Are we due for a rest??

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
6,621
Last edited:

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,167
This is the latest bombing (purportedly done by ISIS) which produced about 90 fatalities:
Oh geeze. Now I've clicked on AlJezeera.:eek: That will make my NSA security score, "high threat level".:mad:
Installing escape tunnel under my bed so I can disappear when the SWAT team throws a flash-bang into the living room at 4 A.M.
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,868
@tcmtech Well the last time you invaded Canada you didn't come off too well - the White House?
I'm pretty sure I have never invaded Canada. I visit there once or twice a year though but it's not really on an invading type quest.:cool:

I don't know about the White House. What did they do now? o_O
 

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
6,621
Installing escape tunnel under my bed so I can disappear when the SWAT team throws a flash-bang into the living room at 4 A.M.
Or, knowing your area's geological situation, you could just wait until a sinkhole opens up under your room... :eek::D
 

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
681
Just heard on the news that the U.S. is sending over 200 more soldiers to Baghdad in an attempt to quell the increasing violence.

Looks like the U.S. has its feet in cement in Iraq and we may be there permanently.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,126
Looks like the U.S. has its feet in cement in Iraq and we may be there permanently.
Let's see, the U.S. has been in Germany a very long time. In fact one of the issues the German Chancellor ran on was to get the U.S. out of Germany. Of course when faced with the amount of money lost from that action, by the local businesses, she quietly stopped mentioning that issue.
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,167
Looks like the U.S. has its feet in cement in Iraq and we may be there permanently.
Interweb reports known reserves of 112 e9 barrels divided by production of 3 e6 barrels per day= 102 years before Iraq runs out of oil, so yes, U.S. military will be there for quite a while.
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,167
I'm pretty sure I have never invaded Canada. I visit there once or twice a year though but it's not really on an invading type quest.:cool:

I don't know about the White House. What did they do now? o_O
Researched on the Intergoogle:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17rgyh/was_it_canadians_or_british_who_burned_down_the/

The official Canadian position (as outlined in their citizenship study guide) is "In 1814, Major-General Robert Ross led an expedition from Nova Scotia that burned down the White House and other public buildings in Washington DC."

But notice the ambiguously worded "expedition from Nova Scotia", it can be interpreted in two ways, one that the expedition was comprised of soldiers from Nova Scotia, the other that the expedition merely disembarked from Nova Scotia.

Upon further research, its clear that the second interpretation is clearly the case, although the wording is deliberately vague to allow for people to mistakenly assume the first interpretation, for what I assume would be for Canadian national pride reasons.

From the British Dictionary of National Biography's entry on Robert Ross, the commanding general of the force that burnt the White House.

The war was hardly at an end when the British government made arrangements to send four brigades of infantry from Wellington's army to America; three of them to Canada, and one as an expeditionary force against the coasts of the United States. Ross was selected for the command of the latter, and embarked with it on 1 June 1814. It consisted of three battalions, to which a fourth was added at Bermuda, bringing up the strength to 3,400 men.

Given that the preceding paragraph talks about Ross' involvement in the Peninsular war, it's clear that those brigades from Wellington's army were being sent from Spain.

Also, given the professional nature of a British expeditionary force, it is extremely unlikely it being comprised solely or even mostly of Canadians, though this does not preclude the possibility there were some Canadians in the force. However, if it was viewed as a Canadian unit, it would've most likely been cited in the record, because it would've been noteworthy with regards to its unusualness, and the relevance of their unit's home location to the ongoing conflict.

The fact of the matter is, they were British troops, many of which had come freshly from the Spanish peninsular war, and had been fighting in Europe for the past few years.

So in short, it was the British who burnt down the White House, not the Canadians.

And my rebuttal to Canadians who cite this claim, and defend it by saying "well Canada was a part of the British Empire back then", is to simply say:

"Saying the Canadians burnt down the White House is as true as saying the Australians burnt down the White House, because they were both part of the British Empire."
 

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
681
Interweb reports known reserves of 112 e9 barrels divided by production of 3 e6 barrels per day= 102 years before Iraq runs out of oil, so yes, U.S. military will be there for quite a while.
The oil in Iraq belongs to Iraq -not the U.S.

Although U.S. and British oil companies run the drilling, extraction, and shipping processes, they are legally obligated to pay the owners for what they take. "We need it, we want it, we will take it" is no excuse to invade another country.
 
Top