The Only American General to Lose a War Dead at 91

[Verto]

Originally posted by Wezil


You chose a time when the Brits were somewhat busy with bigger fish to fry.

It's not our fault the British kept at it. Impressing 6,000 Americans into service with the British Navy, attacking the Chesapeake, setting up embargoes and seizing nearly a thousand American ships..yes, it's clear that the Americans were the one itching to attack unprovoked the British Empire.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Actually the causus belli was impressment of US merchant seamen into service for the Brits. A clear indication that the Brits did not respect the US sovereignty nor their impartiality in the war in Europe. A policy that decidedly ended after the war of 1812. (perhaps due to the fact that the war in Europe had come to a close but moreover that the Brits got their a$$es handed to them especially when they supposedly brought the full weight of their attention to the US conflict at the end of the war)

Victory for the US.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The ultimate American objective in the War of 1812 was the conquest of Canada.

I love the delusions of Canucks!

Of course that whole impressment thing and British troops in the Ohio River Valley didn't mean anything. NO, it was conquering Canada!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Wezil


What about the beginning? Glad you agree with my point.

The beginning doesn't matter, (and quite truthfully we sucked in the beginning.) Its the finishing that matters.

US closes the deal.

[DinoDoc]

Silly Canadians. Getting pwnd by thier own threadjack.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Battle of Thames



On October 5, 1813, at the Battle of Thames, American forces cross into Canada across Lake Erie after the American victory on the lake. British forces, under General Proctor, are forced to withdraw, with American forces following closely. The American forces catch up with the British and Indians, and decisively defeat them. Tecumseh, the Indian chief, is killed in the battle.

Pwned then, pwnded now.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

dp hunted down and destroyed

[Verto]

The results of the war were, IMO, thus:

No one gained any serious territory or concessions. However, the Americans and Canadians both came out on top in that both countries experienced a heightened sense of nationalism, both felt like they had proven themselves able to defend and provide for themselves. Additionally, the war ended with the US recognized as able to hold its own against one of the greatest armies, and the greatest navy, in the world; after the war, the US military was able to make the changes that would allow it to score another win, with the Spanish. Then there was the economic benefit, when we adjusted to deal with the British blockades. And the fact that the British no longer supported the Indian tribes that were attacking American settlements.

All things considered, I'd say the British came in third, the Canadians second, and Americans first.

And an interesting quote as I browsed through a couple websites on the war:

Canadian historian Pierre Berton has written that if the War of 1812 had never happened Canada would be part of the United States today, as more and more American settlers would have arrived, and Canadian nationalism would never have developed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Canadian historian Pierre Berton has written that if the War of 1812 had never happened Canada would be part of the United States today, as more and more American settlers would have arrived, and Canadian nationalism would never have developed.

Very true. Which is why I think the Americans beat the British, but the Canadians got the best deal of everyone.

Canada > USA > Britain

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by sprucemoose3311
how did the us lose vietnam if us involvement ended in 1973, pulled out all us military personel and left by april. then wietnam fell due to high corruption in may of 1975...

Let's see: 11 years, 58k dead, 153k wounded, a huge stain on the US military credibility and morale, massive distrust of the government at home, alienation of returning servicemen and the take-over of the south by the communists anyway. Yep, you guys won the **** out of that war.

[Verto]

Even I, The Reagan, admit the Vietnam War was a huge defeat, the result of the military not being given an unchanging objective: complete victory.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Saras


And achieved almost none of the objectives.

Actually both sides achieved all of their pre war objectives. This goes a long way towards explaining why the war ended.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by sprucemoose3311
how did the us lose vietnam if us involvement ended in 1973, pulled out all us military personel and left by april. then wietnam fell due to high corruption in may of 1975...

US 'lost' vietnam because we fought a huge war which didn't achieved any of it's objectives. This was probably inevitable since the US failed to actually define any objectives that could be achieved through such a limited war.

No question there was a war and we didn't win it, so trying to argue we didn't lose it is basically pointless regardless of the lopsided endless series of (ultimately irrelevant) total military victories on the battlefield.

[Saras]

Yes, the brits pwnd boney. That's what really mattered.

[sprucemoose3311]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Let's see: 11 years, 58k dead, 153k wounded, a huge stain on the US military credibility and morale, massive distrust of the government at home, alienation of returning servicemen and the take-over of the south by the communists anyway. Yep, you guys won the **** out of that war.

yet another brilliant quote from someone who has never researched authoratative sources on the subject....

right up there with the journalists who continue to perpetuate myths as facts, journalists who have never even read a book on the war