The Canadian Front

[otakon17]

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!! ...er I mean MAPLE LEAFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the "Sorry." just clinches it.

 

[Grach]

Oh, just wait till you see the french canadian grenadier corps.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

xD

Canadian jokes like this never get old.

 

[LordLundar]

Yes. In fact, the world record holder for the longest confirmed kill against a human combatant (or a human, for that matter), is a Canadian, a 1.54 miles, which is about 2.5 kilometers.

Actually the current record holder is a British Corporal. Though it did take him 9 shots to properly range the target and the only 45m less record for the Canadian was done in 3 shots.

That must've been recent then, because I recall the Canadian still being the holder sometime last year. I remember reading about the Canadian right after it happened on a website. I wanna say he used an AWM, but there's a good chance I'm off on that. I'm absolutely certain, however, that he actually took out two guys, not just one. Hit them both in the gut. If not, we must be talking about different Canadians.

Yeah it was couple of years ago iirc. To be fair to the brit though his rifle wasn't considered nearly accurate enough for the range he pulled the shot off with.

And the US would have to be preemptive in it's attack. If Canada led off we would have America secured in a week because no one would believe it.

 

[Robert0288]

Comic is 100% accurate. Proof:

And why would the US invade us? I mean Tim Hortins has already invaded Ft. Knox and Afghanistan

Captcha: Red White and Blue.... I had to refresh it

 

[Requia]

Yes. In fact, the world record holder for the longest confirmed kill against a human combatant (or a human, for that matter), is a Canadian, a 1.54 miles, which is about 2.5 kilometers.

Actually the current record holder is a British Corporal. Though it did take him 9 shots to properly range the target and the only 45m less record for the Canadian was done in 3 shots.

That must've been recent then, because I recall the Canadian still being the holder sometime last year. I remember reading about the Canadian right after it happened on a website. I wanna say he used an AWM, but there's a good chance I'm off on that. I'm absolutely certain, however, that he actually took out two guys, not just one. Hit them both in the gut. If not, we must be talking about different Canadians.

Yeah it was couple of years ago iirc. To be fair to the brit though his rifle wasn't considered nearly accurate enough for the range he pulled the shot off with.

And the US would have to be preemptive in it's attack. If Canada led off we would have America secured in a week because no one would believe it.

I don't think you could actually hold America. Invade and stay sure, but people would continue to not believe it, and just carry on as usual, I can just see the canadian army parked outside Capitol Hill, apologizing to the politicians as they get on with work.

 

[Almack]

Even if they could make a helmet sniper-proof, it would be far too heavy to wear. It's good for stopping shrapnel and pistol fire, that's about it.

Oh, and here's a relevant video about the War of 1812.

I will now refer to america as canada's pants from now on

 

[Scarecrow]

The Canadian Front

There can be no victors in the war between man and hat.

Read Full Article

Is the bottom song line by your names from the Modest Mouse song "Dashboard"? I wouldn't normally quote, but it's driving me mad and I must know.

Edit:

Three pages and no mention of the Modest Mouse lyrics? I am disappoint.

Oh, those silly Canadians.

I knew it! Thank you for noticing it as well. Now I know I'm not crazy.

 

[Mcupobob]

Oh, just wait till you see the french canadian grenadier corps.

Like we would be scared of French Canadians. I'm joking by the way, Canada is a awesome place love our neighbors up north.

As for as the 1812 debate maybe this will clear things up.

 

[Major_Tom]

That didn't happen until 2072.

 

[invadergir]

War Of 1812

I'm sorry. I'm really sorry. I'm going to seem like a dick saying this. But with the exception of Stonington, which I can't find much information on, every single assertion you've made in your post is wrong. Again, I don't want to be a dick about it, but I can't let this amount of misinformation stand without replying to it. I'll try to make this as quick and painless as possible and include Wikipedia links.

.

I'll put it to you this way. Your the second person attempting to present a backround in history saying that I'm wrong, and I suppose I can see this, as historical re-inventionism is a big deal nowadays with things being changed around in an increasingly anti-US light, especially within the US. I don't doubt in this case that someone told you these things, and some of the people writing wikipedia agreed with you, and that maybe you even managed to get a degree with such information, but that doesn't mean it's true. This is exactly the kind of dispute that leads to criticisms of colleges and such operating largely as left wing political apparatus, spreading propaganda.

Speaking for my part, a lot of my information comes from actually living in New England, where a lot of this stuff actually happened, and being familiar with a certain amount of local history. It doesn't surprise me that there isn't much record of "The Battle Of Stongington" because it will be inconveinent to the current propaganda, on the other hand I've actually you know... been to Stonington and a lot of the local teachers and museums and such make sure people know things like that and can put it into context, especially given that it's important to people who are from Stonington.

It's sort of like how a lot of people love to try and tell me what happened with Native Americans or what their culture was like (or is like) when I've actually worked for two tribes down here. The natives will be the first to tell you that a lot of these big massacres (on the east coast) were hardly one sided or unprovoked, and also that their people weren't all that primitive either especially when a lot of these things happened, and they got VERY political. People tend to be shocked when they realize that Chief Uncas despite what happened to his people is personally very well respected and all kinds of things are named after him and his feats, namely because he was pretty much okay, but the people under him that made a lot of the desicians at the time were a bunch of greedy oppertunistic douchebags who started a war the Mohegans couldn't win, motivated purely by greed. A decent relationship with the Mohegans before that is also why the tribe survived into the present day, and was never as ambigious as the claims of Mashantucket survival, which is a whole differant discussion (I've worked for both the Mohegans and Mashantuckets).

Incidently, a lot of this kind of historical re-inventionism is at the root of why a lot of people are so upset when people decide to move in and start making the insides of town halls, courthouses, etc... "politically correct". Removing things like religious iconography and the like. A lot of those symbols weren't just religious but also commemerated specific events such as battles. Over the years there has been a lot of criticism about how the first thing the liberals do is come in and take away the stone statue of a bible, and then try and tell you the event it commemerated never happened or "you learned it wrong" despite it being placed so people wouldn't forget. New England, despite some strong left wing leanings (the way we go politically in most big, federal, elections is pretty obvious), has constant battles between historical preservation and the politically correct over these kinds of things. Sadly those wanting to preserve the past are losing, and the results are discussions like the one we're having.

I'd imagine the guys who taught you, also told you that on the east coast Native Americans were a group of migrant hunter-gatherers with no concept of property ownership and a simple tribal structure, who all lived peacefully before the white men arrived. In reality there were primitive farmers who lived in longhouses that had complicated arrangements involving not only a chief, but sub-chiefs, and a tribal council of elders. Tribes like the Mashantuckets and Mohegans never paticularly got along and fought each other all the time over land... and land and territory were something they very much understood in trading for it. The Mashantuckets even run a pretty substantial museum explaining this with an entire village built up inside of it by way of demonstration to show you pretty much what one would have looked like. Primitive compared to the whites? Yes, but neither THAT primitive or ignorant. Once you understand exactly who you are talking about, you can begin to really understand how things played out for example... but for the most part you'll never hear anything but 'evil white men, exploiting and killing innocent migrant savages that had no conception of what they were dealing with... somehow remaining untouched and pure even after decades of contact'.

As someone who studied colonial and pre-industrial American history, I can say that almost everything you claimed is just false. And if you studied historiography as you claim, being from that region doesn't give you a position of authority to speak on a subject, as it is more likely that local folklore has colored your information.

Hand waiving off criticism of your claim as typical liberal revisionist history shows me that you are are an ideologue and not a historian.

 

[Aesir23]

True story of two Canadians:



Me: "Augh! Are you all right?"

Her: "I'M SORRY! I'M SORRY! I'll be OK..."

So yes, the stereotype is true.

There's also the classic "Canadian Shuffle" that happens the nation over several hundred times a day...

Two people walking in opposite directions start crossing eachothers path, they sort of "dance around" for a second, make eye contact, both say "Sorry!" in a surprised manner and then they'll both try to defer and let the other by.

Yup... sometimes there really is a sort of "politeness one-ups-man-ship" that goes on up here

I've done the "Canadian Shuffle" so many times it's not even funny... Well, okay maybe it is a little funny.

 

[Sporky111]

I really don't get this one. Is this an inside joke between Americans and Canadians?

More of an inside joke for Canadians. Tim Hortons is our coffee shop, it's a national treasure. And we have a reputation for saying sorry about everything.

 

[NearLifeExperience]

I really don't get this one. Is this an inside joke between Americans and Canadians?

The joke goes a few ways. First, Canadians really like Tim Hortons (chain of donut & coffee shops), for whatever reason. Secondly, there's a stereotype that Canadians apologize compulsively, leading this sniper to not only apologize for shooting an enemy troop in the head, but reveal his position by doing so.

Now that you've explained it to me, I still don't get how anyone could think this is funny.. Guess it really is a cultural thing huh.

I want Erin back dammit

 

[SteewpidZombie]

That's right, you filthy Americans need to stay off our land and away from our Tim Hortons...and I'm sorry I called Americans filthy. As a apology on behalf of Canada, we will share some Timbits and Coffee with you.

 

[Goofguy]

You stay the hell away from our Timmy Ho's.

Though honestly, everyone seems to love the iced cappuccino. I was there the day the Tim Horton's was shut down in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Lots of sad Americans had made the trip to our sector for a deliciously refreshing iced cap only to find the place shut down permanently. I felt bad for them.

 

[Nielas]

But hey, until I mentioned it, all these experts had never even heard of "The Battle Of Stonington" and oddly can't find records of it other than a brief mention of a naval clash.

I still do not see why you think that battle was so important. There were a ton of small skirmishes during that war but most just get subsumed into the larger campaigns that they were part of. I remember driving in Ontario and coming upon a monument commemorating a battle fought at that location. It seemed like a significant battle for the town but was not as strategically important as the Battle of the Thames which took place in the same region.