5 ms·

What if, even if so? The US is the country that was defeated in one day of fighting against Hezbollah, and that has invaded Canada... four times and lost? I for

by Arnt 2y ago

What if, even if so? The US is the country that was defeated in one day of fighting against Hezbollah, and that has invaded Canada... four times and lost? I forget. I dare say that sane people at the Pentagon will stop war.

bhouston 2y ago
> The US is the country that was defeated in one day of fighting against Hezbollah, and that has invaded Canada... four times and lost? I forget. With regards to Hezbollah, there wasn't really a strategic reason to actually fight Hezbollah. The war of 1812 was actually between the UK and the US and their troop numbers were comparable. Very unlike the situation today and the UK is not likely to get involved at this point.
- ygjb 2y ago
  >The war of 1812 was actually between the UK and the US Yeah, lots of people say this, but the folks who fought the war were the people who lived in Upper and Lower Canada. The Boston Tea Party is considered by many historians to be an important turning point in American history, and is viewed as an American protest against taxation without representation. In much the same way, Canadians tend to consider the war of 1812 one of the watershed moments leading to the formation of the Dominion of Canada (even though that didn't happen for another 55 years). Without British North America fighting back against American expansionism (among other things) that lead to the war of 1812, Canada would not have existed as it did then, and the borders have stayed mostly consistent (modulo some small disputes around Alaska and coastal islands) since 1818.
  - hackerdues 2y ago
    [dead]
    - ygjb 2y ago
      > They were british subjects, who identified themselves as british subjects, fighting under the british flag for the british crown. No canadian fought in the war of 1812. No canadian flag existed then. No canadian nation. No canadian identity. You are very quick to dismiss the establishment of Canadian identity, and disregard the history of the development of Canada. You are correct that the Canadian flag didn't exist then, but then again, the American flag didn't exist until close to the end of the American Revolution. > Canadians do so because they have very little history to cling to. So they steal a bit of british history for themselves Canadian military history includes British military history because we too were a colony of the British Empire. It turns out that there are a large number of Canadians who can trace their ancestry back to folks who settled in Canada well before Canada was a country. Their military service includes fighting for the French and the British before Canada was a country, including during the Revolutionary War. You could do some reading on this, there are many great books on the topic, and there is a ton of information on Wikipedia that outlines the history. > Also, the british created the dominion of canada, not canadians. What do you think dominion means? Specifically, in that era? It means a sovereign territory within the British Empire. The Dominion of Canada was established by the 1867 British North America act. > Almost 3 whole generations. But even then you are off by more than a century (1982). Yes. Change takes time - the American Revolution took almost 20 years, and didn't start with the Revolutionary War. Even after the Revolutionary War, there were additional rebellions and invasions into what would become Canada and it took time for things to settle down. Canada was established as a nation in 1867, and 1982 was absolutely a watershed moment where Canada established it's own Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but dismissing Canada's role as a nation prior to that is historically inaccurate. > Other than having to kick out the british in the PNW in the 1840s/50s. That didn't actually result in border changes that were different from what was established in 1818, it did however, lead to clarification that those borders were in place and would be defended. > If you are curious about who won the war of 1812, go look into british land claims and american land claims prior to 1812. I am not sure what you are on about here. The Treaty of Ghent included terms that dictated that the borders would return to the pre-war state. Neither the British nor the Americans won - that said, the US does have a history of failing in expansionism and labelling it a win, so I guess more power to you? Beyond that, like I said, aside from some coastal island changes, and the Alaskan border, the majority of borders between United States and Canada have remained unchanged since 1818. The United States attempted to invade Upper and Lower Canada and take them over, and were repelled.
dinkumthinkum 2y ago
Why do people on the left say such strange things that have no relation to reality? You think the U.S. military could not handle to "win" a war against Hezbollah or Canada? I see this all over in this thread and throughout HN as if the U.S. is has the weakest military in the world; it's so absurd, it's as if the left has actually gone mad. I would gather that most of HN probably thinks Luxemburg could easily dispense with the U.S. military. To the extent that the U.S. "loses" any war against an insurgency is precisely because it is not as evil as the left believes and is unwilling to do what is in its capability simply to "win". Regardless, the fact that the left takes the idea of the U.S. going to war with Canada because "Trump says things" seriously just shows how far removed from reality and unhinged they are about the current president.
- ipython 2y ago
  I’m confused so when the president says something I’m supposed to not take it seriously? So when he said he would pardon all J6 defendants, and all his sycophants including his VP said - well of course not the violent ones - we should or should not take him at his word? Is there some sort of magic decoder ring I’m missing?
- Arnt 2y ago
  The US military did try against Hezbollah, and after about 300 casualties the US military decided that maybe the goal wasn't worth it. I think the US military absolutely could win, unless winning requires casualties. All the US military needs to win is an enemy that cannot choose where/howto fight. If the enemy chooses a way where fighting involves casualties, the US military will retreat into its bases, send some long-range bombers, maybe make a photo of the president saying "mission accomplished" on an air base, and finally retreat.

by Arnt 2y ago

bhouston 2y ago

> The US is the country that was defeated in one day of fighting against Hezbollah, and that has invaded Canada... four times and lost? I forget. With regards to Hezbollah, there wasn't really a strategic reason to actually fight Hezbollah. The war of 1812 was actually between the UK and the US and their troop numbers were comparable. Very unlike the situation today and the UK is not likely to get involved at this point.

ygjb 2y ago
>The war of 1812 was actually between the UK and the US Yeah, lots of people say this, but the folks who fought the war were the people who lived in Upper and Lower Canada. The Boston Tea Party is considered by many historians to be an important turning point in American history, and is viewed as an American protest against taxation without representation. In much the same way, Canadians tend to consider the war of 1812 one of the watershed moments leading to the formation of the Dominion of Canada (even though that didn't happen for another 55 years). Without British North America fighting back against American expansionism (among other things) that lead to the war of 1812, Canada would not have existed as it did then, and the borders have stayed mostly consistent (modulo some small disputes around Alaska and coastal islands) since 1818.
- hackerdues 2y ago
  [dead]
  - ygjb 2y ago
    > They were british subjects, who identified themselves as british subjects, fighting under the british flag for the british crown. No canadian fought in the war of 1812. No canadian flag existed then. No canadian nation. No canadian identity. You are very quick to dismiss the establishment of Canadian identity, and disregard the history of the development of Canada. You are correct that the Canadian flag didn't exist then, but then again, the American flag didn't exist until close to the end of the American Revolution. > Canadians do so because they have very little history to cling to. So they steal a bit of british history for themselves Canadian military history includes British military history because we too were a colony of the British Empire. It turns out that there are a large number of Canadians who can trace their ancestry back to folks who settled in Canada well before Canada was a country. Their military service includes fighting for the French and the British before Canada was a country, including during the Revolutionary War. You could do some reading on this, there are many great books on the topic, and there is a ton of information on Wikipedia that outlines the history. > Also, the british created the dominion of canada, not canadians. What do you think dominion means? Specifically, in that era? It means a sovereign territory within the British Empire. The Dominion of Canada was established by the 1867 British North America act. > Almost 3 whole generations. But even then you are off by more than a century (1982). Yes. Change takes time - the American Revolution took almost 20 years, and didn't start with the Revolutionary War. Even after the Revolutionary War, there were additional rebellions and invasions into what would become Canada and it took time for things to settle down. Canada was established as a nation in 1867, and 1982 was absolutely a watershed moment where Canada established it's own Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but dismissing Canada's role as a nation prior to that is historically inaccurate. > Other than having to kick out the british in the PNW in the 1840s/50s. That didn't actually result in border changes that were different from what was established in 1818, it did however, lead to clarification that those borders were in place and would be defended. > If you are curious about who won the war of 1812, go look into british land claims and american land claims prior to 1812. I am not sure what you are on about here. The Treaty of Ghent included terms that dictated that the borders would return to the pre-war state. Neither the British nor the Americans won - that said, the US does have a history of failing in expansionism and labelling it a win, so I guess more power to you? Beyond that, like I said, aside from some coastal island changes, and the Alaskan border, the majority of borders between United States and Canada have remained unchanged since 1818. The United States attempted to invade Upper and Lower Canada and take them over, and were repelled.

dinkumthinkum 2y ago

Why do people on the left say such strange things that have no relation to reality? You think the U.S. military could not handle to "win" a war against Hezbollah or Canada? I see this all over in this thread and throughout HN as if the U.S. is has the weakest military in the world; it's so absurd, it's as if the left has actually gone mad. I would gather that most of HN probably thinks Luxemburg could easily dispense with the U.S. military. To the extent that the U.S. "loses" any war against an insurgency is precisely because it is not as evil as the left believes and is unwilling to do what is in its capability simply to "win". Regardless, the fact that the left takes the idea of the U.S. going to war with Canada because "Trump says things" seriously just shows how far removed from reality and unhinged they are about the current president.

ipython 2y ago
I’m confused so when the president says something I’m supposed to not take it seriously? So when he said he would pardon all J6 defendants, and all his sycophants including his VP said - well of course not the violent ones - we should or should not take him at his word? Is there some sort of magic decoder ring I’m missing?
Arnt 2y ago
The US military did try against Hezbollah, and after about 300 casualties the US military decided that maybe the goal wasn't worth it. I think the US military absolutely could win, unless winning requires casualties. All the US military needs to win is an enemy that cannot choose where/howto fight. If the enemy chooses a way where fighting involves casualties, the US military will retreat into its bases, send some long-range bombers, maybe make a photo of the president saying "mission accomplished" on an air base, and finally retreat.