Posted on 02/09/2010 1:28:06 AM PST by Fenhalls555
What a pity your ideas on racial differences are not verifiable.
Anyway, that is just a screed against redcoats, not run of the mill Brits. Nobody liked redcoats.
How do you explain all the many many colonists who sided with the British (or legal authorities) against the patriots (or rebels, depending what side you were on)?
So..."chap", "chaps", "cheerio", "rot"....yeah its good to see all the stereotypes nicely trotted out. You missed out teeth.
No matter how you chaps want to spin it, the migration to America from England was massive,
I'm not spinning it. I admit it.
and it was to escape your government and the chuch of England with it's oppressive laws and rules...
Ah, well yes..here is where we detect the bovine tang of yankee BS. Can you imagine the Cof E oppressing ANYONE? The Mayflower folk left England because the CofE was far too moderate, not burning enough catholics probably.
we were looking for freedom, and we found it. Nobody got off the boat here and said, "Point me to someone I can victimize.".
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but yes they damn well did. You just ask all those "Injuns" who got robbed, cheated, shot and forced off their lands. You ask the comanche on the "trail of tears", a forced march from georgia to what is now oklahoma with a 33% casualty rate. You ask all dem nigras hanging from the trees. BS. Youre nothing special. No nation has a monopoly on virtue. Or do you think "all have sinned and departed from the glory of god" doesn't apply to you?
Yes I do call (some) of you arrogant. And rightly so too, I'm bloody angry. Wouldnt you be, if someone came out with a lot of ignorant garbage about your homeland? One that is supposed to be your ally. You know, the one that backed you in Korea, backed you in Iraq I and II and now in Afghanistan, where we've just lost our 256th soldier - making it a more bloody conflict for us than the Falklands. And before you say you've lost far more, you've got far more there.
No its not "LOL". I'm not laughing. I don't find it amusing one little bit.
sorry, in my anger my bible learning left me - “sinned and fallen short of the glory of god”.
Of course, the English never victimized the Irish, did they?
The Statues of Kilkenny, passed in the 14th century, were specifically aimed at the Irish and were an early form of apartheid. In 1580 Raleigh killed hundreds of Irish who had revolted against the English authorities, calling them "Irish savages," and for which he was handsomely rewarded with confiscated Irish lands.
It resumed in 1990. It started with the 1946 ouster of Churchill. The Brits seem to be politically schizophrenic and unable to decide whether they want to be ruggedly independent or supinely metrosexual.
Time for regime change again, I'd say.
“It resumed in 1990. It started with the 1946 ouster of Churchill.”
Not at all. The few Jamaicans & others who fought for Britain & who genuinely wanted to be British cannot be compared to the rushing in of as many foreigners as possible post-90 as a Babylonian-style divide and conquer tactic.
I agree that the immigration issues in the two time periods differ, but what I was alluding to was that the British brought in Clement Atlee in order to establish a wide-ranging welfare state which Churchill would never have done. They regretted it, but never eliminated it. The only real expression of effective regret was electing Lady Margaret. And they decided that was too much and relapsed again.
“electing Lady Margaret. And they decided that was too much and relapsed again.”
they did nothing of the sort! the British never diselected Thatcher. They had the choice forcibly removed from their hands.
They must not think it's that bad...
Well its well off-topic (the Irish not having been mentioned in any way, shape or form on this thread - the initiation was the unwarranted assertion that the British “whine” that its americas fault whenever anything goes wrong) but yes, the English did victimise the Irish in the past, and did very terrible things to them.
There you go. I admit it completely. Not very “whiny” was it? In fact, you could argue its more “whiny” to attempt to justify your own conduct by attempting to throw blame on others.
Got any more shots in your locker?
You’re just jealous because we beat you at you own game.
Our industrial genius developed rifles that could kill your officers from 1000 yards away. While your imperial arrogance dictated warfare protocol that demanded that you wear expensive red jackets and shoot muskets that were only effective at 50 yards and under.
And then there was World War Two, we came to your rescue once again. The first was World War One. Had we not come to your aide, you would be speaking German and goose stepping under a large Swastika. Americans fought and died for YOU, and this is how you show your gratitude?
Finally, you are simply a crass Troll Disruptor and have no place on this forum. You spew hate for Americans and America and you are as blind as most DU Liberals about the pride and glory this Country represents!
Here's what I was addressing: your off-topic remark. Let he who is without sin and all that.
BTW, I'm puzzled by the "British whine" assertion myself and don't agree with it.
In fact, you could argue its more “whiny” to attempt to justify your own conduct by attempting to throw blame on others.
See above. There have been some undeniably shameful chapters in America's past, but these have been exceptions rather than the rule.
Now stop whining.
OK Got it. Whining = standing up for yourself and your nation. Just so I understand.
Ah that old meme. The arrogance sir, belongs to those who would distort facts to suit their own mythology. So, heres some corrections.
The industrial revolution was only just beginning then. Almost all weapons were still being very laboriously made. There was no “industrial genius” because there was no industry. The weapon I presume you are referring to is the “kentucky long rifle”, which indeed was very accurate, but also very heavy, very cumbersome, very expensive, very slow firing, and prone to misfire. It was not “imperial arrogance” that dictated warfare protocol that demanded we shoot muskets accurate to 50 yards - it was a sensible application of existing technology. Napoleon Bonaparte FORBADE the use of rifles in his army, because of the low rate of fire. The Continental army used smoothbore muskets, most US militia units used them. American soldiers were still using them in the Civil war - 10% of the Union soldiers at Gettysburg were using smoothbore muskets. Guess that makes George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Robert E Lee and US Grant all guilty of “imperial arrogance” too. In fact, contrary to all the propoganda that americans are spoonfed from the cradle about the War of Independence the British were perfectly capable of countering light infantry tactics with the same tactics themselves. As for wearing Red jackets - American Blue shows up just as well. Better in low light. Pity that your pride crumbles when faced with hard fact.
You came into World War Two because you were attacked by Japan. In the meantime, the British navy and air force protected the eastern coast of America very handily for you. That’s all right, I don’t expect any thanks.
I am very grateful to those true Americans who gave up a comfortable life to help us in the name of freedom everywhere. What I was doing was pointing out a few home truths to those prideful, arrogant yanks who think that because they came in late into the two biggest wars in history it gives them the right to sneer at those of us who sacrificed a world empire on principle. We didn’t HAVE to fight the Germans after all. They didn’t have any beef with us...Hitler wanted to take the Russians out, not the British Empire.
I dont mind being called a “Crass Troll disruptor” by the likes of you. I’ve long since learned that even a minor deviation from the accepted paradigm is enough to get labeled as such by some people on this site.
Old thread, but I’ve enjoyed the pwnage you’ve handed out to him. British soldiers were on the whole actually more effective and won more battles and engagements than the US colonists. Britain was defeated more for strategic reasons than tactical ones (not least the intervention of three other major world powers against Britain).
He’s also wrong to assume that rifles were only used by the Americans. Major Patrick Ferguson’s experimental rifle corps used some of the world’s earliest breech-loading rifles, which were his own invention, and he fought on the side of the British Army until he was killed at the Battle of King’s mountain in 1780. Of course, rifled guns had been around for a very long time before the AWoI, some were even used during the English Civil War some 130 years earlier.
However, as you have said, the rifles were too delicate and expensive to be mass produced and used as truly effective battlefield weapons at this time. It was only with the invention of the Baker Rifle in 1800 that the Rifle was truly robust enough to be an effective battlefield weapon under continuous field conditions....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.