Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#109 - slenderguy
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
we also burnt down detroit, it was **** before, don't blame us.
#149 to #109 - playerdous
Reply +7
(11/03/2013) [-]
Can you burn it down again, please.
#154 - finblob
Reply -4
(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.
#159 to #154 - themurp
Reply +5
(11/03/2013) [-]
They didn't. Canada didn't exist as a country.
#296 to #159 - finblob
Reply 0
(11/05/2013) [-]
That explains why I didn't know about it.
#65 - ronrod
Reply -8
(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
#72 to #65 - goldsignet
Reply -1
(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.
#77 to #72 - satrenkotheone
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
We should revert back to trench warfare.
#79 to #77 - goldsignet
Reply -1
(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.
#74 to #65 - apatheticalcare **User deleted account**
Reply -1
(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.
#85 to #65 - Crusader
Reply -4
(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
#101 to #85 - callmenotime ONLINE
Reply +2
(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.
#141 to #85 - reginleif
Reply -1
(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.
#191 to #141 - destructodan **User deleted account**
Reply +1
(11/03/2013) [-]
why is Britain a **** ally?
#87 to #65 - anon
Reply 0
(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
(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.
#271 to #65 - ponchosdm
Reply -1
(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.
#272 to #271 - destructodan **User deleted account**
Reply +1
(11/03/2013) [-]
we won the Falklands war
#273 to #272 - ponchosdm
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
haha sorry forgot about the argenti(ns/nians?)
#275 to #273 - destructodan **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
Argentinians. I think
#290 to #271 - ronrod
Reply 0
(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.
#163 to #65 - hudis ONLINE
Reply -3
(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
(11/03/2013) [-]
SO you're saying that militaries don't mean anything?
#183 to #177 - hudis ONLINE
Reply 0
(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
(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.
#107 to #65 - OsamaBinLadenz
Reply +6
(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.
******.
#178 to #107 - ronrod
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
Not sure where you're going with that the U.S. was the driving force behind the U.N.
Elaborate?
#253 to #178 - OsamaBinLadenz
Reply 0
(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
(11/03/2013) [-]
Finally someone who makes sense.
#281 to #107 - damping
Reply 0
(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.
#164 - anon
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
**** those wars, what about WW1 and WW2 (the biggest wars ever) didn't Britain win them?
#206 to #164 - anon
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
Allied won. So every member of the Allied Force won.
#171 to #164 - synchron
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
It wasn't just Britain. France, sort of, helped in the Allied cause, and you can't ever forget America.
#175 to #171 - disturbeddude
Reply +3
(11/03/2013) [-]
Because america doesn't let you forget
#230 to #171 - goblingang
Reply 0
(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.
#102 - bronyrainbowdash
Reply -3
(11/03/2013) [-]
usa lost vietnam war
usa killed Chile president at 9/11
#162 to #102 - rocksteady
Reply +1
(11/03/2013) [-]
U.S.A. did not lose the Vietnam War. U.S.A never went to war with Vietnam. It was a conflict, because the US Congress didn't actually declare war. Instead the US President used his "constitutional discretion" calling it a "police action." U.S.A just went in there and killed a lot of men, women, and children, because Vietnam was negatively affecting neighboring countries.

Furthermore, the whole hippy-woodstock-peace movement came about because U.S.A's involment in Vietnam was so uncalled for, and so un-war related.
#227 - amsel
Reply -1
(11/03/2013) [-]
Canada wasn't even Canada during the War of 1812. And the primary objective of the United States was never to take over Canada (while it was a possibility). It was mostly about America's pent up rage against the British, and the Native Americans' pent up range against the colonists. The British were more interested in the Napoleonic wars, and Canada only had the troops that Britain sent. The outcome was really that the Native Americans lost, the new Americans turned their anger into patriotism, the Canadians decided to work on their own independence to avoid getting caught up in other wars for Britain, and Britain got slightly distracted from their Napoleonic wars for a couple of seconds.
#233 to #227 - ZeDoodler
Reply +1
(11/03/2013) [-]
When we went to make a grab for Canada, it was more of a "**** it, why not. Let's try and take more British land. That'll really piss 'em off."

And it did.
#144 - schneidend
Reply -11
(11/03/2013) [-]
> US not conquered
> White House rebuilt, even more awesomerest than ever my god it's majestic as ****
> other countries still think that can somehow be interpreted as "losing"
mfw
#218 to #144 - anon
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
> 9/11, WTC one-hit-critical-strike-kill and Pentergon bombed real nice
> US soldiers get killed all over the world
> US industry in the crisis
> financial crisis and US national bankruptcy
> USA becomes isolated because of US spying on allied nations politiciens and industry got public
> rich US 1% upperclass own 40%, laughs about their cattle

mfw

enjoy your freedom, m8.
#228 to #218 - anon
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
>9/11 WTC and Pentagon hit but government doesn't fall.   
>Terrorists, anti-government *****, and Muslims extremists die all over the world   
>US industry still functions well, slow improvements being made   
>USA still has many many allies despite NSA scandal. Nations just want truth be told.   
>1% doesn't invest in cattle, they laugh over the stock market    
   
yfw   
You make up BS so a throbbing cock from the West comes to **** you but you already killed yourself.
>9/11 WTC and Pentagon hit but government doesn't fall.
>Terrorists, anti-government *****, and Muslims extremists die all over the world
>US industry still functions well, slow improvements being made
>USA still has many many allies despite NSA scandal. Nations just want truth be told.
>1% doesn't invest in cattle, they laugh over the stock market

yfw
You make up BS so a throbbing cock from the West comes to **** you but you already killed yourself.
#235 to #228 - anon
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
the more the merrier, buddy.
in a fair war against an equaly strong opponent the US would lose. all they do is use drones and high tech soldiers against weak small and countries that refuse to be controlled by the corrupted US.
#251 to #235 - dsrtpnk
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#243 - adhdtookmyaccount
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
I don't think anybody really won outright.
America failed to take Canada and it's capital was burned, Britain failed to take America and got it's ass kicked wile in there.
If anything, the Canadians AND the Americans both won, as they both kept their land and won several major battles.
#277 to #243 - nyxeos
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
The Americans actually lost land, but it was given back to them.
#351 to #277 - InflictorOfPain
Reply 0
(12/01/2013) [-]
Yet the US also gained some land.
#214 - Soilwork
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
Reminds me of the "Fishdicks" episode.
#194 - shadowmaul
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
For Debate reasons I am American and I view all 3 as correct partly because we did lose the first battle horribly and our capital burned as well as the White House and although i don't remember Canada being involved we kicked the **** out of GB after that where every other battle was won by US including the surrender of an GB army in the south that still had thousands of soldiers so I can see why GB wouldnt want to :remember: that
#222 to #194 - themisstophat
Reply -1
(11/03/2013) [-]
It's  not that we don't want to remember it, we just don't deem it important enough to remember.   
I'm afraid we never consider it as a huge part of our history, Americans fighting for their independence is a mere spec in our history.
It's not that we don't want to remember it, we just don't deem it important enough to remember.
I'm afraid we never consider it as a huge part of our history, Americans fighting for their independence is a mere spec in our history.
#236 to #194 - ZeDoodler
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
If I remember correctly, America was fueling patriotism to make an attempt at taking Canada for America, solely for the reason of being able to take more British land. There was a British commander, for the life of me I can't remember his name, that used brilliant scare tactics to route us out.

Canada wasn't really involved, they were just getting pushed around the entire war being like, "What's going on, eh?"
#250 to #236 - verby
Reply -1
(11/03/2013) [-]
The invasion of canada had something to do with the US trying to stay neutral and Britain trying to stop us and America saying "We do what we want, bitch!"
#148 - kurbeh ONLINE
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
There was a war at that time? I only know the one against Napoleon.
Never learned that at school, looks like Germany doesn't give a ****.
#176 - perishing
Reply -2
(11/03/2013) [-]
I'm American and I asked my teacher about the Canadian one. He refused to acknowledge it, said it never happened.
#187 - pandasarekawai
Reply -1
(11/03/2013) [-]
I'm just sitting here thinking "Wow, thewildcat really loves US history"
#208 to #187 - anon
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
even for americunt standards, he is an amazing idiot.
#174 - anon
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
Same thing in Spain
#111 - Dakafal
Reply -4
(11/03/2013) [-]
The war of 1812 as told by a canadian comic
#232 to #111 - dsrtpnk
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
This comic sums up the comments from the Canadians.

"OMG, America just rename the war, "Canadian Independence War" cause the sole purpose was to invade Canada WHICH FAILED HAHAHA and the war ended after the White House burned down and was never rebuilt again cause it's a Tim Hortons. The End.
#270 to #232 - Dakafal
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
I don't understand the hate lol. That was literally a Canadian comic strip.
#274 to #270 - dsrtpnk
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
Me either.

I'll be honest. I don't care about who's better. I like Canada. I have no issue with them.
#356 - anon
Reply 0
(06/22/2014) [-]
Boring. Too much profanity.
#358 to #356 - anon
Reply 0
(03/06/2015) [-]
"Too much profanity"
Boring too much puritan homosexuality.
#355 - anon
Reply 0
(01/25/2014) [-]
I think this is funny, because us here in Europe only hear about the Napoleonic wars. I myself did not hear about the North American war of 1812 until I stumbled upon it as a teenager.
#237 - dbjorgo
Reply -1
(11/03/2013) [-]
The war of 1812 ranks right up there with World War 1 on the list of wars that were ******* pointless. I don't mean that by end results, but rather what they were fighting over
#224 - theshadowed
Reply -1
(11/03/2013) [-]
Napoleonic Wars are really ******* interesting.

I think they're made out to be less important than they were. You don't get taught about in until A-level in Britain, and even then its only the Congress of Viena
#217 - anon
Reply 0
(11/03/2013) [-]
all these comments are pointless, the US and Britain had a little skrimish, no harm no foul, no real victors and at the end was the start of an alliance between US and Britain, and canada remained cold and useless.