense.""

It wouldn't make sense if it were true, you're correct, however it's not true

The US invasion in 1812 was just one of three attempted invasions during the war. This initial attempt was stopped when US forces (not just militia but regulars too) suffered a crushing defeat at Queenstown Heights on the 13th October 1812, prompting US forces to withdraw. This was a serious attempt but as you said suffered as a result ineptitude and lack of organisation amongst the US forces.
A second attempt was made in May of 1813 that was eventually defeated at the battle of Stony Creek and the battle of Beaver Dam, and further to the east at the battle of Cryslers Farm, again prompting a withdawal of US forces from all Canadian territory by the end of the year, this US force was again a mixture of militia and regulars. Also a serious attempt that involved much more competence from the US forces than had been present earlier but was still unsuccessful.
The third and final (and much more serious) attempt was made in 1814 by a US force almost completely made up of regulars and was far better organised than the previous attempts. After defeating a numerically inferior British force at the battle of Chippewa the US army went on to clash with a another (although this time only slightly smaller) numerically inferior British force at what was perhaps the hardest fought battle of the war at Lundys Lane. Both side were equally made up of regulars and the battle was eventually a very narrow tactical victory for the British but a sweeping strategic defeat for the US, forcing another retreat from Canadian territory.

The US didn't just send militia and it wasn't just one invasion lasting just 30 days.


""Next thing youll tell me how General Jackson was defeated at New Orleans and its impact on the peace, right?""

Lets not get started on the battle of New Orlean shall we, its effect on the American psyche about the war and the insistence that because the last major battle between British and US forces was a US victory it must mean that the war was a US victory is obvious.

Ok that's fine, however you did state "Also, the US did not invade Canada until after British forces in July 1812 invaded the US, installed artillery overlooking FT. Mackinac in Michigan, forcing its surrender.", i was just pointing out that to say that British troops crossing the border in order to position themselves better to receive an already underway US invasion of Canada is IMO unreasonable.

And I said it was a good tactical move. It wasnt, however, in response to the pending US invasion.

That wasn't my intention, i apologise, and i would be reluctant to paint the British as passive in general throughout the 19th century, especially when it came to border disputes or anything that may effect British trade interests. However statements like this from your earlier post could certainly be described as attempting to paint the US as wholly passive and the British as the only aggressive party involved where as its clear that US designs on Canada were a long standing interest in Congress.

The US was hardly passive but it was the aggrieved party. Having watched Congressional debates for years, just because something is said in Congress didnt make it true.

Several times in Congress in the run up to the invasion of Canada US representatives stated clearly that an invasion would be desirable even suggesting on one occassion (by Thomas Jefferson no less) that it would be as easy as just "a matter of marching".

As I said earlier, Jason, many in the US were under the mistaken idea that Canadians were eager to overturn tyrannical British rule. They were wrong. The US invasion, however, was a halfhearted effort that only could have succeeded if their misconception was correct. It wasnt.

I apologise if i got the wording of the treaty wrong, my copies of the treaty of Paris, the treaty of Ghent, the declaration of independence and the 17th century English bill of rights are in my other coat(joke), but it dosn't change the fact that in Canada, and especially amongst the now influential former loyalist American Canadians, this was a major bone of contention within the Canadian government, and to a lesser extent the British government.

It may well have been a bone of contention in Canadian minds, but your premise was that the US was in violation of the provisions of the Treaty of Paris. I demonstrated that it was not. Assuming Canadians were angry, fine, but the US did exactly what it committed to do. Or, at the very least, you have failed to demonstrate any material breach.

All three of these statement miss the point completely if you don't mind me saying so Mike. The whole issue of what your saying is that the claim of a victory in the war is justified because what you claim were the 3 main reasons for the war (forced impressment of US seamen, hindering trade with continental Europe and support for the tribes) were solved at the end of the war of 1812. The fact is though that the US could have sat back and done absolutely nothing and 2/3rd of these issues would have been resolved within a couple of years at most, and certainly before 1815 and the end of the war and signing of the treaty of Ghent.

I understand your point, Jason. It is also irrelevant. The fact was that the US war aims were achieved. We dont know that absent the war, that any of them would have come to pass. You speculate that they would. You may well be right, but well never know for sure.

The facts are that the imposition of the practice of forced impressment of, so called, US seamen (a large number were not that at all but RN deserters serving aboard US merchant shipping as you know) was carried out the further the war with France and the only reason it came to an end in 1814 was because the war with France had come to an end (we thought, in fact the Waterloo campaign was still to come but we didn't know that at the time).

Well, partially. It was also greatly diminished by the wartime arming of US merchantmen and the patrols of the USN. Impressment decreased markedly after the US declaration of war. Britain probably would have survived against Germany in 1940 absent Lend-Lease, but well never really know, will we?

Similarly the issue of stopping US trade with continental Europe was a by product of the British blockade of French controlled territories to further the war with Napoleon, and the only reason it came to an end was because of the ending of the war with Napoleon.

Actually, as you pointed out earlier, the US economy suffered from the war and merchant shipping was greatly curtailed after the declaration.

Both issues had nothing to do with the US directly, not in the reasoning behind their implementation and certainly not the decision to stop them. Neither issue was even mentioned in the treaty of Ghent and absolutely no demand by the US was ever made during the talks running up to the treaty being signed and Britain never made any promise to US representatives, either officially or un-officially, never to do it again, they were never even asked to.

Again, treaties are a bit distant in my past, though you carry them about in your pocket, I had to go back and look it up. You are right, it makes no reference to either of the US naval grievances. It focuses on boundaries and ceasing hostilities. The point is that by fighting, the US would never idly stand by for Britains infringement on its sovereignty. The fact is, that Britain never again stopped US ships on the high seas and kidnap Americans for any purpose, nor did it ever try to prevent the US from engaging in legal international trade.

To claim a victory when 2 out of the 3 reasons you state were the cause of the invasion of Canada were solved as a result of something completely out of the control of the US, and would have been solved regardless of US actions makes no sense.

Actually, Jason, I said no such thing. I said those three things were the reason for the declaration of war, not the invasion of Canada. My point also makes perfect sense. In 1812, how did the US know that Britain would end impressment and the blockade? It did not. The fact that Britain defeated Napoleon was fortuitous to the achieving of the USs war aims. There was no way, however, that anyone in the US could see into the future and predict that.

If we disregard the fact that expansionism on behalf of the US was the real reason for the invasion and concerntrate on these three reason you claim were the reason then in reality the US went to war with the most powerful naval power in the world to stop troublesome tribes along the border, why risk catastrophic economic results with a war over a relatively small matter that was eventually solved anyway with the Creek wars, especially considering the effects of the war on US trade and economy.

It must be nice to know the future. Had President Madison have known the future, you might well be right. He did not.

Truth is that the invasion of Canada and the war of 1812 probably extended the practice of forced impressment and the blockade longer than it may have been neccessary without the war of 1812, through diverting British financial and material resources away from the war with France and her allies to a relatively small war on another continent un-connected with the fight against Napoleon, and as a consequence perhaps prolonging the final defeat of France.

Maybe, but I doubt so.

It wouldn't make sense if it were true, you're correct, however it's not true

It is largely true.

The US invasion in 1812 was just one of three attempted invasions during the war. This initial attempt was stopped when US forces (not just militia but regulars too) suffered a crushing defeat at Queenstown Heights on the 13th October 1812, prompting US forces to withdraw. This was a serious attempt but as you said suffered as a result ineptitude and lack of organisation amongst the US forces.
A second attempt was made in May of 1813 that was eventually defeated at the battle of Stony Creek and the battle of Beaver Dam, and further to the east at the battle of Cryslers Farm, again prompting a withdawal of US forces from all Canadian territory by the end of the year, this US force was again a mixture of militia and regulars. Also a serious attempt that involved much more competence from the US forces than had been present earlier but was still unsuccessful.
The third and final (and much more serious) attempt was made in 1814 by a US force almost completely made up of regulars and was far better organised than the previous attempts. After defeating a numerically inferior British force at the battle of Chippewa the US army went on to clash with a another (although this time only slightly smaller) numerically inferior British force at what was perhaps the hardest fought battle of the war at Lundys Lane. Both side were equally made up of regulars and the battle was eventually a very narrow tactical victory for the British but a sweeping strategic defeat for the US, forcing another retreat from Canadian territory.

The last two are invasions only in the sense that they were waged on Canadian soil. Using your reasoning, I could similarly talk about the British invasions of the US. Weve already talked about Ft. Macinac, technically and invasion. Likewise, Britain occupied Detroit. Then the invasion that resulted in the burning of Washington. Finally, the invasion that lead to the Battle of New Orleans. Does this mean that the British were land hungry and started this war to reconquer the US?

My point is, Jason, that the last two incursions you mentioned were raids designed to attempt to keep British forces from using the seaways for logistical support. They were not designed to seize or claim as conquered portions of Canada, anymore than the British raid on Washington was designed to conquer and claim Washington, D.C. It was a reprisal raid.

The US didn't just send militia and it wasn't just one invasion lasting just 30 days.

You are correct, not just militiamen. Hull passed into Canada at the head of 300 US regulars and 1500 Ohio Militia. (According to American Military History, Volume 1: 1775-1902, edited by Maurice Matloff, Combined Books, 1996) You are also correct in not just 30 days, the US invaded in July and crossed back into US territory in October.

Lets not get started on the battle of New Orlean shall we, its effect on the American psyche about the war and the insistence that because the last major battle between British and US forces was a US victory it must mean that the war was a US victory is obvious.

I had left it out intentionally until then for that reason, but I was waiting on you to tell me how the British won at New Orleans, as well. I was being facetious, but, Jason, we have the advantage of seeing what happened after the fact. I fear you are making the mistake of using hindsight judging the decisions made rather than by looking at them through the prism of their knowledge at the time. Otherwise, any discussion becomes one of revisionism rather than a discussion of history.




Provost

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929

"Oh, but when I did the EXACT same thing in the thread about why Australia is superior to all Muslim nations, you did what I'm doing here.

So again. OWNED.

So troll, face it, you are a retard with a short memory lol.
"

Exact same things? what you are beings sayings polack toilet cleaner?

australia is beings superior to all muslim nations in sheepshag8ing only, mate, also include kangaroo humpings in the list.

LOL

use GDP/capita measure alone, qatar uae kuwait etc beings richers than oz sheepshag8ers

hehe

how its being relateds to our threads discussions here?

amerikunts and etc claimings they beat gay-mans in 'battle of bulge' when some gay-man came to burst their bubbleds

also look at fatso obesities amerikunts' arguments with anglo paedophilia incestuous drunkards' long arguments, also provings my claim.

now keep waitings for some bullfightings spaniards and mexicans person to come join this thread, all others amerikunts 'winning' myths will be exploded.


===========================================
I am old Christiankiller
Sorry for offensive to our good religion christian brothers
I am not hating christians

You asked a question beliving the answer to be zero when in fact it is at least 3.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_wars_has_the_US_won

Texas Revolution 1835
The MexicanAmerican War 1846-1848
Spanish-American War 1898

We are ignoring the all the Indian Wars.

As for the Battle of the Buldge,I was specifacly refering to the Siege of Bastogne.

Please also note the War of 1812 is a Stalemate thank you very much

"You asked a question beliving the answer to be zero when in fact it is at least 3.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_wars_has_the_US_won

Texas Revolution 1835
The MexicanAmerican War 1846-1848
Spanish-American War 1898

We are ignoring the all the Indian Wars.

As for the Battle of the Buldge,I was specifacly refering to the Siege of Bastogne.

Please also note the War of 1812 is a Stalemate thank you very much "


where did i states in my question what my belief of amerikunts loss/victory is beigns?

wiki is no sourceds mate, it only make you lose face

for spaniard bullfighters and mexicans wars, i am mentionings as before, until some spaniards and mexicans come here defendings themselves, i am not convinceds

for some shouteds ITT amerikunts were outnumbereds versus gay-mans and some gay-man proveds otherwise

some shoutedts amerikunts were outnumbereds versus anglos fellation drunkards incestuous paedophilles still some anglo drunkards faggets came to debunks those myths

lets allow some mexicans and spaniards to come and debunk more amerikunts myths then


===========================================
I am old Christiankiller
Sorry for offensive to our good religion christian brothers
I am not hating christians

philfslpon

heres another answer from ur source

judge its yourself

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_arab_money_worth_more_than_american_money&alreadyAsked=1

"Is arab money worth more than american money?
In: Business and Finance, Business Accounting and Bookkeeping, Translations

Amerikans are dunces fvcking kikes

Amerikan greenback is suited for toilet paper role.


Kuwaiti dinar is the strongest currency in the world and Bahrain and Oman I think also has very strong currencies. "

===========================================
I am old Christiankiller
Sorry for offensive to our good religion christian brothers
I am not hating christians

With the following you infered your belevie that the answer was zero

" EVER?

are they beings too fatso obesity drunkards incestuous retarded mongrels to not doings these or always hidings behind (is it actually, under?) their mommys skirts? "

This list I posted was simply that a List. The three wars which I highlighted are the the answers to you question i.e. 3. It was also for Mike showing that other people believe that the 1812 war was a stalemate.

The fact the you do not know that the Battle of the Alamo (February 23 March 6, 1836) is the most famous battle of the Texas Revolution is your problem. So I suggest you can look it up. You can start with the 2004 film The Alamo.
Also if you can read English try Hardin, Stephen L. (2001), The Alamo 1836: Santa Anna's Texas Campaign, Osprey Campaign Series #89, Osprey Publishing, ISBN 1841760900.

Next The Mexican-American War 1846-1848 now ever herd the US marine Hymn with the initial verse "From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli."
Here the Halls of Montezuma is the battle of Chapultepec.
Try Frazier, Donald S. The U.S. and Mexico at War, Macmillan (1998)

Finally the Spanish-American War 1898 Now you must of know Theodore (TEDDY) D. Roosevelt.
Well he commanded The Rough Riders in this War.
See Rough Riders, a 1997 television mini-series.
Try David F. Trask, The War with Spain in 1898 (1996)

You go on about being out numbered as a good thing, well its not it is very stupid to attack an enemy that outnumbers you. I an standard attack you should outnumber the enemy by 3:1 it an assault on a fortified position 5:1 is recommend. To be blunt your point number 2 is pointless
I suggest that you read The Art of War by Sun Tzu.

Loved this one the list of American victories from the list Phiffon posted...

"Vietnam War = US Tactical/Military Victory, US Strategic/Political Defeat "

I believe Sun Tzu put it best when he said...

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

The USA lost a minor war...so did every other nation/empire in human history, get over it!

The truly sad part aboout Vietnam is that when McNamara and Giap met relatively recently and when M
It's truly amazing how hard it is to be successful in any enterprise when one is not aware of the motivations of the other involved parties, isn't it?

---

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw

Incheon atleast the americans where outnumbered in bayonets if you count the whole peninsula not on the actual beachead if not in materials and money and technology the overwhelming majority of United Nations ground forces involved were U.S. Marines, commanded by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur.

its too funny seeings too many polacks westrns and others faggetry comings to defends its amerikunts butt buddieds LOL

clutchings at straws as last resorts too funny to describeings mate
hahaha

facts here, amerikunts and their cronieds here sayings gay-mans were beateds by amerikunts, meetings these conditions, reality sayings otherwise.

same with wars against britsh1t, wait till mexicans and spaniards come to burst some more bubbles.

===========================================
I am old Christiankiller
Sorry for offensive to our good religion christian brothers
I am not hating christians

"that was all mate, go hump some kangaroos for all you like, but when you post, use some logic, granted you may lack that faculty.

the best option will be not to take part in a repartee when you lack that faculty."

don't you mean

thats was alls mate, go humps some kangaroos for alls you likes, buts whens you posts, use some logics, granteds you may lacks that facultys.

the bests option wills be nots to takes parts in a repartee whens you lacks thats facultys.

??




-----------------------------------------------

Did Bangladeshis like Anglzion ever win anything? Phuck no. They owe their Gypsy nation to India.

OH for crying out loud. I am so sick of ragheads and the like blaming the United States and the United Kingdom for their woes. Get over it, you were dominated. Suck it up and drive on. I am a huge cheerleader of the United States and a total Anglophile!

The majority of military victories are a combined, international effort. That is especially true of modern warfare.