Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Posted by pnbrown z6.5 MA (My Page) on
Tue, Jul 31, 12 at 18:53

Since imagining the precise repeating of history is now popular, let's consider that one:

During the War of 1812, Madison's strategy was to invade Canada, grab some British territory and have something to bargain with for a treaty. It went very poorly due to a lot of incompetence, and in the process British and Canadian forces counter-invaded the US, even a force headed by the governor of NS captured much of Maine.

Since the US is now vastly more powerful, will it invade Canada?


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

If you'd ever been on a jobsite here in New England while the sheetrock crew is working, you'd think they already HAD invaded again! LOL


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

I think Mexico would be more likely. Warmer.


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

You can have Cornwall, OK? We promise not to put up a fight.


 o
Re: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Pat, there's only been one of the six or nine invasion campaigns of Canada by the U.S. which ever captured and held Canadian territory for more than a week or two. The rest were promptly thrown back over the U.S. border -- except for the U.S. soldiers, sailors and marines who were taken prisoner, of course.

Measuring by total population, industry, developed resources, etc., the U.S. was actually vastly more powerful around 1776 compared to Canada -- than it is now. Y'all couldn't take and hold our country then; I don't think you could now.

Besides, the worldwide moral repugnance which would greet any U.S. invasion of The True North would be huge. Invading your loyal best friend's house next door makes anyone look like a thug. And our international reputation for fair dealing, peacekeeping, and generally being good world citizens -- though somewhat tarnished in recent decades -- is still pretty high.

(It could also be a most worrisome thought to U.S. strategic planners that any resistance in an occupied Canada would likely be armed by our other nearest neighbour, to the north: Russia. Angry Canucks packing Kalashnikovs in the snow, oh-oh.)

Bill, shhhhh. You're not supposed to talk about the covert Canadian invasion until we've seized control of all your vital resources. ;)

Elvis is likely right. You folks have a much better track record in invading south and west than with past northern excursions.

All the best,
-Patrick

p.s. What Hamiltongardener said. And you can take Celine Dion, too. Please!


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Yeah, but I don't wanna hafta get in the habit of saying "Ehh?" at the end of every sentence! :-)

Eh?


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

, but I don't wanna hafta get in the habit of saying "Ehh?" at the end of every sentence! :-)

So instead you say it before the sentence.

What's the difference between an American and Canadian?

A Canadian says, "How's it going, eh?"

An American says "Eh, how's it goin'?"


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

"An American says "Eh, how's it goin'?""

Except in the UP area. We say "aye" not "eh". Pronounced "A".


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

The American's right. :-)


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Yeah, I'm a jerk. We stick to our strengths. :-)


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

What a coincidence. We say "eh" not "aye". Pronounced "A".


 o
Re: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Eyup, HG. :) There's also this variation:

CDN: "What's that business about, eh?"

USA: "What's that business about, huh?"

All the best,
-Patrick
(and we don't say "ah-boot"!! Don't don't don't!!!)


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

There's also this variation:

Except, of course, if it is a teenager speaking. No matter which side of the border, it consists of unintelligible grunts.


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

HG, you pronounce "eh" like an "A"?

See, I would pronouce the "e" short, as in "pet".

When you spell it "aye", the "e" on the end makes the "a" long, aye?

See that? We also substitute "hay" from time to time, as in "yadda hay, doncha know?"


 o
Re: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Unintelligible grunts, yes. While thumbs and fingers dance over their mobile phone.

All the best,
-Patrick


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

The US won't invade Canada because that would require the acquisition of a second language--no, not Quebecois, but Canadian English. That whole EH thing is just freaky. Depending on the particular tone used, it probably means at least a half a dozen things. Might as well invade China and learn Mandarin--besides, the food is better.


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

HG, you pronounce "eh" like an "A"?

When refering to the "eh" jokes (How's it going, eh?) about (aboot?) Canada, the "eh" is pronounced "A".

Didn't you ever watch Strange Brew?


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Nope. "Escanaba in da Moonlight" was a hoot, though.


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

I don't think the U.S. will invade Canada again because the U.S. pretty much has Canada's oil under control.


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Bill, perhaps you forgot that MA is part of new england? So I see sheet rockers in new england on a regular basis.

Anyway, it seems the historical sarcasm has been missed. Despite the doom part, history doesn't repeat itself. Of course the answer is no, two nations that are extremely similar in every way are not going to invade each other. In 1812 Canada was merely an under-developed extension of Britain, which was still busily bullying the young US. Now the US and Canada are mature societies (soon to be aged post-resource societies) that have nothing to gain from changing the status quo and are primary partners.

Although a second massive civil war in one of them would change the picture.


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

OK, I'm ordering you to watch Strange Brew.

Nobody is qualified to properly make Canadian jokes until they watch:

A) Strange Brew
B) The Canadian Conspiracy
C) Canadian Bacon

For best effect, all three should be watched but you must be familiar with at least two of them. After that you'll have lots of Canadian stereotypes AND you'll know how to pronounce them. ;)


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Could Canada to invade and conquer us? Could they? Please? We surrender retroactively. If retroactive is good enough for Mitt, it's good enough for us.

I would have healthcare that I could actually afford to use, not this $300 a month crap that I can't use because of the $5k yearly deductible. I would probably be in the new Windsor FAR FAR FAR WEST riding, and I'm definitely voting NDP. And, I could start getting Canadian Tire Bonus Bucks. I won't even have to change my radio station presets in my car, I mostly listen to Mix 96.7 and The River anyway. Just swap out my Michigan plates for my new Ontario ones and I'm good to go.

Lest my little post upset some right wing fanatic, I'm just having fun, so lighten up!


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Aye is always pronounced I. Eh is pronounced A.

Here is a link that might be useful: follow a link


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

pnbrown-- I didn't forget. I didn't know whether or not you'd been exposed to that, though.

HG-- I've seen parts of Strange Brew. It's one of my son's favorite movies. :-)

And madmagic-- that's Ayuh! Not Eyup. :-)


 o
Re: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

C'mon over, Denninmi! Though I'm very sorry to tell you, CanTire is phasing out Canadian Tire coupons. One of our most treasured national symbols will soon be no more. :(

All the best,
-Patrick


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

HG-- I've seen parts of Strange Brew. It's one of my son's favorite movies. :-)

Just parts?

What, are you ADHD or sumpthing? Can't sit still for the whole movie?


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Nope-- gotta go gotta go gotta go right now. :-)


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

C'mon over, Denninmi!

Fine, Denn can come over, but we're not opening the doors to all those Shatner-stealing Mexico-touchers. Nuh uh.


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

We've had our share of canadians here in southern new england, though nothing like south florida. They grow like wild tangerines there.


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Patrick say it isn't so ! No more Canadian Tire money! Now that its the beginning of the end......and by the way what is Canadian bacon anyway. Certainly nothing we eat here!


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Canadian bacon is kind of like French fries. If you go to Fance and ask for frensch fries, they'll look at you like you have two heads. it's all about the intrigue. :-)


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

DAMN I've got to start looking at my posts before I submit em!


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

We've had our share of canadians here in southern new england, though nothing like south florida.

You know why? Cause it gets frikken cold here!

Canada needs a tropical weather province and we are currently shopping around for one. Turks and Caicos is a maybe, but it would be awfully convenient if Florida would just secede from the US and join Canada. That way we wouldn't have to move too much of our population down there, we're already there!


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Thought you may have been into the "Blue"

As an aside doesn't everyone just love the fact you can post back to back without having to alter the title :-)


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

I thought we settled this Yuper controversy a while back. Elvis - I'll remind you in time. Sept. 19th. is "Talk like a pirate day". Aye aye.

Geez, and I thought it was Ireland just north of Boston!


 o
Re: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Oooops, my mistake folks. CanTire is NOT phasing out their classic money-like coupons, with the friendly face of Sandy McTire (who I've often delighted in telling non-Canucks was our first Prime Minister) printed on them.

See here and here for more information on how these nasty rumours get spread.

All the best,
-Patrick
(my apologies for the original false report of Sandy's demise)


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Thank heavens...but an apology isn't quite enough. My poor DH is still hyperventilating and its interfering with my "puter" time.


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

You know why? Cause it gets frikken cold here!

HAAAAAAANG ON a second!! I lived for three years in southern Florida-- almost as southern as it gets without getting into the Keys! And I learned a hard lesson-- one of the reasons I moved back up here-- when it gets cold, you can always put another layer on. When it gets hot, you can NEVER take enough off!! Imagine me doing your tile deck in a tank top, daisy dukes, and sneakers. And THAT was too much!


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Imagine me doing your tile deck in a tank top, daisy dukes, and sneakers.

AAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What the hell did I do to deserve THAT visual, huh Bill?


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Posted by duluthinbloomz4 zone 4a (My Page) on Tue, Jul 31, 12 at 20:43

"I thought we settled this Yuper controversy a while back. Elvis"

Yooper. :D

Anyway, I've figured it out--finally! Frank will be tickled.

I've been SPELLING it wrong!!! It's "ay".

There.


 o
Re: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Just stumbled across these paragraphs in a book I'm reading, Hope and Prospects, (2010). They may have some relevance in this thread.


The United States is, I suppose, the only country that was founded as an "infant empire," in the words of the father of the country. After liberation from England, George Washington observed that "the gradual extension of our settlements will as certainly cause the savage, as the wolf, to retire; both being beasts of prey, though they differ in shape." We must "induce [the Aborigines] to relinquish our Territories and to remove into the illimitable regions of the West" -- which we were to "induce" them to leave later on, for heaven. The Territories became "ours" by right of conquest as the "Aborigines" were regularly instructed.

Washington’s colleagues agreed. The most libertarian of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, predicted that the newly liberated colonies would drive the indigenous population "with the beasts of the forests into the Stony Mountains," and the country will ultimately be "free of blot or mixture," red or Black (with the return of slaves to Africa after eventual ending of slavery). What is more, it "will be the nest, from which all America, North and South, is to be peopled." In 1801 he wrote to James Monroe that we should "look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand... & cover the whole northern if not the southern continent, with people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, and by similar laws." "In other words," historian R. W. van Alstyne summarizes, "he pictured the United States as the homeland for teeming millions who would emigrate and reproduce their kind in all parts of North and South America, displacing not merely the indigenous redmen but also the Latin populations to the south," creating a continent that would be "American in blood, in language and habits, and in political ideology." It was expected that it would be easier to achieve this end in Canada after the conquest of the country that Jefferson and his associates anticipated and attempted to implement several times by force -- and that may yet take place, by means of contemporary forms of subjugation.

All of this was suffused with love and concern for our wards. James Madison orated that we must "carry on the benevolent plans which have been so meritoriously applied to the conversion of our aboriginal neighbors from the degradation and wretchedness of savage life to a participation of the improvements of which the human mind and manners are susceptible in a civilized state.... With our Indian neighbors, the just and benevolent system continued toward them has also preserved peace and is more and more advancing habits favorable to their civilization and happiness." How this was to happen after they were expelled and exterminated, as frankly acknowledged by the perpetrators, he did not say.20

It could be argued that citations from eminent historians a few years ago are misleading. After all, there had by then been only five hundred years of savagery and destruction, not yet enough time for proper understanding to have been gained. And it is true, and very important, that the common rhetoric of a few years ago, even in scholarship, would be condemned as vulgar racism today in substantial circles. That is one of many indications of the success of the popular activism of the 1960s in civilizing Western societies. But there is a long way to go.

To illustrate the scale of the task ahead, we may turn to one the world’s leading intellectual journals, the New York Review of Books. In mid-2009, liberal political analyst Russell Baker records what he learned from the work of the "heroic historian" Edmund Morgan: namely, that Columbus and the early explorers "found a continental vastness sparsely populated by farming and hunting people... In the limitless and unspoiled world stretching from tropical jungle to the frozen north, there may have been scarcely more than a million inhabitants." Virtually repeating the quincentennial celebration, the calculation is off by many tens of millions, and the "vastness" included advanced civilizations. But no matter. The exercise of genocide denial with a vengeance again merits little notice, presumably because it is so unremarkable and in a good cause.21

It is worth remembering that the perpetrators themselves had few illusions about what they were doing. Revolutionary War hero General Henry Knox, the first secretary of war in the newly liberated American colonies, described "the utter extirpation of all the Indians in most populous parts of the Union [by means] more destructive to the Indian natives than the conduct of the conquerors of Mexico and Peru," as proved to be the case. He warned that "a future historian may mark the causes of this destruction of the human race in sable colors." In his later years -- long after his own contributions to the crimes -- President John Quincy Adams lamented the fate of "that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty, among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement."22 Earthly judgment is nowhere in sight.

There was, to be sure, a more convenient and conventional version, expressed for example by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who mused that "the wisdom of Providence," inscrutable to mere mortals, caused the natives to disappear like "the withered leaves of autumn" even though the colonists had "constantly respected" them. In the same years, as the groundwork was being laid for Andrew Jackson’s programs of Indian removal (today called "ethnic cleansing" when carried out by enemies), President Monroe explained that "We become in reality their benefactors" by expelling the natives from their homes. Their successors carried forward the humane mission of extirpation and extermination of the natives, for their own good. A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt informed a group of white missionaries that "The expansion of the peoples of white, or European, blood during the past four centuries... has been fraught with lasting benefit to most of the peoples already dwelling in the lands over which the expansion took place." In short, we are "in reality their benefactors," despite what Native Americans, Africans, Filipinos, and other beneficiaries might mistakenly believe.23

Such versions of history are not unusual, nor unique to the United States. They are standard themes of imperial conquest. The belief in the essential humanity of the resort to force by the powerful has a resonance in what today is termed the "emerging international norm that recognizes the ‘responsibility to protect’ innocent civilians facing death on a mass scale" (President Obama’s UN ambassador Susan Rice).24 That there is such a responsibility should be uncontroversial, and has long been recognized by the UN and individual states. But the occasional resort to this principle by powerful states is a different matter, as history more than amply reveals. In its real world form, the norm is not "emerging." Rather, it is venerable, and has consistently been a guiding imperial doctrine, invoked to justify the resort to violence when other pretexts are lacking, and regularly ignored when great power interests so dictate. The prospect of mass starvation just mentioned is one of a great many current examples, striking because there is no need for any form of intervention, just simple humanity, and because the harrowing news was released only weeks before diplomats and intellectuals were solemnly intoning their dedication to the "emerging international norm" at the UN, including highly respected figures who had been at the forefront of crushing any thought of such norms when they held political office, and journals expert in denying the crimes of their own states.25

-- Noam Chomsky, from Hope and Prospects, (2010).


All the best,
-Patrick


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

That was really looooong.


 o
Re: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Chomsky doesn't write for the web, Elvis. :) Eight paragraphs isn't much more than a few pages, in a book.

All the best,
-Patrick

p.s. I heard the kool kids type "tl;dr" ("too long; didn't/don't read") these days.


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Jul 31, 12 at 23:49

Patrick you'd better start building defenses now, in a couple of decades the corn belt may be in your backyard ;)


 o
Re: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Heh. :) Vgkg, in a couple of decades I'll most likely be under the backyard!

We already grow a lot of corn here, though I think other crops (fruit, dairy, tobacco) often outperform it economically. And with southern Ontario in the wind shadow of much of the Great Lakes, drought isn't usually the serious problem it is out west.

I hope the current drought there soon eases. My mum grew up in Manitoba during the Depression and had many grim stories about the hardships of "the Dirty Thirties".

All the best,
-Patrick


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

We're almost back to the dust bowl days and will be if the heat and drought continue much longer

Bill...I am so with you. This summer can't end quickly enough. When it's cold you can put on a sweater; still cold, a coat and hat. In the summer life isn't worth living outdoors where you want to be. I've had shorts and tank tops on now for three months. I long for my soft longsleeved shirts and pants. Come on winter. (And my dogs will agree, no doubt)


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

"Such versions of history are not unusual, nor unique to the United States. They are standard themes of imperial conquest."

Just so. Most of Chomsky's descriptions apply equally to Canadian history. As I often say on this forum (in the continual US vs Canada threads) it is difficult to separate the two in terms of socialogical broad strokes. As a small example, part of why Madison was confident an invasion of Canada would be successful was because lower Canada's white population was primarily settlers who had come there via the Ohio river valley, so people who presumably would identify more with 1812 America than 1812 Britain. In fact, British military leadership made the same presumption.

I think Chomsky may be wrong in saying Jefferson had designs on Canada. My understanding is that Jefferson and his party were anti-militarists, and during his Presidency the army and especially navy were atrophied. That hardly meshes with a general plan to confront european powers over north american territory, at least by conventional force.


 o
Re: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Aye Pat, similar broad strokes. Canada has small reason to be proud of our treatment of the First Nations, Metis and Innuit peoples inside our national borders. We (and the British colonial administrators, prior to Canada's founding in 1867) had far fewer open wars with them than the U.S. did, but we still took their lands and destroyed their cultures.

BTW, I think you meant Upper Canada, not Lower -- up the St. Lawrence River and around the Great Lakes -- and you're quite right about the military commandants' assumptions of 1812, on both sides of the border. British General Isaac Brock was quite gloomy over the possibility of a Texas-style rebellion in Upper Canada by recent colonists from the U.S.

It was the combination of Brock's clever leadership and the brilliant contributions of Tecumseh and his First Nations fighters which gave the British their victories of the first two years. Bad leadership on the U.S. side and inexperienced U.S. militias going up against seasoned British officers and regulars (who had fought Napoleon's troops and closely supported the Spanish guerillas) also made a difference.

Once the U.S. Army smartened up, put better officers in command, and began training their soldiers harder, they stopped losing so badly and even won a few of their battles -- even one invasion campaign.

Regarding Jefferson, I don't know anything about his military policies during his Presidency. However, his best-known words about Canada are these from a letter he wrote in 1812:

"The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent."

"...a mere matter of marching," snort. Triply wrong, Tom. :)

All the best,
-Patrick
(he ain't one of my Founding Fathers)

Here is a link that might be useful: source for Jefferson quote


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Would you guys please invade us? I don't know as much as I should about Canada, but most things I've read/heard are positive: National health care, short and relatively inexpensive elections,etc.
If you could just take over quietly and send me the bill/tax notice. You see, I can't move there because I garden 10 months of the year. I don't like long sleeves or pants.


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Only for oil, lots and lots of oil.

I'd be very happy being Canadian, and I think I would be a good Canadian.


 o
Re: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

Steve & Momj, c'mon down! Errr... proabably that should be "C'mon up!" And there's a very long gardening season in southern coastal British Columbia, if you like being near the Pacific.

Supplying oil to the U.S. seems to be part of our future, for as long as we stay within NAFTA. Which also seems to be part of our future. However...

Canadians do have a few hot-button issues, which will cause the majority of our population to kick back, real hard, against politicians who cross certain lines.

For example, up here politicos can't be seen to be messing with our universal health care. Most of us consider it a basic human right -- something like reliable police and firefighting services, or the right to vote.

Another one is fresh water. Canada is very fortunate to contain some of the largest supplies of freshwater in the world. And water is most certainly not part of NAFTA -- we do not sell water to the United States or Mexico.

But... between the ever-increasing population pressures in southern California & other areas of the SW U.S., and the rapid depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer, supplying plentiful supplies of fresh water to the central and southern U.S. is fast becoming a serious political issue. Even without the impact of climate change and increasingly severe droughts.

If Canada and the U.S. can't come to an agreement on how Canada might export fresh water south, I think it could lead to a war between our nations. And most people in the U.S. don't really grasp our national aversion to selling water outside our borders. It's an emotional issue, up here.

I don't know quite how to explain it. We look at our fresh water supplies as a part of our heritage. Folks from the U.S. can buy up all kinds of other physical property here -- land, resources, stocks, businesses -- and Canadians barely grumble.

But imagine how you folks down south would feel if the Saudis said "okay, we'll sell you all the oil you want, at half the world price. Just run a video clip in prime time on all the major networks, showing your current President dancing all over the Stars and Stripes on the Oval Office floor."

Money wouldn't be the main issue, in that negotiation. Water's kinda like that for us Canucks. I think it would make many of us reach for our deerhunting rifles.

All the best,
-Patrick


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

After reading this (which is hilarious) I'm guessing we don't have the heart, the wherewithal, or the fortitude to invade one another. Our hot-button issues are important to ourselves but not necessarily to each other (soft wood lumber or water maybe eventually) and we are too similar.


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

I agree that climate change could make Canada's water look very attractive. But of course, the US controls a huge amount of the great lakes water in any case. No doubt there will be many boondoggles moving water around before it's done and the grain belt (and a lot of farmers as well) has shifted almost entirely into Canada.


 o
RE: could Canada and the US invade each other again?

There is an entire movie about this type of invasion. Michael Moore directed it. So it must be a documentary. Here is the trailer.

Here is a link that might be useful: we got ways of making you pronounce the letter O


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here