Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[ssu]

Not SSU clearly as he doesn't need things explained to him in words of limited syllables.

Then you dont understand why they lost. The US was out manned, out gunned, and lout classed. The Us shouldn’t have won.

So to just say what you did shows your own ignorance.

I can name two good reasons why the American colonies won. They're called France and Spain...

Then there's the wet thing between England and the US called the Atlantic Ocean. Any military operation is a bit more difficult to be fought over such ranges than in Ireland or Continental Europe.

Supplying a large army across an ocean would prove to be a major issue with the execution of combat operations by British forces. The British needed a vast force in order to quell the rebellion in the colonies. Simply capturing a city, especially from a rebellion, may demoralize but will not necessarily destroy the will to fight. The British capture of Philadelphia did not end the rebellion, the capital simply moved. The British were not blind to the fact that it would take more than just the capture of a few cities to end the rebellion. In a speech to the House of Commons in 1776, British General Henry Seymour Conway stated that British forces were “totally inadequate to the purposes of absolute coercion.” It was the daunting task of the Royal Navy supplying one of the largest armies in the world, a full ocean away. Despite having what many consider the strongest navy in the world to date, privateers, weather and the spread of naval assets across an empire would take their toll on a supply chain that never was effectively established. The supplies needed to sustain such a large military would serious tax the Royal Navy’s ability to transport it, even with hiring merchants to help. According to historian Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy the British forces in America would average about 34,000 men and 4,000 horses. That was a sizeable number to maintain and transport across the Atlantic Ocean in a voyage that would take two to four months just in one direction

Never underestimate just how much safety the Pacific and the Atlantic give to the US.

[Okeefenokee]

And? ISIS has countries supporting it... the point is that the last time England attempted to control something like ISIS they lost a country.

See reply to StA. Also, last time the British fought something like ISIS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdist_War

Bullshit. There was nothing like ISIS in the 19th century. You're reaching like hell with that one.

[Speaker to Animals]

And? ISIS has countries supporting it... the point is that the last time England attempted to control something like ISIS they lost a country.

See reply to StA. Also, last time the British fought something like ISIS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdist_War

Bullshit. There was nothing like ISIS in the 19th century. You're reaching like hell with that one.

Barbary Coast pirates?

[BjornP]

And? ISIS has countries supporting it... the point is that the last time England attempted to control something like ISIS they lost a country.

See reply to StA. Also, last time the British fought something like ISIS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdist_War

Bullshit. There was nothing like ISIS in the 19th century. You're reaching like hell with that one.

"Something like" was the key word here. An Islamic apocalyptic cult threatening the territorial integrity of an ally in the ME.

[Speaker to Animals]

Islam is an apocalyptic cult. So is Christianity for that matter. I don't really see the point of that distinction. Both Christendom and Islam were apocalyptic civilizations.

Pretty much all of Islam, however, was a terroristic cult bent on the destruction of Western civilization. That's just encoded into their very being by the Koran.

There was a brief pause in their violence about two and a half centuries, but now we are back to normal Islam again. ISIS is Islam same as it ever was.

[The Conservative]

And? ISIS has countries supporting it... the point is that the last time England attempted to control something like ISIS they lost a country.

See reply to StA. Also, last time the British fought something like ISIS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdist_War

Bullshit. There was nothing like ISIS in the 19th century. You're reaching like hell with that one.

Oh really? Look up the anarchists and nihilists of the 19th century... you'll see ISIS had a lot in common to them back then.

[The Conservative]

Then you dont understand why they lost. The US was out manned, out gunned, and lout classed. The Us shouldn’t have won.

So to just say what you did shows your own ignorance.

I can name two good reasons why the American colonies won. They're called France and Spain...

Then there's the wet thing between England and the US called the Atlantic Ocean. Any military operation is a bit more difficult to be fought over such ranges than in Ireland or Continental Europe.

Supplying a large army across an ocean would prove to be a major issue with the execution of combat operations by British forces. The British needed a vast force in order to quell the rebellion in the colonies. Simply capturing a city, especially from a rebellion, may demoralize but will not necessarily destroy the will to fight. The British capture of Philadelphia did not end the rebellion, the capital simply moved. The British were not blind to the fact that it would take more than just the capture of a few cities to end the rebellion. In a speech to the House of Commons in 1776, British General Henry Seymour Conway stated that British forces were “totally inadequate to the purposes of absolute coercion.” It was the daunting task of the Royal Navy supplying one of the largest armies in the world, a full ocean away. Despite having what many consider the strongest navy in the world to date, privateers, weather and the spread of naval assets across an empire would take their toll on a supply chain that never was effectively established. The supplies needed to sustain such a large military would serious tax the Royal Navy’s ability to transport it, even with hiring merchants to help. According to historian Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy the British forces in America would average about 34,000 men and 4,000 horses. That was a sizeable number to maintain and transport across the Atlantic Ocean in a voyage that would take two to four months just in one direction

Never underestimate just how much safety the Pacific and the Atlantic give to the US.

If that was true, then you'd have the same logic between the water separating England from Europe. What's different then and now? Technology...

[Speaker to Animals]

Really, they had nothing in common.

[The Conservative]

Really, they had nothing in common.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... rt/5768178


Not too sure about that...

[BjornP]

Never underestimate just how much safety the Pacific and the Atlantic give to the US.

If that was true, then you'd have the same logic between the water separating England from Europe. What's different then and now? Technology...

1. Which body of water is greater? The stretch of water between mainland Europe and the British Isles or the stretch of water between the British Isles and North America?

2. And you do have the same logic. After all, did the early American military pose as big a threat to the British Isles as the BI posed to the early American territory that had declared independence? Did the American navy sail to Britain and launch an invasion of the British Isles?