Burning the White House.

[Zarn]

You people take this way too seriously. If you don't want to see the other side then fine. That's not my problem. It has nothing to do with pride. This is why I said it is Britain's choice to apoligize. It is apparently too recent for the Brits to do so.

US citizenship of any of my family does not even go that far. I don't understand how I would have a nationalistic motive.

 

[DAv2003]

Because you continouly refuse to see that the US has no right to demand an apology when you declared war and burned down the capital of Canada first and then shot British soldier flying a flag of truce.

 

[silver 2039]

How difficult is it to comprhend that the US declared war on Britian first. Attacked Canada and burnt Canadian cities including York.
That was a war and the British retaliated by burning parts of Washington. (Washington was'nt even that important at this time a fairly new city and rather swampy)
If you think Britian should apologize for that quite frankly I have no more to say to you....

 

[cidknee]

ok were any of you personally involved in this?NO, Did u lose your house? family? pets? NO... so let it go.

 

[Zarn]

We declared war in the defense of our ships (yes I know about the hawks too). The British had no right to even be inthe US let alone Washington. If the Brits wanted a truce, then shouldn't have sent any soldiers to Washington.

Like I said, I'm glad we beat you were it counted, as Canada wasn't our main objective. Canada was the secondary objective.

 

[Evie]

They had NO RIGHT to be in the US, let alone Washington?

You're showing a strange level of blind naivete on the whole issue of *war*. When you declare war on another nation, that nation damn well has the right to invade any target belonging to you, and if you can't protect those targets, you have only yourself to blame for it.

 

[Zarn]

If you declare war on another nation, that nation's troops DOES have a right to invade you. Period.

Britain never had the right. It was their usual bullying.

Odd how people don't like war today, but believe their country was justified in bullying a young nation that just took off its training wheels.

I love being controversial. Hopefully, I can get people to think.

 

[Evie]

I don't LIKE war, and I think the british attitude (impressment) was entirely undefensible. And incidentally, I'm french-canadian, so I am not particularly fond of england either.

I'm just even less fond of the arrogance inerent in the attitude that once the war had started (and declared by the US), britain had "no rights" to attack American soil. War is war, and if you can't defend yourself and declare war anyway, then the other nations in the war have every rights to strike at your country itself.

 

[Hotpoint]

We declared war in the defense of our ships (yes I know about the hawks too).

I'm afraid you just bought into the propaganda

The British had no right to even be inthe US let alone Washington.

You're saying that the United States had a right to attack Britain but Britain had no right to counter-attack The United States

If the Brits wanted a truce, then shouldn't have sent any soldiers to Washington.

If the Yanks wanted a truce they shouldn't have sent any soldiers into Canada in the first place.

Odd how people don't like war today, but believe their country was justified in bullying a young nation that just took off its training wheels.

Which brings me back to my earlier point regarding Commodore Perry and the US "bullying" of Japan in the 1850's... and for that matter whether the embargo on Japan in 1941 was a valid reason for Pearl Harbour?

 

[privatehudson]

Britain never had the right. It was their usual bullying.

Saying they didn't doesn't make it so, merely your opinion which quite frankly stinks of bias to me. When war is declared you loose a lot of rights, including the right strangely enough not to have foreign troops on your land. The quickes way to make an enemy see sense is hit them where it hurts, simple as, so yes we had a right, as did you to invade Canada.

Like I said, I'm glad we beat you were it counted, as Canada wasn't our main objective. Canada was the secondary objective.

Please enlighten us to what you consider the primary objective.

 

[Evie]

The end of impressment, blockades et al, mostly, I think.

Not that ANY of those had to do with the fact that england just plain didn't need them anymore after the defeat of Napoléon...

 

[Nyvin]

Saying that since it was wartime England basically had the right to do whatever it wanted is nonsense. There are codes of conduct to conduct 'civilized' warfare, and burning down a city filled with nothing but civilians is hardly civil. If the US and Britain were to go to war nowadays and the US destroyed London, it wouldn't be considered civil either.

 

[Evie]

First off, the rules protecting civilians during war where mostly adopted via treaty over the XXth century. Back during the war in 1812, cities were considered legitimate target, and the US certainly didn't hesitate to do it (burning of York/future Toronto).

Second off, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington . "Burning a city filled with civilians" would indeed have been a great wrong. Burning the government buildings and sparing the vast majority of civilians residences city is WELL within the rights of any nation.

Essentialy, if you were right about the British burning the whole city, you'd be right about the whole thing. Problem is, you're wrong about that "burning the whole city" bit.

 

[privatehudson]

Saying that since it was wartime England basically had the right to do whatever it wanted is nonsense.

I never said anything was justifiable, I said that invading the USA was justifiable. I also said that you loose some rights when you declare war on an enemy, but I never said you loose all rights. If an enemy declares war on you then you are perfectly within your rights to take that war to their land. If you burn down their towns then you shouldn't be suprised when they burn down yours. You certainly loose the right to complain about it without the complaint being considered hypocritical.

There are codes of conduct to conduct 'civilized' warfare, and burning down a city filled with nothing but civilians is hardly civil

Is there any evidence of widespread loss of life resulting from the destruction of either place?

If the US and Britain were to go to war nowadays and the US destroyed London, it wouldn't be considered civil either.

I'd say it is considered well within the boundaries of modern warfare to attack military and governmental buildings in enemy cities, so I'd argue against this being the case.

 

[storealex]

The Brits had every right to burn down the White House.

What they didn't have the right to, however, was to attack Denmark and terrorbomb our Capital. Destroying almost only civilian targets. Screw you Admiral Nelson!

 

[privatehudson]

They had more right under Nelson than they did in 1807. At least under Nelson they attacked mostly the harbour and actually bothered to declare their intentions prior to the attack. In 1807 they didn't even declare war and just hit out at everything.

 

[Rambuchan]

At the start of this thread it had a more contemporary feel. The question sat in the context of the Iraq War, the shoulder-to-shoulder war on terror and that 'special relationship'. The answer to the question would clearly have to be - "No, entirely inappropriate and untimely, (especially given all the crap Britain has taken to be the US' poddle)." It would be entirely inappropriate in the modern day context.

As for the progression of the thread, well you started it, no you started it - zzzzzzzzz.

There are far larger matters which should be apologised for - BOTH should apologise for slavery - no one ever talks of paying reparations and compensations for that. Aid is not the same thing. And Hiroshima - I can't believe whoever it was who said "No we shouldn't apoligse for Hiroshima". WTF!? That's the biggest apology owed after the Holocaust, (oh and slavery). I mean it is simply ridiculous to hold views that such an action was justified, especially in the light of the US' current position(s) on nuclear weapons.

But all this is absolutely empty talk for an event so long ago. So much water has passed under the bridge since, it just seems quite irrelevant.

VOTED: No - it's history.

 

[DAv2003]

What they didn't have the right to, however, was to attack Denmark and terrorbomb our Capital. Destroying almost only civilian targets. Screw you Admiral Nelson!

Actually it was Wellington who led the attack. Nelson was dead by that time. Also if Denmark had agreed to sell us their navy we wouldn't have had to attack Denmark and seize it.

 

[storealex]

Actually it was Wellington who led the attack. Nelson was dead by that time. Also if Denmark had agreed to sell us their navy we wouldn't have had to attack Denmark and seize it.

If England and France had agreed to let Hitler have Poland...

Face it, you attacked us unprovoked like a thief in the night, and forced us into the war on Napoleons side.

 

[Che Guava]

Maybe we should start a collaborative book: The Big Book of British Appologies, to address any and all wrongs England has incurred on the people of the world:first on the list, a long overdue 'sorry there, chaps" to the Picts, the poor folks who got booted from Caledonia 1 800 years ago by Angles, Saxons & Jutes. We can then work our way through all of british history, right up until the present, when our english brothers can appologize for unleashing Ali G upon the world...