View Single Post
Old 01-14-2011, 06:22 PM   #35
jwham
Privileged Member
 
jwham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,007
Reputation: 23285
jwham has a maximum reputation! (1000+)jwham has a maximum reputation! (1000+)jwham has a maximum reputation! (1000+)jwham has a maximum reputation! (1000+)jwham has a maximum reputation! (1000+)jwham has a maximum reputation! (1000+)jwham has a maximum reputation! (1000+)jwham has a maximum reputation! (1000+)jwham has a maximum reputation! (1000+)jwham has a maximum reputation! (1000+)jwham has a maximum reputation! (1000+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by menace View Post
That's just it. In order to overcome regulars, the militia needed significant numerical superiority, which any band of conscripts with two weeks training could do. So what advantage does their experience with firearms give them?
Britain’s military inadequacies and American guerrilla tactics accounted for some of Britain’s defeats during the war. There was an enormous number of patriots ready to fight for independence, their poor military skills meant they were incapable of winning conventional battles however they could occupy strong points and settlements and could use guerrilla tactics. British casualties were much higher then the rebels as the British found themselves constantly ambushed by small forces in the mountains and on bridges. The Americans lost most of the early battles but the British kept letting Washington escape and in 1777 when the Americans finally won a battle at Saratoga the British gave up the offensive in the North. One could say that if Burgoyne hadn’t let Washington escape at Brandywine or hadn’t walked into heavy rebel resistance in Saratoga, France and Spain wouldn’t have joined in the war and the British would have won.

A major weakness of the British cause was their lack of a clear strategy or objective. The Patriots were transparent in their aims; the quest for independence was without compromise or negotiation, the failure of British generals to understand this at the beginning of the conflict meant that they had insufficient troops and resources at their disposal and this certainly contributed to British defeat. Indecision and unclear strategy also had a damaging affect on morale, lack of confidence in the British cause spread to the highest ranks; Captain James Murray wrote in a letter home that he sincerely wished it was all over; “a barbarous business in a barbarous country ” and if Lord Montgomery’s theory that morale is the single greatest factor in war is to be believed, these sorts of feelings amongst the troops and officers were of serious concern. The American rebels on the other hand had everything to win by victory and everything to loose by defeat, where as the British could survive with or without the exploitation of the colonies.

But that is enough of the history lessons, you should now get the point why we won our war of independence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by menace View Post
Do you understand how totalitarian systems even work? It's not the black and white picture of the evil tyrant single handedly enslaving his subjects. Totalitarian systems require a wide spread network of people that benefit from the system and are keen to maintain it.
Let me explain what Government system we hard working Americans don't want, and that system is that of the far far left that is in office today in America who lean towards a socialist government. This reduces individual freedom and productivity by taxing the working people more to pay for social programs. Programs are fine. But the government has bankrupted social security and Medicare. In fact, only 21 cents of each dollar paid in to SS actually reaches a retired recipient. Government doesn't manage finances well, but there are those far left Liberals who want our governments to become mom and dad, and are willing to offer complete control to them, and there are those of us who would rather pull our own weight and keep government out of our personal lives.

So when I use the term of "totalitarian government" I mean any system of Government where the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political expression is suppressed in an attempt to keep the populace in check. And I am not talking about the moderate "Blue Dog" or "Lunch Box" Democrat, for I believe most of them would agree with me.

But we have steered off the subject of the banning of fire arms here in the US, and I would like to point out that congresswoman Gabby Giffords is a long time gun owner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by menace View Post
I am not anti white, just against racial policies. And in the West, those come from white people.
You mean in the USA where we elected a Biracial President? In America you can be anything you want to be regardless of the color of your skin, if you're willing to work for it.

Last edited by jwham; 01-14-2011 at 07:16 PM.
jwham is offline   Reply With Quote