Is the US really No. 1?
Arctic_Menace @ Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:29 pm
BlackyBoy BlackyBoy:
[font=Comic Sans MS] [/font]
Fact: By definition .... those patriots that fought back US agression during war of 1812 were not "Canadians" at that point in time. Canada was officially formed in 1867.the "Coalition Of Thee Willing" so to speak was Brits,French,
Upper Canada settlers and native Indians.
Fact: The " Americans " who fought the Revolution were just in fact disgruntled
colonists who were fighting Brit dominance . So therefore.. the "Americans" at that time were no more " American " then so called "Canadians " who fought in the War of 1812. Canadians have fought for their independance too..Once militarily with USA and a slow 100 year diplomatic fight with Brits.
Fact: By definition .... those patriots that fought back US agression during war of 1812 were not "Canadians" at that point in time. Canada was officially formed in 1867.the "Coalition Of Thee Willing" so to speak was Brits,French,
Upper Canada settlers and native Indians.
Fact: The " Americans " who fought the Revolution were just in fact disgruntled
colonists who were fighting Brit dominance . So therefore.. the "Americans" at that time were no more " American " then so called "Canadians " who fought in the War of 1812. Canadians have fought for their independance too..Once militarily with USA and a slow 100 year diplomatic fight with Brits.
Fact: the nation was not officially Canada at the time.
Fact: The people who fought in the war of 1812 were known as Canadians. Both by the Americans and British.
Chill out guys, it's not like I insulted your family or anything. Sheesh.
Welsh @ Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:53 am
Regarding the War of 1812, all evidence I have heard indicates it was the British that burned down the White House.
These quotes were picked up from this very site. I apologize to the posters as I did not record their names.
I have underlined or put in bold, significant passages.
$1:
"By 1814 the defenders of Canada had repelled five separate American invasions, but they were running low on reenforcements and supplies to withstand the American assaults.
In Quebec City, the British Governor General of Canada Sir George Prevost believed that he could not hold out much longer without more help from Great Britain, he wrote desperate appeals to London to send him men and supplies.
In the summer of 1814 Sir George Prevost got his wish. Napoleon had been defeated in Europe freeing up tens of thousands of British troops to fight in North America, most of the British forces were shipped over to Quebec City and Montreal and put at the disposal of Governor General Prevost.
Prevost had a reputation of being a hesitant commander but now he had enough troops to go on the offensive.
Governor General Prevost devised plans for his first full scale invasion of the United States. He would personally lead the main invasion force south from Montreal down the Richelieu River and into Lake Champlain, if he could destroy the American naval facilities there he would turn his attention to control of the great lakes and the Michigan territory which the British had promised to the Indian people as a future country.
The key to controling the lakes was the American naval base at Sackets Harbour, and that is where President James Madison felt most vulnerable.
While the United States government was concentrating on the defences hundereds of miles away on it's northern border it neglected matters closer to home.
In the late summer of 1814 a British fleet was sent into Chesapeake Bay to make a deversionary attack against Washington and Baltimore.
When the lead British ships appeared in Chesapeake Bay in August 1814 the Americans had no idea where they were headed or what their intentions were. The British sailed up the Patuxent River and moved ashore a force of nearly five thousand crack troops fresh from the battle fields of Europe.
In the American capitol there was a curious lack of alarm when word arrived that the British invasion force had come ashore. At the new Congress building there was no serious worry that the capitol of the United States might be attacked. At the White house or President's Palace there was little concern, the leaders of the United States had been assured by the Secretary of War that there was no danger.
John Armstrong assured the president that the British might attack Baltimore but the young capitol was in no danger.
Mr. Madison rode to the front to watch the up coming battle, he sent a note to his wife:
"My dearest I have passed among the troops who are in high spirits and make a good appearance. The reports as to the enemy has varied from hour to hour, the last and probally best information is that they are not very strong and are without cavarly and artillery and of coarse they are not in a condition to strike at Washington."
Dolly Madison the presidents wife was now hearing differently. Mrs. Madison knew what was a foot better than her husband the British moved relentlessly on Washington knowing the effect it would have on the people of the United States to have their nations capitol attacked.
The British soon got word that the only troops standing between them and Washington were militia units. The main British force moved into a Washington suburb and after a brief battle the militia units broke and ran, in the words of one American observer:
"They ran like sheep being chased by dogs".
Several hunderd U.S. sailors came ashore to fight but they could not stop the British advance for very long.
The military problems of Mr. Madison and his cabinet faced on the Canadian frontier were now being repeated at the door of the nations capitol.
Once the battle had commenced Mr. Madison and the Secretaries of War and State decided it would be better to withdraw to a position in the rear.
Ahead of the President word shot back to Washington that all was not well. The British invasion force was now clearly in on the capitol, the presidents wife Dolly Madison dashes of a note to her sister:
"Will you believe it my sister, we have a battle or skirmish near the city. I am still within sounds of the cannons, Mr. Madison comes not. May God protect us. Two messengers come in and asked me to leave the capitol, I must stay here and wait for my husband."
While Mrs. Madison showed great courage at the White House . Mr. madison was tracking down the Secretary of War to find out what steps were in the works to meet the final British assault, he was shocked and disheartened to find out there was no plan.
The 25th of August 1814, the British approached the heart of Washington, march down Constitution Avenue bearing a flag of truce and demand a surrender. Suddenly from a house window the flag of truce is fired apon.
The British troops rushed into the house where the shots had been fired from, and put all who were found in the house to the sword and then reduced the house to ashes. They went onto burn and destroy every building connected to the government.
While Washington burned, the president and his cabinet became fugitives fleeing westward deep into the hills of Virginia. At the White House Mrs. Madison was persuaded to leave also, and soon after the British troops arrived.
When these British soldiers who had been sent to destroy the President's house entered they found a dinner that had been made for about forty people. They ate every bit of food and drank every bottle of wine, then started to destroy the White House.
Washington D.C. the capitol of the United States was a city on fire, what had started two years earlier as the invasion and conquest of Canada (a subject territory) had now turned into a defensive war."
In Quebec City, the British Governor General of Canada Sir George Prevost believed that he could not hold out much longer without more help from Great Britain, he wrote desperate appeals to London to send him men and supplies.
In the summer of 1814 Sir George Prevost got his wish. Napoleon had been defeated in Europe freeing up tens of thousands of British troops to fight in North America, most of the British forces were shipped over to Quebec City and Montreal and put at the disposal of Governor General Prevost.
Prevost had a reputation of being a hesitant commander but now he had enough troops to go on the offensive.
Governor General Prevost devised plans for his first full scale invasion of the United States. He would personally lead the main invasion force south from Montreal down the Richelieu River and into Lake Champlain, if he could destroy the American naval facilities there he would turn his attention to control of the great lakes and the Michigan territory which the British had promised to the Indian people as a future country.
The key to controling the lakes was the American naval base at Sackets Harbour, and that is where President James Madison felt most vulnerable.
While the United States government was concentrating on the defences hundereds of miles away on it's northern border it neglected matters closer to home.
In the late summer of 1814 a British fleet was sent into Chesapeake Bay to make a deversionary attack against Washington and Baltimore.
When the lead British ships appeared in Chesapeake Bay in August 1814 the Americans had no idea where they were headed or what their intentions were. The British sailed up the Patuxent River and moved ashore a force of nearly five thousand crack troops fresh from the battle fields of Europe.
In the American capitol there was a curious lack of alarm when word arrived that the British invasion force had come ashore. At the new Congress building there was no serious worry that the capitol of the United States might be attacked. At the White house or President's Palace there was little concern, the leaders of the United States had been assured by the Secretary of War that there was no danger.
John Armstrong assured the president that the British might attack Baltimore but the young capitol was in no danger.
Mr. Madison rode to the front to watch the up coming battle, he sent a note to his wife:
"My dearest I have passed among the troops who are in high spirits and make a good appearance. The reports as to the enemy has varied from hour to hour, the last and probally best information is that they are not very strong and are without cavarly and artillery and of coarse they are not in a condition to strike at Washington."
Dolly Madison the presidents wife was now hearing differently. Mrs. Madison knew what was a foot better than her husband the British moved relentlessly on Washington knowing the effect it would have on the people of the United States to have their nations capitol attacked.
The British soon got word that the only troops standing between them and Washington were militia units. The main British force moved into a Washington suburb and after a brief battle the militia units broke and ran, in the words of one American observer:
"They ran like sheep being chased by dogs".
Several hunderd U.S. sailors came ashore to fight but they could not stop the British advance for very long.
The military problems of Mr. Madison and his cabinet faced on the Canadian frontier were now being repeated at the door of the nations capitol.
Once the battle had commenced Mr. Madison and the Secretaries of War and State decided it would be better to withdraw to a position in the rear.
Ahead of the President word shot back to Washington that all was not well. The British invasion force was now clearly in on the capitol, the presidents wife Dolly Madison dashes of a note to her sister:
"Will you believe it my sister, we have a battle or skirmish near the city. I am still within sounds of the cannons, Mr. Madison comes not. May God protect us. Two messengers come in and asked me to leave the capitol, I must stay here and wait for my husband."
While Mrs. Madison showed great courage at the White House . Mr. madison was tracking down the Secretary of War to find out what steps were in the works to meet the final British assault, he was shocked and disheartened to find out there was no plan.
The 25th of August 1814, the British approached the heart of Washington, march down Constitution Avenue bearing a flag of truce and demand a surrender. Suddenly from a house window the flag of truce is fired apon.
The British troops rushed into the house where the shots had been fired from, and put all who were found in the house to the sword and then reduced the house to ashes. They went onto burn and destroy every building connected to the government.
While Washington burned, the president and his cabinet became fugitives fleeing westward deep into the hills of Virginia. At the White House Mrs. Madison was persuaded to leave also, and soon after the British troops arrived.
When these British soldiers who had been sent to destroy the President's house entered they found a dinner that had been made for about forty people. They ate every bit of food and drank every bottle of wine, then started to destroy the White House.
Washington D.C. the capitol of the United States was a city on fire, what had started two years earlier as the invasion and conquest of Canada (a subject territory) had now turned into a defensive war."
$1:
As one of those resident historian types here, I'd say you got the gist of it, especially the rather amusing if insulting name the Brits gave the battle.
The prepared dinner the Brits sat down to at the President's Mansion aka The Pink House (remember it didn't get the name White House until after it was torched, the white being the white wash used to cover the scorch marks) was supposed to be the "victory dinner" for the US troops after they "sent the invaders back to their ships."
As the Brits were the "victors" and as the US generals and political types were otherwise occupied that evening still "withdrawing in great haste" and as the dinner was already cooked why let it go to waste. They ate it prior to engaging in a little post meal arson.
The only "Canadian connection" with this campaign is that the fleet stopped in Halifax on the way back to Europe and the commander of the troops, General Ross, who was killed at Baltimore is buried there."
The prepared dinner the Brits sat down to at the President's Mansion aka The Pink House (remember it didn't get the name White House until after it was torched, the white being the white wash used to cover the scorch marks) was supposed to be the "victory dinner" for the US troops after they "sent the invaders back to their ships."
As the Brits were the "victors" and as the US generals and political types were otherwise occupied that evening still "withdrawing in great haste" and as the dinner was already cooked why let it go to waste. They ate it prior to engaging in a little post meal arson.
The only "Canadian connection" with this campaign is that the fleet stopped in Halifax on the way back to Europe and the commander of the troops, General Ross, who was killed at Baltimore is buried there."
$1:
"The burning of Washington did not, IIRC, involve any Canadian troops although this is a persistent Canadian myth. As far as I know, the troops were all British Army, Royal Marines and sailors landed on the Maryland coast by the Royal Navy. They marched inland, scattered the hasty US defense at the Battle of Bladensburg (rudely referred to by the British as the "Bladensburg Races" due the speed with which US troops buggered off), then got to work making a mess of Washington
From what I can tell the British responsible for burning the White House probably had never even set foot in North America before this particular campaign.
Now can we start a new thread about how Canada can beat the US in a war or destroy the US economy by withholding water and power? Those are lots of fun too.
figfarmer @ Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:26 am
If so, then why doesn't he learn to spell?
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Thu Apr 14, 2005 4:01 pm
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
Welsh Welsh:
Arctic_Menace wrote:
Arctic_Menace, what a jerk-off Canadian.
This infant mortality rate comparison between the US and Cuba has been discredited many times, but I can understand why you would want to post it – because anything bad you can report about the US gives you a warm feeling in your pants.
Here are some reasons I have gathered from sources such as Slate.com and Wall Street Journal on this exact issue:
1. "The United States . . . has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality--the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.
How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams [14 ounces] and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive--and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent--that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.
In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics."
2. "In 1998 Switzerland's infant mortality of 4.8 per 1,000 births was only two-thirds of the rate found in the United States (7.2 per 1,000).107 However, Switzerland does not treat the death of an infant born less than 30 centimeters in length as a live birth. This threshold effectively excludes many very low birth weight babies such as those weighing less than one kilogram (2.2 pounds). Yet, close to one-third of all infant deaths recorded in the United States are among infants weighing 2.2 pounds or less. If these very low birth weight infants (most of which measure less then 30 centimeters) were reclassified in the United States vital statistics as "stillborn" rather than "live births," the respective rates of the two countries would be similar."
Hey Arctic_Menace, why don't you report on the 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed by the US since the Iraq War started. Most US-bashers love to throw that discredited number around too.
I know, why not open a "Canadians burned down the White House" thread. This is another one of many lies that Canadians use to comfort themselves with.
I would love to see a "Talking with Canadians" show and see how many stupid things about the US we could get Canadians to say. Judging by the posts here, it wouldn't take long to have enough material for a two-hour special.
$1:
The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
Arctic_Menace, what a jerk-off Canadian.
This infant mortality rate comparison between the US and Cuba has been discredited many times, but I can understand why you would want to post it – because anything bad you can report about the US gives you a warm feeling in your pants.
Here are some reasons I have gathered from sources such as Slate.com and Wall Street Journal on this exact issue:
1. "The United States . . . has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality--the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.
How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams [14 ounces] and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive--and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent--that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.
In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics."
2. "In 1998 Switzerland's infant mortality of 4.8 per 1,000 births was only two-thirds of the rate found in the United States (7.2 per 1,000).107 However, Switzerland does not treat the death of an infant born less than 30 centimeters in length as a live birth. This threshold effectively excludes many very low birth weight babies such as those weighing less than one kilogram (2.2 pounds). Yet, close to one-third of all infant deaths recorded in the United States are among infants weighing 2.2 pounds or less. If these very low birth weight infants (most of which measure less then 30 centimeters) were reclassified in the United States vital statistics as "stillborn" rather than "live births," the respective rates of the two countries would be similar."
Hey Arctic_Menace, why don't you report on the 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed by the US since the Iraq War started. Most US-bashers love to throw that discredited number around too.
I know, why not open a "Canadians burned down the White House" thread. This is another one of many lies that Canadians use to comfort themselves with.
$1:
Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the Earth. Seventeen percent believe the Earth revolves around the sun once a day
I would love to see a "Talking with Canadians" show and see how many stupid things about the US we could get Canadians to say. Judging by the posts here, it wouldn't take long to have enough material for a two-hour special.
Wow, someone has serious issues to deal with
..................... (P.S. I fainted because I found it to be totally stupid and unbelievable that America could be so low. I fainted from incomprehension
.)I think Welsh pretty much ripped your little statistic flame apart. How'd it feel
Anyone who knows anything about statistics would know that you can make them say anything you want. Throwing out a couple numbers doesn't mean anything. About Americans thinking the sun goes around the earth, what can I say, we have some stupidasses in our country(doesn't everyone). I really don't see how it matters though. You have to look at what percentage of the population they studied for that number, what the age groups were, if someone was just joking in their answer to that question, what the average intelligence/schooling of people was, and etc. To throw out one stat and then act like it is some universal truth is kind of dishonest if you ask me.
Arctic_Menace @ Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:48 pm
It felt good Johnny, like playing World of Warcraft high at 11:30 at night .
Johnnybgoodaaaaa @ Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:51 pm
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
It felt good Johnny, like playing World of Warcraft high at 11:30 at night .
.Well, I can't knock being high. It's one of my favorite past-times
Arctic_Menace @ Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:53 pm
ROFLMFAO!!!!
Constantinople @ Sun Apr 24, 2005 2:17 am
GreatBriton GreatBriton:
The GDP's of the world's two largest economies -
Lets see:
European Union 11,848,195 Mill $
United States 11,784,781 Mil $
(The data here is an estimation for the year 2005 produced by the International Monetary Fund in September 2004, in international Dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_GDP_%28PPP%29))
Lets see:
European Union 11,848,195 Mill $
United States 11,784,781 Mil $
(The data here is an estimation for the year 2005 produced by the International Monetary Fund in September 2004, in international Dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_GDP_%28PPP%29))
United States: one country.
European Union: many countries.
Great Britain: not a part of the EU.
You: major dumbass loser.
Constantinople @ Sun Apr 24, 2005 2:20 am
hwacker hwacker:
Suxs to be them
They had a head start on everybody, I don't feel sorry for any nation that has hundreds of years head start and still is a shithole, why should we ?
Why are they in the state?
You know what happens to weak animals in the wild don't you?
and don't post they are not animals, i know that.
They had a head start on everybody, I don't feel sorry for any nation that has hundreds of years head start and still is a shithole, why should we ?
Why are they in the state?
You know what happens to weak animals in the wild don't you?
and don't post they are not animals, i know that.
Excellent point.
RUEZ @ Sun Apr 24, 2005 2:22 am
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
hwacker hwacker:
Suxs to be them
They had a head start on everybody, I don't feel sorry for any nation that has hundreds of years head start and still is a shithole, why should we ?
Why are they in the state?
You know what happens to weak animals in the wild don't you?
and don't post they are not animals, i know that.
They had a head start on everybody, I don't feel sorry for any nation that has hundreds of years head start and still is a shithole, why should we ?
Why are they in the state?
You know what happens to weak animals in the wild don't you?
and don't post they are not animals, i know that.
Excellent point.
Constantinople @ Sun Apr 24, 2005 2:25 am
RUEZ RUEZ:
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
hwacker hwacker:
Suxs to be them
They had a head start on everybody, I don't feel sorry for any nation that has hundreds of years head start and still is a shithole, why should we ?
Why are they in the state?
You know what happens to weak animals in the wild don't you?
and don't post they are not animals, i know that.
They had a head start on everybody, I don't feel sorry for any nation that has hundreds of years head start and still is a shithole, why should we ?
Why are they in the state?
You know what happens to weak animals in the wild don't you?
and don't post they are not animals, i know that.
Excellent point.
You assume a lot.
flyman01 @ Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:36 pm
The USA was founded on Greed, Slavery, Theft, Rape, and Deception. Clearly not the best. The worst for moral values.
Legion @ Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:07 pm
I dont think you can sum a country up by saying are they #1? The US might be behind in many areas, including education but we are ahead in many as well. Why does the world drink Coke, or eat McDonalds, or use Citibank? The US excels at marketing its products and in the end isnt that all that matters? Its a very broad subject. We have taken over the world in other ways, by selling and making our products available to all.
Legion @ Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:08 pm
$1:
flyman01 Posted: -7 Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USA was founded on Greed, Slavery, Theft, Rape, and Deception. Clearly not the best. The worst for moral values.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USA was founded on Greed, Slavery, Theft, Rape, and Deception. Clearly not the best. The worst for moral values.
What Anglo Saxon nation wasnt, common that was the past.
-Mario- @ Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:39 pm
Legion Legion:
$1:
The USA was founded on Greed, Slavery, Theft, Rape, and Deception. Clearly not the best. The worst for moral values.
What Anglo Saxon nation wasnt, common that was the past.
Glad to say that Canada wasn't...