Should we (UK)have went to war with the Americans?

Question

burring in mind if it wasn,t for America we would all be germans now

i said with the americans not against the americans.its the queens english you must get to grips with

Answer 1

I think Tony Blair said it best in his speech when he said "if we do not stand with the Americans, we run the risk of making Britain irrelevant of the world stage"

Answer 2

I think that going to Afghanistan was just and correct. I think that Iraq was a mistake.

It is clear now that the "intelligence" on Iraq was faked. in addition most intelligence analyst believe that Saddam would have been disposed in 18 -24 months by his own party anyway. Going into Iraq has caused a power vacuum in the middle east. Iraq used to keep Iran in check. Now Iran is the most powerfull country in the region. They are begging to flex their muscles, which is apparent in them disregarding the IAEA and the capturing of British marines and sailors in Iraqi water.

The mess in Iraq has in my opinion made terrorism worse. It has provided the terrorists with a proving ground, and has brought about tensions among the Islamic factions that did not exist before the invasion of Iraq.

I am not a Brit or an American. I'm Canadian.

Oh and to American ( Braxton) that said you beat the Brits twice, I think that the Brits and Canada actually won the war of 1812. That is why the White house is white.

Edit
The war had the effects of both uniting Canadians and also uniting Americans far more closely than either population had been prior to the war. Canadians remember the war as a victory by defeating the attempted invasion and by forceing the Americans to retreat across half their country, while the Americans celebrated victory in a "second war for independence" personified in the hero of New Orleans, Andrew Jackson.

The enemy?s army amounting to 8 or 9000 men, with 3 or 400 cavalry, was under the command of Gen. Winder, being formed of troops drawn from Baltimore and Pennsylvania. His artillery, ten pieces of which fell into are hands, was commanded by Com. Barney, who was wounded and taken prisoner. The artillery I directed to be destroyed. Having halted the army for a short time, I determined to march upon Washington, and reached that city at 8 o?clock that night. Judging it of consequences to complete the destruction of the public buildings with the least possible delay, so that the army might retire without loss of time, the following buildings were set fire to and consumed- the capitol, including the Senate house and House of representation, the Arsenal, the Dock-Yard, Treasury, War office, President?s Palace, Rope-Walk, and the great bridge across the Potewmac: In the dock-yard a frigate nearly ready to be launched, and a slope of war, were consumed. The two bridges leading to Washington over the eastern branch, had the enemy been destroyed by the enemy who apprehended an attack from that quarter.

The Americans started the War of 1812 - Not Britian. Britian was involved in a fight with Napolean.

Most historians call it a stalemate as the borders remained where they were before the war...but if you read above I think that there is a stong case for the Brits - and Canadians winning. We did after all sack Washington.

Answer 3

Just so you know I'm an American, and I hate you for what you bloody brits did to my ancestors! Just joking. Personally, for the Americans, I think it was a good thing there was war, both times, at least, as good a thing as you can get with war. Beating you guys in the Revolutionary War gave us the confidence we needed to really start on such a daring endevour as what America was at the time. Also, it gave us a leader-George Washington. So much of our history depends on him and his precedent. He prolly wouldn't have had that effect w/o the war (just think-without that, presidents could stay in as long as they were being voted for, and we could have Bush even longer...heaven help us). And 1812 gave us another leader, Andrew Jackson, a bit more questionable, but influential nonetheless, and a cool song-the Star Spangled Banner. Yay! If Britain hadn't gone to war against the U.S., then the U.S. would prolly have ended up still techinically part of Britain, just independent in name only, and never as powerful as it has gotten now. Then, come WW2, we'd all be screwed.
So, it's a good thing.

Answer 4

Funny, you Brits did go to war against the Americans -- twice. First during the American Revolution, then in the War of 1812. We (the US) won both of them. Since then, pretty much all has been forgiven, and now the US and UK are pretty staunch allies.

Or did you mean to ask if you should have gone to war against the Iraqis alongside the US? It helps when you are precise with your wording . . .

Answer 5

I'd not recommend going to war with the USA again. After all, you've already lost two with us : )

No offense meant; just a crude attempt at humor from "the colonies."

Answer 6

Britain should reclaim its Empire first.

Oh, and the American morons who say they "won" 1812... Certainly not true... You outnumbered us like 10-1 and you STILL got your @ss kicked.

Invasion attempts....

Americans defeated at Ft. Mackinac....

American invasion force 2500 strong defeated, while hiding behind walls, by a force of 1300 British... (around half eh)

6000 Americans defeated by 1000 British at Queenston heights....

1100 American troops massacred by 900 British at Frenchtown....

4000 "professional" American troops defeated by 350 Canadians with pitchforks hiding behind trees along the Chateaguay....

8000 "professional" American troops defeated by 600 British troops and 200 Canadians with pitchforks hiding behind trees at Crysler's farm....

It just goes on and on, my friends....

Answer 7

Is your head spinning?? coz mines is trying to make sense of your question.