Corrections noted.
However, the fact remains that Canada did not burn it down. If it's still that much of an issue for Trump, he should go complain at Queen Elizabeth, who will not be very impressed.
Military Aggression and the United States (split from Random Thoughts 2)
- Thread starter Commodore
- Start date
However, the fact remains that Canada did not burn it down. If it's still that much of an issue for Trump, he should go complain at Queen Elizabeth, who will not be very impressed.
Lexicus
Deity
That's true, it was a contingent of British troops that burned it down.
I just want to revisit this and mention that we "whumped" Mexico so that the states who would go on to form the Confederacy could extend slavery further west. It's really one of the most shameful moments in US history.
We whumped Mexico without losing a battle.
I just want to revisit this and mention that we "whumped" Mexico so that the states who would go on to form the Confederacy could extend slavery further west. It's really one of the most shameful moments in US history.
Yes, I mean, Swiss army indeed played major role in keeping the country safe.
As for your point about US army and imperial ambitions, I would be the last person on this forum to argue against that.
Well, it wasn't anything to do with George III - he was already into his dotage by then. It might have been something to do with Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (Queen Victoria's father), but I don't know.
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Payback for Port Dover and York
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Port_Dover
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_York
It's irrelevant who was on the throne at the time. Queen Elizabeth II is the current monarch, so if Donald Trump wants to complain and whine about this 200+ years later, she's the logical person for him to complain and whine at.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
He's back on a trolling bent. He's significantly less fun to talk to now.
Just trying to get you all to stop taking yourselves so seriously. I mean, you all here are so wound up about every little thing that goes on that it's just too hard to not poke at you a bit.
Ahuh. We do have a range of emoticons to indicate when one is not being serious.
But people not being able to tell when I'm serious and when I'm not is the whole point.
Lexicus
Deity
I mean, it's the usual, he said something rather stupid and when I pointed out how stupid it was he intentionally misunderstood and is now pretending it was all just some fun trolling
But that's just it, you are assuming I'm claiming what I said here to be the trolling. Maybe it's not. Maybe what I'm saying in the thread about a socialist getting elected is the trolling. Or, maybe there's a little bit of seriousness and trolling mixed into each individual post I make. Or maybe I've been 100% dishonest about everything I've ever posted here.
I mean, I'm just spitballing here. How many times has Canada been invaded since the War of 1812?
Then how was the US able to conduct so many military operations since the War of 1812? Ostensibly, oceans protect both parties. And probably aren't a significant protection when it comes to North/South aggression. These natural barriers aren't so 'barrier' in the time-frames we're discussing.
Lexicus
Deity
The US conducted only negligible operations overseas during the remainder of the 19th century, and none against an enemy of remotely comparable military power.
By the time the US did engage in significant military operations overseas against an enemy power in the same weight class (World War I) its principal rivals had been fatally weakened by fighting. The world's financial center of gravity passed from London to New York during World War I and of course the US was able to invade two other continents in World War II because at that time it comprised around half the world's economic activity.
Neither the Germans nor the Japanese ever had the logistical ability to support significant expeditionary forces on the North American continent. The British tried to dominate the colonies from across the Atlantic in the war of independence and failed, again largely due to the poor logistics involved (and the fact that Britain's European rivals intervened on the American side).
tl;dr the barriers are certainly the most important factor in why the US has never been seriously invaded. The US itself is able to easily surmount those barriers because of the relatively unique geopolitical position it has occupied since 1916 and especially since 1945.
EDIT: A good analogy here is actually the Alps. They were a barrier protecting Italy from barbarians living north of the mountains for hundreds of years, not a perfect barrier but a barrier nonetheless. By the time of Augustus the Roman Empire was sufficiently powerful that it could provide the logistical support needed for its forces to cross the Alps relatively easily, and indeed under Augustus the region was conquered by the Romans in a series of campaigns over the course of two or three decades. Would anyone say the Alps didn't really constitute a barrier?
Last edited:
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
He's got a point here. It really is best not to expend so much effort on people who do not argue in good faith.
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Or maybe you Really are Kane and you are trying to sow discord as part of your world domination plans.
whereas the expansion of the US Navy throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to turn the Atlantic into a barrier for America's military opponents was a relatively minor consideration
Ferocitus
Deity
Do you know that Poland and Germany went into Sudetenland at roughly the same time?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie#Part_of_Poland_(1938–1939)
I'm not downplaying the horrors that fell on Poland soon after, but it was all fun and games until the jackboot was on the other foot.
Similar threads
