Are we headed towards WWIII?

[REDCELL]

icard:

Difference being that the government in the revolutionary war was located across an ocean and had a extremely large number of disadvantages compared to the colonists.

Do elaborate.....I would just love to hear what they are teaching these days......

"if the government went after you, you'd be crushed. The government will always be better armed and better trained."

:hehehe:

 

[mzcool]

Do elaborate.....I would just love to hear what they are teaching these days......

"if the government went after you, you'd be crushed. The government will always be better armed and better trained."

:hehehe:

Main one being geography. The British weren't as familiar with the land as the colonists were obviously. Then you had the fact that pretty much all of the colonists almost unanimously were against the Brits. The colonists also had the help of the French.

And yes, the government obviously has better weapons and will always have better weapons than you do, and those are just the ones we know about. This isn't 1776.

 

[REDCELL]

Never lower yourself to arguing with a paranoid person.

Are you referring to me being paranoid?


Please show evidence, or else this just comes off as a cheesy, weak attempt at a personal attack.

 

[TESLA760]

Are you referring to me being paranoid?


Please show evidence, or else this just comes off as a cheesy, weak attempt at a personal attack.

Look at your posts. Who are you , that the "government" is so interested in taking you down ? Put your tin foil cap back on.

 

[mzcool]

Look at your posts. Who are you , that the "government" is so interested in taking you down ? Put your tin foil cap back on.

Obviously Edward Snowden has an account on RWI. Oh wait, most of what Edward Snowden says is actually accurate.

 

[REDCELL]

Main one being geography. The British weren't as familiar with the land as the colonists were obviously. Then you had the fact that pretty much all of the colonists almost unanimously were against the Brits. The colonists also had the help of the French.

And yes, the government obviously has better weapons and will always have better weapons than you do, and those are just the ones we know about. This isn't 1776.

Care to show a stat about the percentage of colonists who were against the Brits? Im not sure I would call 40-50% "almost unanimous". How may colonists collaborated? How many just kinda hung back?

So the Brits (The Government) were at a disadvantage because they were better equipped and trained??

Im well aware this isn't 1776. My post to you was to point out that your statements were incorrect. What you described as impossible...has in fact been done before. The colonists had next to nothing, and defeated the most powerful, best equipped, best trained government of the era.

 

[REDCELL]

Look at your posts. Who are you , that the "government" is so interested in taking you down ? Put your tin foil cap back on.

...link?

 

[mzcool]

Care to show a stat about the percentage of colonists who were against the Brits? Im not sure I would call 40-50% "almost unanimous". How may colonists collaborated? How many just kinda hung back?

So the Brits (The Government) were at a disadvantage because they were better equipped and trained??

Im well aware this isn't 1776. My post to you was to point out that your statements were incorrect. What you described as impossible...has in fact been done before. The colonists had next to nothing, and defeated the most powerful, best equipped, best trained government of the era.

No, I was referring to the modern day government being better equipped and trained.

40-50% supported the revolution, while 15-20% were loyalists. The rest were neutral. As I stated before, the colonists had advantages such as the military training and monetary aid from the French, as well as a greater knowledge of the battlefield than the Brits. With today's government technology and weapons, any rebellion would easily be crushed. Not like a rebellion wasn't crushed before, cough civil war cough.

Today, if there were to be a rebellion, you would likely have less than 10% of the country supporting it and a even lesser percentage willing to fight for one.

 

[Steelfish]

Main one being geography. The British weren't as familiar with the land as the colonists were obviously. Then you had the fact that pretty much all of the colonists almost unanimously were against the Brits. The colonists also had the help of the French.

And yes, the government obviously has better weapons and will always have better weapons than you do, and those are just the ones we know about. This isn't 1776.

What also has to be taken into account was that the lines of communication between the British expeditionary forces and Mother England weren't exactly short.

The time it would have taken General Cornwallis' message of......"the locals aren't exactly pleased at the moment...send reinforcements"......to get to England would have been substantial......then of course England would of had to muster troops that were stationed to all four points of the globe to assist......we're talking one hell of a long time and of course by then strategic points had been taken.

 

[REDCELL]

No, I was referring to the modern day government being better equipped and trained.

40-50% supported the revolution, while 15-20% were loyalists. The rest were neutral. As I stated before, the colonists had advantages such as the military training and monetary aid from the French, as well as a greater knowledge of the battlefield than the Brits. With today's government technology and weapons, any rebellion would easily be crushed. Not like a rebellion wasn't crushed before, cough civil war cough.

Today, if there were to be a rebellion, you would likely have less than 10% of the country supporting it and a even lesser percentage willing to fight for one.

So are you saying the Brits were not better trained and better equipped than the colonists?

As far as the lay of the land....its not like the Brits had never been here. They knew the battlefields every bit as well as the colonist did...we were British Colonies. Don't forget the Brits had international help too.

As far as today....God willing we never find out. The Colonists proved that all the training and equipment in the world are no guarantee of victory. For that matter....ask the Soviets about the Afghanis. Or ask the US government for that matter.....

 

[mzcool]

So are you saying the Brits were not better trained and better equipped than the colonists?

As far as the lay of the land....its not like the Brits had never been here. They knew the battlefields every bit as well as the colonist did...we were British Colonies. Don't forget the Brits had international help too.

As far as today....God willing we never find out. The Colonists proved that all the training and equipment in the world are no guarantee of victory. For that matter....ask the Soviets about the Afghanis. Or ask the US government for that matter.....

Are you seriously trying to say that most Brits had been to the colonies before?

I'm trying to say that the Brits may have been better equipped and better trained at first, but they had a number of disadvantages.

The Afghanis, by the way, were helped and supported by the US, yet another foolish Republican move.

 

[REDCELL]

What also has to be taken into account was that the lines of communication between the British expeditionary forces and Mother England weren't exactly short.

The time it would have taken General Cornwallis' message of......"the locals aren't exactly pleased at the moment...send reinforcements"......to get to England would have been substantial......then of course England would of had to muster troops that were stationed to all four points of the globe to assist......we're talking one hell of a long time and of course by then strategic points had been taken.

That is probably the biggest disadvantage the Brits faced. My understanding of the time is that the Generals and Admirals were given broad orders and had almost complete autonomy from there. Moving forces in theater would be somewhat easier, and closer to what the colonials would have dealt with, but the line to the King was long.

The other major disadvantage was the fact that GB was a professional military, hindered by institutional arrogance while the colonials didn't play by "the strict rules of war".

 

[trailboss99]

Naahhh...nothing like that could ever happen.

Except it did.

Wouldn't expect anyone in public school to know about it these days. Im sure they don't teach that anymore.

If youre curious...google 1776.......

Don't have to go that far back, Waco proves ya can't fight City Hall unless you have an overwhelming majority.

What also has to be taken into account was that the lines of communication between the British expeditionary forces and Mother England weren't exactly short.

The time it would have taken General Cornwallis' message of......"the locals aren't exactly pleased at the moment...send reinforcements"......to get to England would have been substantial......then of course England would of had to muster troops that were stationed to all four points of the globe to assist......we're talking one hell of a long time and of course by then strategic points had been taken.

Quite.

 

[REDCELL]

Are you seriously trying to say that most Brits had been to the colonies before?

I'm trying to say that the Brits may have been better equipped and better trained at first, but they had a number of disadvantages.

The Afghanis, by the way, were helped and supported by the US, yet another foolish Republican move.

Im saying that we were British Colonies. Do you not think representatives of the crown had been here all along? Maps, census, ports, etc were all known to the British.

So now we are down to a "number" of disadvantages from an "extremely large number"....progress?

....Im pretty sure Charlie Wilson was a Democrat..... :rofl:

 

[mzcool]

Im saying that we were British Colonies. Do you not think representatives of the crown had been here all along? Maps, census, ports, etc were all known to the British.

So now we are down to a "number" of disadvantages from an "extremely large number"....progress?

....Im pretty sure Charlie Wilson was a Democrat..... :rofl:

That doesn't change the fact that they had not explored the land as much as the colonists had. It's pretty much comparing locals to tourists.

Charlie Wilson may have been a Democrat, but he was working under a Republican administration.

 

[trailboss99]

Oke RedCell, I can see you are not a soldier if you believe access to a map (especially one drawn on the 1700s) is the equivalent of intimate knowledge of the ground. Never underestimate the local advantage mate, maps especially ones drawn by amateurs (ie: troops) or local agents (who probably don't really care what they provide as long as it's close enough to get paid) are no substitute for "boots on the ground" knowledge.

 

[mydnytrydr]

Since we have many informed folks on this thread, maybe we could start a conversation as to why DHS armed itself with over 2 billion rounds of ammunition... That's a lot of crowd control!

 

[REDCELL]

Oke RedCell, I can see you are not a soldier if you believe access to a map (especially one drawn on the 1700s) is the equivalent of intimate knowledge of the ground. Never underestimate the local advantage mate, maps especially ones drawn by amateurs (ie: troops) or local agents (who probably don't really care what they provide as long as it's close enough to get paid) are no substitute for "boots on the ground" knowledge.

I get that. But its not as if the Brits were stepping onto the surface of Mars either.

 

[TESLA760]

Since we have many informed folks on this thread, maybe we could start a conversation as to why DHS armed itself with over 2 billion rounds of ammunition... That's a lot of crowd control!

Wow. This is still floating around. Funny that Breibart of all places actually made a mockery of this story.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/04/The-Great-DHS-Ammunition-Stockpile-Myth

 

[REDCELL]

Since we have many informed folks on this thread, maybe we could start a conversation as to why DHS armed itself with over 2 billion rounds of ammunition... That's a lot of crowd control!

It is interesting isn't it. Im not sure they have taken delivery of that much, but they do have open PO's for a ton of ammo. Most of it would violate the Geneva Convention rules about small arms ammo too.

At the risk of needing "a tin foil hat" they also bought a bunch of really cool trucks. I saw some of those heading west by rail with my own eyes.