I'm not going to suggest that we did that, though a lot of Canadians would say we did. There may or may not have been Canadian troops there, but there's no doubt that the majority of the forces were fresh-from-the-motherland Royal Marines. Yes, I know, Canada didn't even exist then. And even though General Sir George Prevost gave the order, he did so as a British General, even if he was stationed in Canada. That's not the point. The British, despite overwhelming numerical superiority, could not be said to have won that war, though given that your people started it and didn't come away with any spoils save your continued existence, neither did you.
But it's different now, right? This time you have the overwhelming numerical superiority. The overwhelming tactical superiority. Let's face it, in a bombing war you could level most of our cities. On a field of battle you could destroy our forces without even facing them. From 1812 to 1815 you did a pretty good job of striking at our cities, although those you took you didn't keep long (the burning of York, now Toronto, and then the site of our parliament, led to an escalating tit-for-tat arson campaign which eventually resulted in British officers supping in your boarding houses while they watched your capitol burn). We have no doubt that you could beat us.
But could you occupy us? That's the devil right there, isn't it. Even the best of empires had trouble with that. As a matter of fact, that's the trouble you seem to be having right now. Somewhere off the Mediterranean, if I recall.
Let's compare target countries, shall we?
24,683,313 (July 2003 est.)
32,207,113 (2001 Census)
Similar populations, interesting.
Iraq (pre 2003 estimates)
375, 000 regular forces
95,000 - 120,000 Republican and Special Republican Guard.
Total: 470,000 - 495,000
60,000 regular forces
Well, there you go. You waltzed straight to Baghdad, and they had 6.5 times the soldiers. Piece of cake. True, the Canadian army is more modern, but not by that much. Heck, Saddam might have been able to take us.
437,072 km sq.
World Rank by Size: 57th
9,976,140 km sq.
World Rank by Size: 2nd
Youch. That's a lot more territory. 20 times as big.
(Incidentally, the US is #3 by size internationally, behind Russia and Canada, but ahead of China and Brazil. Top five isn't too bad. Plenty of countries would kill for your position.)
You might have guessed that holding territory has something to do with size. You can't be everywhere, and Iraq is comparatively tiny. It's still not that easy there, is it? It was pretty hard to find Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan too, eh? Most of our country is like that.
But it's different. They hate you there. They're Arabs. They're Not Like Us. Canadians would just fold like Austria in '38, right? (Incidentally, GWB is looking awfully snappy in these new paramilitary duds he's been wearing. He looks right at home.)
Well, I hate to break it to you, but even if you accept the idea that we wouldn't put up much resistance (if you want a good idea of what lengths motivated Canadian Soldiers will go to, look at Vimy Ridge, or Juno Beach), it's probably not just us you'd have to contend with. Just like in 1812, it's our friends you'd have to worry about.
Let's start with the Mother Country, Great Britain. Tony Blair's your good buddy, I know. Standing up to Iraqi terror and all that. He's catching a lot of flack for that at home though, isn't he? Imagine the flack he'd take for not helping out a country his Queen still reigns over, eh? I don't think you could count on them for support. Probably outright hostility is more like it.
Then there's France. Remember when you started this noble experiment you call democracy? (You did then, anyways). France was right there for you weren't they? Then they had their own little revolution, and things weren't so predictable any more. And remember how recently you started calling things 'Freedom Toast' and Freedom Fries'? They do. Besides, they're still kind of fond of Quebec, even if they're not so sure we should keep it.
Most of the rest of NATO would probably go the same way, though it would probably break up the alliance. The British Commonwealth, too (that includes Australia), maybe even La Francophonie. You might hang on to Poland. Think you could beat the rest of NATO?
But maybe there's some other potential allies. What about Russia? Now that they're a 'democracy', there's a lot of similarities between your countries. The irony of the US and Russia teaming up to carve up Canada against the wishes of the rest of the world is too delicious, almost makes the whole thing worthwhile from an observer's perspective. Trouble is, with the rest of the world against you two, China might make a grab for some of Russia. Or North Korea might do something nuts. And what if you two can't agree and things get nasty? Guaranteed the War on Terror would be meaningless. Who cares if someone bombs a building, when Nuclear Armageddon is back on the table.
Napoleon lost, in the end, because he conquered too much. He had all sorts of military might, but he had no friends. All it took was one motivated enemy with the willingness to scorch some earth, a bit too much time out in the Russian winter without good coats, or food, and his forces became useless. It wasn't like he could draw on his allies for help.
See, the difference between Canada and Iraq is we have friends.
So go on Ann. I dare ya.
Please note, before the flaming starts, that I'm not lumping all Americans in with Ann, or her ilk. This is about the right wing take on foreign policy, not America, or Americans. In other words this is between me and her.