If the British want to burn the White House again, for some reason, then I'm sure, if Britain is angry, that'd it's try it no matter who may be against the idea.

 

Im guessing the 2 million members of the US armed forces may cause some problems,. I know compared to the vaunted 49 para the septics are a bunch of girl guides who keep tripping over ther own knee socks but sheer numbers are a problem.

 

As for the nukes pointed at Washington well firstly if the treaty is being adhered to most nukes are in fact pointed at the ocean ie they are not targeted at anyones city (i say most as im not sure how this applies to china) as for actually aiming one at our closest ally- why would we, why should we. Dont talk bollox 

The US won the War of 1812 by realizing its two main war aims. 1. the US stopped Britain's interfering with US merchant shipping and the impressment of its seamen. 2. British support for Amerindian forces in the Northwest territories was ended when the combined Anglo-Amerindian Army under General Proctor and Tecumseh was defeated at the Battle of the Thames in Ontario. Despite its dramatic and complete victory, the US with drew to the pre-war border with no claim to conquered territory.

hah.

 

seems like revisionism again.. guess you are one of those who think the US won the Vietnam war as well....   :-)

Naaaaah not revisionism ........the truth.

Okay....Are you saying the Brits were not interfering with American commercial shipping and impressing US sailors on the high seas? Hell at least the Iranians returned the captured British sailors and Marines. Are you saying there were not  British supported Amerindians fighting the American settlers in the Michigan/Ohio region which was ceded to the US in the 1783 Treaty of Paris or are you saying these practices were not stopped by the Treaties of Ghent and Greenville? Or perhaps the Brits would have thrashed the Yanks but they were bored and couldn't be bothered dealing with the American scum.

And considering Londonistan possibility the rest of UK might just request us to have some ready.

 

what exactly is londonistan? are you inferring that because england has welcomed ethnic minoroties they have taken over. Im sorry i was under the impression that line of thinking went out of fashion a long time ago - along with wearing bed sheets and pillow cases.

On topic

 

Us war of Independence

 

I recall it as being taught as a war caused by heavy taxation and unfair policies and one that we lost mainly because of the sheer ineptitude of the military leadership and the americans superiour guerilla tactics, interestingly the french involvement was not even mentioned and i only learned of it many years later.  the way it was taught is that the colonists were justified in seeking their own goverment and tax laws. sort of glosses over the independence part.

 

1812?? canada very much regarded as a no score draw and totally pointless as (unless im getting confused) The issues were resolved before the war started and the final battle was fought after the peace treaty was sighned.

 

If my memory serves Uk won all the land battles except the last one and the result was reversed at sea.

the us voided the treaty of paris within a year of signing it by failing to implement the provisions of article 5.  the us was in substantial violation of articles 2 and 8 by 1812 as well.

the rn had a policy of returning impressed american sailors though the wheels ground slowly on that.

 

the british had treaty obligations to the indians they were living up to.  they were if anything advocating negotiation and compromise between the indians and the encroaching american settlers not agitating the situation.

 

both the english and french banned anyone from trading with their enemies in time of war.  today we would call that an economic exclusion zone and no one blinks at it.  the american shipping having trouble with that were attempting to smuggle goods to the enemy in time of war.  the confiscation of those ships and cargo is hardly casus belli for a war.

 

interestingly enough the treaty of ghent spoke not a single word on either of these "critical" issues.  had they actually been seen as significant i'm sure they would have been at least mentioned in passing. 

 

the british had just spent a fortune and a generation fighting napoleon.  they were tired and wanted to enjoy the benefits of some peace and quiet rather than fighting the americans some more over turf they considered of dubious value.  once napoleon was down for the count and the british started paying some attention to the skirmishing in north america it didn't take long for american diplomats to hie themselves to a negotiating table to shut their ill advised venture down.

 

had the british chosen to put the resources into it the treaty of ghent could have been a couple years later and a harsh pill indeed for the us to take.