Boycotting US stuff

[Phil1]

Who the fuck told you that?

Some American would be my guess.

 

[WT86]

Who the fuck told you that?

Some history professor, but it's also in the treaty.

"The Treaty of Ghent (8 Stat. 218) was the peace treaty that ended the War of 1812 between the United States and the United Kingdom. It took effect in February 1815. Both sides signed it on December 24, 1814, in the city of Ghent, United Netherlands (now in Belgium). The treaty restored relations between the two parties to status quo ante bellum by restoring the pre-war borders of June 1812. Both sides were eager to end the war. It ended when the treaty arrived in Washington and was immediately ratified unanimously by the United States Senate and exchanged with British officials the next day."

 

[Chris in London]

Some history professor, but it's also in the treaty.

"The Treaty of Ghent (8 Stat. 218) was the peace treaty that ended the War of 1812 between the United States and the United Kingdom. It took effect in February 1815. Both sides signed it on December 24, 1814, in the city of Ghent, United Netherlands (now in Belgium). The treaty restored relations between the two parties to status quo ante bellum by restoring the pre-war borders of June 1812. Both sides were eager to end the war. It ended when the treaty arrived in Washington and was immediately ratified unanimously by the United States Senate and exchanged with British officials the next day."

Lol.

The surrender of the Argentinian forces in Port Stanley in 1982 restored exactly the status quo ante bellum. It would be as absurd to say that the Falklands war was "a draw" as it is to say the war of 1812 was.

Ask someone from Canada - whose country was actually invaded - whether it was "a draw."

 

[WT86]

Lol.

The surrender of the Argentinian forces in Port Stanley in 1982 restored exactly the status quo ante bellum. It would be as absurd to say that the Falklands war was "a draw" as it is to say the war of 1812 was.

Ask someone from Canada - whose country was actually invaded - whether it was "a draw."

What a ridiculous comparison. The UK lost substantially more men than the US and was forced to retreat to Canada after invading the US. It also lost the last 3 major battles of the war and both sides achieved their primary aims de facto. It was a mutual peace that restored the status quo.

I understand you might be one of these people who are weirdly insecure about being British and desperate to rewrite history, but there is no argument among mainstream historians the war was anything but a draw.

 

[blueish swede]

The only foreign wars America has ever fought alone were 1812, which was a draw, and the Mexican and Spanish-American wars, which were decisive US victories.

It was a draw, but London wasn't burnt to the ground.

 

[Chris in London]

Lol

What a ridiculous comparison. The UK lost substantially more men than the US and was forced to retreat to Canada after invading the US. It also lost the last 3 major battles of the war and both sides achieved their primary aims de facto. It was a mutual peace that restored the status quo.

I understand you might be one of these people who are weirdly insecure about being British and desperate to rewrite history, but there is no argument among mainstream historians the war was anything but a draw.

It’s not really debated by serious British historians because it is by and large an inconsequential footnote in our history. It is debated more by US historians for precisely the same reasons.

Towards the end of the conflict the British lost some of their earlier gains
but the reality is the only country that wanted the war was the USA and it achieved nothing.

That’s a loss.

Oh, and try to avoid trying to play the man and not the ball. You just look foolish when you get neither.

 

[WT86]

Lol



It’s not really debated by serious British historians because it is by and large an inconsequential footnote in our history. It is debated more by US historians for precisely the same reasons.

Towards the end of the conflict the British lost some of their earlier gains
but the reality is the only country that wanted the war was the USA and it achieved nothing.

That’s a loss.

Oh, and try to avoid trying to play the man and not the ball. You just look foolish when you get neither.

The British invasion forces were forced to retreat. In doing so they lost all of their gains in the US. The US lost all of their gains in Canada. The other causes for the war were resolved by other geopolitical events. That is why every sensible person calls it a draw not a British victory.

You're the one who had an attitude about a subject you don't understand. Sorry if you now feel persecuted.

 

[urban genie]

The British invasion forces were forced to retreat. In doing so they lost all of their gains in the US. The US lost all of their gains in Canada. The other causes for the war were resolved by other geopolitical events. That is why every sensible person calls it a draw not a British victory.

You're the one who had an attitude about a subject you don't understand. Sorry if you now feel persecuted.

nobody said it was a British victory, wel l didn't at least , I said Canada kicked americas arse, that isn't disputable.

Plus no **** this side of the atlantic cares if the yanks won in New Orleans we had more important wars going on at the time, the war of 1812 is not even mentioned in history lessons unlike the penisular war, anglo-afghan wars(s), opium wars 1 & 2, boxer revolution, crimean war, Boer wars etc etc.


but tbf this conversation, though fun is distracting from the topic of boycotting US products

 

[Chris in London]

The British invasion forces were forced to retreat. In doing so they lost all of their gains in the US. The US lost all of their gains in Canada. The other causes for the war were resolved by other geopolitical events. That is why every sensible person calls it a draw not a British victory.

You're the one who had an attitude about a subject you don't understand. Sorry if you now feel persecuted.

Oh dear.

You crack on calling it a draw if it makes you feel better.

The abridged history of the war is that the US congress declared war, US forces invaded Upper Canada, and the US forces were thrown out. (Even the famed burning of the White House was simply retaliation for a US raid on Toronto - then called York). It was a distinctly ill-advised venture from beginning to end from the US perspective because a very substantial proportion of the population of Upper Canada had actually been loyalists who had relocated there after the War of Independence had been lost. (Or won, from your perspective). It was also ill advised in that the prevailing sentiment was that the British would not fight hard for Canada, because they were too busy with Napoleon and all that (this being 1812). However Canada was an incredibly important natural resources centre for the British navy, so, to the misfortune of the American invaders, those regiments the British were able to devote to the defence of Canada plus the Canadian militia were sufficient to repel the invaders.

If you're actually interested in the causes of the war and what the US government truly hoped to achieve - which was basically a land grab - try looking at some Canadian sources given that it was their land that the Americans were actually trying to grab. (It is for this reason that the majority of the fighting, at least in the initial stages of the war, was centred around the area immediately west of Lake Ontario. For their part, in Lower Canada the French Canadians were not ignorant of the poor treatment of French speaking Catholics in Louisiana and wanted as little to do with the USA as their Anglophone brethren to the west did.) The historical point that the war settled was that an American invasion of British North America was not practicable. That the Americans had hoped to achieve further territorial expansion by military means, and failed to achieve this, is not really in serious issue.

Just like the Argentinians 170 years later, in fact.

You can read more about the war of 1812 by looking more closely into the origin of the 49th parallel as the boundary between British North America and the USA. Try to avoid Wikipedia, you never know who wrote it.

Whilst the war is not without its features of historical interest - it is an anomaly that the only actual war between the US and Britain (a war of independence is not a war between sovereign nations for obvious reason) generally attracts remarkably limited attention for the reasons already give - I have to say that you're boring me now, so this conversation is over.

Have a nice day.

 

[WT86]

Right. Looking forward to your book on the subject where you change everyone's mind.

 

[Phil1]

Right. Looking forward to your book on the subject where you change everyone's mind.

Americans these days don't change their minds, they double down and beat people into submission with their stupidity.

 

[Vic]

The British invasion forces were forced to retreat. In doing so they lost all of their gains in the US. The US lost all of their gains in Canada. The other causes for the war were resolved by other geopolitical events. That is why every sensible person calls it a draw not a British victory.

You're the one who had an attitude about a subject you don't understand. Sorry if you now feel persecuted.

Yeah, but the Americans had control of the airfields.

 

[hilts]

I mean, it literally would. If enough consumers boycotted US goods (not that I think enough will) then they'd feel it.

The vast majority of consumers only care about the quality and cost of their consumption, they couldn't give a flying fuck where it comes from. Look at China. Its also becoming more difficult to work out which country wears a white hat and which wears a black one.

 

[Blue and true]

The vast majority of consumers only care about the quality and cost of their consumption, they couldn't give a flying fuck where it comes from. Look at China. Its also becoming more difficult to work out which country wears a white hat and which wears a black one.

I agree. But my point stands that if enough consumers turned into conscientious androids overnight, world powers like the US would suffer.

The issue is that they're depended on far too much.

 

[hilts]

I agree. But my point stands that if enough consumers turned into conscientious androids overnight, world powers like the US would suffer.

The issue is that they're depended on far too much.

How would be the decent countries and companies we would buy from?

 

[johnny crossan]

.... Its also becoming more difficult to work out which country wears a white hat and which wears a black one.

becoming? You got me stumped from the start on that one !

 

[halfcenturyup]

Oh dear.

You crack on calling it a draw if it makes you feel better.

The abridged history of the war is that the US congress declared war, US forces invaded Upper Canada, and the US forces were thrown out. (Even the famed burning of the White House was simply retaliation for a US raid on Toronto - then called York). It was a distinctly ill-advised venture from beginning to end from the US perspective because a very substantial proportion of the population of Upper Canada had actually been loyalists who had relocated there after the War of Independence had been lost. (Or won, from your perspective). It was also ill advised in that the prevailing sentiment was that the British would not fight hard for Canada, because they were too busy with Napoleon and all that (this being 1812). However Canada was an incredibly important natural resources centre for the British navy, so, to the misfortune of the American invaders, those regiments the British were able to devote to the defence of Canada plus the Canadian militia were sufficient to repel the invaders.

If you're actually interested in the causes of the war and what the US government truly hoped to achieve - which was basically a land grab - try looking at some Canadian sources given that it was their land that the Americans were actually trying to grab. (It is for this reason that the majority of the fighting, at least in the initial stages of the war, was centred around the area immediately west of Lake Ontario. For their part, in Lower Canada the French Canadians were not ignorant of the poor treatment of French speaking Catholics in Louisiana and wanted as little to do with the USA as their Anglophone brethren to the west did.) The historical point that the war settled was that an American invasion of British North America was not practicable. That the Americans had hoped to achieve further territorial expansion by military means, and failed to achieve this, is not really in serious issue.

Just like the Argentinians 170 years later, in fact.

You can read more about the war of 1812 by looking more closely into the origin of the 49th parallel as the boundary between British North America and the USA. Try to avoid Wikipedia, you never know who wrote it.

Whilst the war is not without its features of historical interest - it is an anomaly that the only actual war between the US and Britain (a war of independence is not a war between sovereign nations for obvious reason) generally attracts remarkably limited attention for the reasons already give - I have to say that you're boring me now, so this conversation is over.

Have a nice day.