BS: War with Canada?

Subject: War with Canada?
From: annamill
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 05:05 PM

I just read this in my Netscape news:

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien is worried by what he sees as a confrontational and isolationist tone by the new U.S. administration and is getting ready to adopt a harder line with Washington if necessary, political sources said on Thursday.

Members of Chretien's ruling Liberal Party said the prime minister had taken the unusual step of expressing concern about relations with the United States -- which is by far Canada's most important ally and trading partner -- at a weekly meeting of legislators on Wednesday.

"They're getting tougher to deal with...and we're going to have to examine getting tough with them," one person in the room quoted Chretien as saying.

Canada's usually trouble-free relations with the United States have deteriorated steadily since President Bush took power, at least in part because Ottawa gave clear signs that it preferred Democrat Al Gore in last November's U.S. election.

The two countries are now mired in an ugly dispute over Canadian softwood lumber exports, which could escalate into a crippling trade war.

Canada, under U.S. pressure to agree to a controversial missile defense plan, is also angry that Washington abandoned the Kyoto climate change accord last week on the grounds it could damage the U.S. economy.

"Chretien definitely signaled a shift in attitude after a series of increasing problems. It was not a declaration of war on the United States but he said 'Look, things aren't going well'," said another Liberal source.

Chretien, by far the most experienced leader in the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations, expressed dismay at the Bush administration's tougher approach on sensitive issues such as Russia, China, North Korea and the Middle East peace process.

"(Chretien said) 'Bush has got his problems, he's got problems with China, he's got problems with I don't know who else. They're becoming more inward-looking, protectionist'," said one legislator.

Chretien -- who will meet Bush at an April 20-22 summit of Western Hemisphere leaders in Quebec -- did not specify how he might crack down on Washington.

His options would appear to be limited, especially as he ruled out linking the lumber dispute to Canada's profitable energy exports to the United States.

"All the signs are that this is a problematic relationship so it may partly become a matter of Canada bunkering down," said David Rudd, executive director of the Canadian Institute

of Strategic Studies.

"But it would not be responsible if we just sat back and took it (the U.S. stance) on lumber, missile defense or the environment," he told Reuters.

The prime minister's frank words could also create tensions with new Foreign Minister John Manley, whose overriding priority is to strengthen ties with Washington.

But sentiment within the Liberal party does appear to have hardened, with several members of Parliament openly admitting concern about the Bush administration.

"The Americans are becoming very arrogant. The expression goes 'It's either my way or the highway'...that's the American way," Liberal legislator Sarkis Assadourian told Reuters.

The legislators say Chretien is particularly vexed by the U.S. lumber industry's hard-line approach on the softwood issue, which he feels violates the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

U.S. lumber producers, who allege Canada is unfairly subsidizing its timber industry, asked the U.S. Commerce Department this week to impose stiff countervailing and anti-dumping duties on Canadian lumber imports.

Stephen Clarkson, a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto, who is currently a fellow at Washington's Woodrow Wilson Center, said Canada's options for getting tough with the United States are limited.

"(But) Canada can be firmer than it has been in the past and not give into U.S. violations of NAFTA. We could take them to the World Trade Organization (over lumber) and probably win," he said.

*********************************************************

We only have a little less than 4 years left. Then he's got to go!

Love for all of you, not Bush.., annamill

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: GUEST,Roll&Go-C
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 05:09 PM

Please invade Maine first, and then blow up the bridge to NH (sorry, our friends at the Press Room but desparate measures are called for).

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 05:16 PM

I quietly predicted...(well, ok, maybe not so quietly) that Bush would screw up so bad and offend so many within a year that we'd be begging Florida to keep recounting!

It's just too bad that one idiot has the potential to make entire international relationships sour.

Don't give up on us, Canada...we'll try again REAL soon!

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 05:18 PM

LOL!!

We GAVE up on you after we won the war of 1812...

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 06:09 PM

I surrender!!

Could I have some reparations please/merci.

Jacques La Grenouille

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Bert
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 06:16 PM

Grenouille? Isn't that a breakfast cereal?

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: GUEST,Ickle Dorritt
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 06:50 PM

Surely there must be some young woman intern, who for the sake of her country and for the future of world peace, it prepared to shag Bush in the oval office?

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 06:55 PM

Clinton - After you "won" the War of 1812??? "Won"????

What you won was the Battle of New Orleans and some minor naval battles (Constitution's defeat of the Guerriere and the Java, etc.). These were brief moments of triumph in a war that did not go very well at all for the USA.

Meanwhile British North America (now Canada) repulsed several land invasions, stripped much of the American merchant marine off the seas, won a couple of minor naval battles of its own (like the Chesapeake's defeat by the British frigate Shannon), and BURNED DOWN MUCH OF WASHINGTON!!! Including the White House!!! Imagine how many people in this world would love to accomplish that!

Got that? Burn, baby, burn! Ya-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Why, son, we hoss-whipped yore little asses clear across the dang continent! We had you runnin' through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go! Yeehaw!

Now, of course, we prefer to just provide you with great hockey players, great musicians, and weird comedians.

Ah! How the glories of the past have faded to a dull murmur in these commercialized and trivial times... :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Bert
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 07:03 PM

Oh I dunno Ickle, that's asking a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: GUEST,Ickle dorritt
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 07:08 PM

Yeh! your right Bert- but some poor deperate soul must be up for it!

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 07:19 PM

Or "some purr he'pless victim of temptayshyun"

As Hank Williams would say.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: kendall
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 07:25 PM

Hawk, how did we end up with a president instead of a King?Or a prime minister? How come we drive on the right side of the road? Have you read the treaty of Ghent?

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 07:31 PM

So Hawk.......you got a fockin' screw loose or what? (the answer is not "or what").......Clinton is a Canadjun........Y'all kinda' preachin' to the congregation.

I think Bush is instilling some wonderful family values......you know, like paranoia and keeping up with the Jones'. Like I keep saying, I don't mind him being an ignorant, smirking, uncaring asshole. I mind that he is a dangerous ignorant, smirking, uncaring asshole.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 07:37 PM

I didn't say anything about the War of American Independence, Kendall. You guys definitely won that one. It was the War of 1812 I was talking about. The one where the USA tried to invade Canada several times. Nobody exactly won that one in a decisive sense...it just eventually petered out...but the Americans on the whole did not do terribly well in it...not to say that they weren't brave on the battlefield. As were both sides.

Funnily enough, we Canadians drive on the right side of the road too. As for the other stuff you mentioned, that was due to the War of Independence 1775-1779 was it(?), not the War of 1812.

The Treaty of Ghent? Ah...I did intend to read the Treaty of Ghent just last week, but the hamster got sick, and I put it off. I must consult my encyclopedia about it right away. The treaty, I mean...not the hamster. :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: GUEST,SeanMsansacookie
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 07:40 PM

Well, this at least explains some of Bush's comments to the effect that if the American public wouldn't accept drilling in the Alaskan reserves, he'd start looking at the Northwestern Territories instead.

Die for oil, Canada! We took down Iraq, put Saddam in his place, and you're next!

Err...

Wait a minute...

M

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: GUEST,Roll&Go-C
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 07:55 PM

THAT BRIDGE BETWEEN MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE HAS TO BE BLOWN! You Canadians are ignoring our desparate plea; you can have all of Old Orchard Beach to yourselves! Now hurry up and do your thing!

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 08:17 PM

Oh, yeah? We're ready, ya hosers! We'll bore you into submission by forcing you to listen to lectures on Canadian history until you start singing The Maple Leaf Forever...or just die in your tracks like unwatered wildebeests. :-)

Spaw - Or what. You knew that, didn't you?

Kendall - Okay, I have consulted my encyclopedia, concerning the Treaty of Ghent. It states that: "The United States had fared so badly in the war that it was in no position to ask cessions of territory and finally dropped even its demand for the abandonment of impressment (of ex-British sailors off American vessels). It proposed merely a return to the situation before the war."

The British, whose primary concern was concluding the long war with Napoleon, agreed to simply return to the former status quo in North America.

And in another place it says: "Though the treaty (of Ghent) fulfilled not one of the U.S. objectives in the war, it received unanimous approval of the senate on Feb. 16th, 1815, and was joyously hailed by the public."

And: "Though the United States gained none of its avowed aims in the war, popular mythology soon converted defeat into victory."

When it comes to building a sense of national confidence, it's clearly more important what people think happened that what actually happened.

And denial is a wonderful thing isn't it?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: GUEST,TJ
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 08:19 PM

Well Little Hawk, maybe it's time we finally finish that war of 1812 and send our tanks into Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Matt_R
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 09:20 PM

Oh I wish I was back in old Canada
A land which I never shall lampoon
How I pine for the ice covering Lake Manitoba
And the beauty that is Saskatoon

I wish I was stuck in the hills of Alberta
Drinking beer with some big dumb guy trapping fur
As he scraped and he chiselled all the moose dung off his boots
I would learn that he was the Prime Minister

Oh I wish I was in the land that gave us Peter Jennings
Alanis Morissette, Mike Myers too
No I take that back, I wouldn't go there even if you paid me
O Canada, you are a place I must eschew

Oh I wish I was blowing up Prince Edward Island
And going on to bomb Ontario
The destruction of Canada and all of it's culture
Is by far my favorite scenario

Just where the Hell does Canada get off sharing a border
With countries far superior to it?
Well, you lousy, stinking francophonic bacon-loving bastards
Your country's just a giant piece of s***t!

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 09:27 PM

Don't forget the THIRD invasion of Canada from the US, when Irish Fenians, mostly Civil War veterans, raided north several times in the late 1860s and early 1870s.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Extra Stout
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 10:11 PM

I am unalterably opposed to war with Canada. We're still paying for rebuilding Germany and Japan. We can't afford to win another war just now.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: kendall
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 10:30 PM

ever hear of 54 40 or fight?

The Webster Ashburton treaty of 1843? ever notice how the state of Maine goes deep into Canada? Were these losses? On second thought, northern Maine is no great prize.. Seriously, let's not lose the humor here. If this thread becomes rancorus, I'm gone.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Apr 01 - 10:45 PM

Now I am miffed at the United States; how can we as a nation have continued practicing and protecting the institution of slavery until 1864 when it was forcibly negated when we had, as a nation, agreed as early as 1814 that it was wrong and we would try to abolish it?

Treaty of Ghent

ARTICLE THE TENTH.

Whereas the Traffic in Slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and Justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavours to accomplish so desirable an object.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 12:02 AM

In the ways of weasel-wording politicians everywhere and in all times, please note that the language of that article refers to the abolition of the traffic in slaves and not to the institution itself. The African slave trade was actually, legally, outlawed in the US in 1807. That certainly doesn't mean it stopped, however, but this article pledged the two nations to work together to reduce it.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 12:12 AM

In the news yesterday, indications were given that Cretien and his cabinet may back down on the Kyoto accord. It's the old story of the mouse living with the elephant. All Canada can do is try to put its views forward, but will have to bend to some extent. Bush has called for a global energy policy- I hope Canada has the will to resist the possible pillage of its remaining resources.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Troll
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 12:34 AM

On the subject of slavery, where is the great public outcry about the documented practice of slavery in northern Africa?
Where is the outrage?
The US is still being castigated some 135 years after the abolition of slavery but no one mentions its continued practice in places like the Sudan.
Why is that?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 01:31 AM

Because we don't see it, don't live with it? We are not directly confronted by it, we don't have a face to go with it. It is not personal to us.

As good as the media are in creating appetites and attitudes in the populace, why aren't they showing this on our evening news? And why are we not demanding it?

So, Troll, do you know anyone who is haranguing the media on the subject?

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 03:23 AM

Besides what Ebbie says, I think we are constantly reminded of our own country's sorry history of slavery because the discrimination is still very prevalent. Abolishing slavery had not brought about true equality, but then we may never see that, unless we all went colour blind and also asexual, so that gender-bias was gone, too.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 06:36 AM

Kendall. Re Maine going deep into Canada. The story I heard is that the Brits leading the peace negotiating committee didn't know which river system was which and simply screwed up at the talks. Otherwise, Irving would own most of north/east Maine as well. Of course, that's underway as we speak, er, type.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 06:40 AM

Roll&Go-C said... you can have all of Old Orchard Beach to yourselves.

No thanks. Too cold. We prefer to beach along the Northumberland Straight - the warmest waters north of the Carolinas.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: mkebenn
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 06:40 AM

I don't know, I'd miss my Sleeman's, maybe I'll defect, I'm only 15 miles from Fort Erie..Mike

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 06:57 AM

Heard on the radio yesterday that Jean complained about Bush in Cabinet ( or some such venue, can't remember exactly ). Apparently, when he started to discuss the PEI potato crisis with Garge, he had to explain to him where and what PEI is. And he had some none too kind words for Bush's knowledege of the US's largest trading partner.

Now, if you can piss off one of the most politically astute persons on this earth to the point that he questions your abilities, you've got to be a little stunned.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 07:04 AM

Change that last sentence as follows..... to the point that he questions your abilities, MORE OR LESS, PUBLICALLY, you've got to be a little stunned.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Naemanson
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 07:07 AM

Little Hawk wrote, "It was the War of 1812 I was talking about. The one where the USA tried to invade Canada several times. Nobody exactly won that one in a decisive sense...it just eventually petered out..."

Actually there was a winner. It was the economies of Eastport and southern New Brunswick. During the embargo and the blockade Eastport, Maine, was the busiest port in the USA. The accounts I've read describe the regular "discovery" of abandoned, fully loaded schooners in the seas off Eastport. The schooners would be taken into port and unloaded and the goods would be carried down the coast by ox cart. The newspapers took to announcing the arrivals of these carts just as they used to announce the arrivals of ships in the pre-embargo days.

By the way, the harbors of the US were closed BEFORE the War of 1812 by presidential decree when Monroe(?) declared an embargo to protect American sailors from the depredations of the piratical British Navy.

And, by the way, we let the British burn the White House. We didn't like the decor. It used to be the Puce House.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 07:49 AM

Naemanson... piratical British Navy.... and privateers, scoundrels and thieves. "Oh, the Yankee lay low down with gold,...

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: kendall
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 08:03 AM

The PUCE HOUSE? that is funny! Even though we sorta won the War of 1812, the British military didn't leave until 1835. Their last outpost was vacated at Castine.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 08:14 AM

Kendall... Even though we sorta won the War of 1812 ??? Please do share your knowledge and insight. I would welcome a second opinion - the history books are so boring, what with all those facts and such.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 08:15 AM

Naemanson, you didn't have green cards then. So quite a few British merchant sailors took the opportunity to swear before an American Justice that they were Americans and so got a paper that they hoped would save them from impressment. Also there were a number of cases of British sailore deserting to American ships, who refused to hand them back.

I'm not defending impressment. In my home town there were cases of women attacking the press gang to get their husbands back. But it wasn't piracy.

It's a good point about Maine, though. Apparantly there were quite a few British sympathisers up there that worked out a good deal with their enemies. Loyalists, I think they were called. God knows why!

Didn't they try to smooth out the Maine border out at that time? What was all that about?

Little Hawk - by the time of the Battle of New Orleans we had already finished the big war with Napoleon (and we hadn't started the little one yet) so the British troops were largely veterans of that conflict. The trouble was that the generals were all second division ones. The good ones didn't want to get involved in a litte war with a minor nation!

Les from Hull (not the one in Canada and nothing to do with the Commodore of that name).

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: MichaelM
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 08:17 AM

So, Naemanson, the whole war was merely cover for a torch job for the insurance money. Clever,bloody clever.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 08:36 AM

MichaelM.... excellent !!!! ROTFL !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Peter T.
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 09:05 AM

Jean Chretien is a one-faced liar and hypocrite. He is currently trying to sell off the rest of Canada to the United States through a continental energy grid. He is even boasting about pumping billions into the Alberta tar sands, and opening up the Northwest Territories to keep the Americans from their own Refuge. And simultaneously talking about how Canada will meet its Kyoto committments, and worrying about the Americans. They are both idiots, are bent on degrading the planet, and deserve each other.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: annamill
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 09:29 AM

We just keep learning with Mudcat.. Bush scares the hell out of me.. Can we keep him from starting a war for four years?...

Love, annamill

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: MichaelM
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 10:05 AM

From a outsider's viewpoint it seems the wars get started when the administration needs to distract the populace from some major domestic screw-up (bread and circus maximus). Give the President lots of busy work without too much national strife and maybe he won't feel the need for the foreign fireworks display.

N.B. Without getting into a just/unjust dialogue I am not slagging the U.S. military wholesale.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Willie-O
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 10:22 AM

Annamill, that original post is not really very accurate in its overall suggestion that Canada-US relations are "usually trouble-free". We almost always have resource-based trade disputes going on, and the softwood lumber thing is not real relevant to who won the White House. The reason it is happening now is that the five-year Softwood Lumber Agreement expired last week without an extension or new treaty in place and the American producers are of course looking for terms more favourable to them. (They can only frame it as an issue of government subsidy, namely low stumpage fees paid by timber companies that log Crown land. Probably a bigger factor in the low price of Canadian lumber in the US is the Canadian dollar being at an all-time low of 63.5 cents US, which gives us a huge free-market economy trading advantage right now..)

Incidentally, I think they're right about the stumpage fees being too low. Many environmental groups on both sides of the border are supporting the US timber producers. And the biggest "Canadian" companies benefiting are actually ...Weyerhauser, Stone Consolidated and other US multinationals.

Canada's response to Bush's shameless reneging on Kyoto has been embarrassingly wimpy. Poutine finally said something? Whoopee. Peter's right in his assessment.

Willie-O

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: annamill
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 10:44 AM

Willie-O and Peter and everyone, thank you for the other side of this situation. I feel so much better knowing Bush isn't the only stupid one ;-) I've got to get over to the Kyoto thread and do some more learning.

Love, annamill

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 10:51 AM

Perhaps South Park the Movie was far more serious than I thought!

Has the USA arrested any Canadian Terence or Philip for corrupting young minds recently? And can we expect the news that Saddam Hussain has been trampled to death by Wild Pigs to be made public in the next few days....?

If you need to ask just watch the Movie (but don't blame me!)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Willie-O
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 12:01 PM

Well, the trouble with Chretien is not that he's dumb. He's not, he's very shrewd although he mangles the English language in a fashion which makes Dubya, Dubya Senior or Dan Quayle look downright erudite. (It's not his native tongue).

But he's widely regarded these days as being arrogant and indifferent to the popular will. Because he HAS a majority mandate to govern, which we have given him twice, (although with a conspicuous absence of support west of Ontario. Canadian political demographics make the west irrelevant, which pisses them off endlessly.)

Rick Mercer said last week "Chretien could show up at a press conference tomorrow, pull out a crack pipe and fire it up, tell us all to go to hell and then declare war on the aliens, and he's still govern the country and do whatever the hell he wants with it for the next three years."

Both the right wing parties and the sadly diminished and scattered left are equally pissed off about all this. They're even cooperating strategically in some ways to combat the MANDATED government, but there's not a damn thing they can do until they can figure out how to get more votes than the Liberals. Or at least deny them a majority next time.

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Naemanson
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 12:20 PM

Les from Hull, I was once looking through a book of broadsides and came upon a song of the women attacking a press gang and taking their men back from them. the song described a great battle. I should go back and get the words.

Impressment was a tough thing to deal with if you were an English subject in an English town. Imagine how tough it was to be captain of an American vessel and have it stopped on the high seas and searched for "English citizens"! And with the Revolution such recent history it was difficult to tell English from Americans. So mistakes were made and the wrong men were pressed into the English Navy.

BTW, though his story begins during the Revolution Joseph Nagle's journal makes fascinating reading. He started out as a Continental soldier fighting in land battles. Somehow he ended up on an American privateer, was captured by the English while on one of the French Carribean islands, was pressed into the English Navy and served the next 20+ years as a British tar. He ended his days wandering from family member to family member in Western Pennsyvania living off of their chrity and a modest pension from his time in the Contiental Army. Good story and it's all true!

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 12:34 PM

Naemanson - I'd love those words. I would eventually like to put together some sort of presentation about the Sailing Navy (with songs of course). There's plenty of shanty stuff done but not so much about men-o-war's-men.

Some Americans served in the Royal Navy as a career. People forget that to some this was a career. They fairly dreaded peace breaking out!

Les

Subject: RE: BS: War with Canada?
From: Naemanson
Date: 06 Apr 01 - 12:43 PM

Actually, in reading Nagle's journal it was a bit of a problem getting home. Plus, as you say, he had made it his career. I had the sense, in reading it, that there was an ulterior reason for not going home. It may have been that he never got the chance.

There is a great description of walking the streets of London and meeting a young prostitute. Plus Nagle was present at some of the great events of the time. He was in China for the Jupiter incident and on the ship that delivered the first convicts to New Zealand. He was shipwrecked on NZ for quite some time.