Britain let the Americans win their indepdence war

If the USA isn't important, then why don't you just go about your own life, deal with your own country, and stop worrying what Americans think of themselves?

 

That looks about right, though you did forget the former slaves who either voluntarily entered or were pressed into service for Britain. I believe that adds about 20,000 more to the total.

The OP was just trolling with the 10,000 number...at least I hope he was trolling but you never know.

 

Simple, just follow the bouncing ball. Britain use to be called Great Britain because at one time
they were feared by many. in the 20th and the 21st century they have lost their greatness.

When they dabbled in socialism the burden and cost of socialism has weaken them
while the Muslims slowly take over their country. Given more time, and Britain will belong
to the Muslims. The Same go's for the French.



....

 

Close to 40,000 initially with 10,000 stationed in the colonies.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure who you're replying to.
But I didn't contest the existence of Fort Caroline only the usage of the term 'first crusade'

 

No. It's a geographic term.

That's doubtful

Ha ha ha ha

I'd love to know where you get these ideas from

 

Wasn't meant to be you sorry. And You certainly should have protested the 1st crusade not to mention his definition of circa which is simply Latin for around. or about that time the term has nothing to do with Circadian rhythm. Chris is a fountain of misinformation combined with an intriguing ability to collate odd facts that in reality have nothing to do with each other.

 

Lol! This is the best butt hurt I've ever read.

 

You really need to study a subject before posting. It will keep you from posting something this dumb.

I notice that you disparage the US, but hide what country you claim to be from. I would bet that your an American citizen that loathes his own country. In this case though, it is your logic that failed.

Your first mistake is confusing the pre-war garrison strength with the number of troops deployed in support of the war. In the opening months of 1775, the British had about 35,000 troops deployed outside England. Of that number, 10,000 were stationed in the Colonies. By 1779, that strength was increased to 60,000 British troops, including Irish and Scottish. These troops were augmented by 30,000 Hessian (German mercenaries) and 10,000 loyalists. This put the total strength supporting the British position at 100,000. The Colonial Army averaged about 90,000 at any one time.

Your analysis ignores several key facts. First is the fact that the British forces had been drawn down at the end of the Seven Year War. Even though their forces had been reduced, they were still engaged in conflicts in Ireland and India. You ignore the fact that France and Spain were supporting the Colonies. England had to guard against either, or both, would use the American Revolution as a proxy war, and invade England. The final fact is that it is far easier to send troops to India, France or on your own soil, then to send them across the Atlanitc Ocean.

If your analysis were true, then why did England invade the US again during the War of 1812?

The fact is that England under estimated the Colonial Armies abilities and resolve. While the British fielded a larger army, they were hampered by the fact that they could not actually occupy conquered territory. It was not uncommon for the British forces to win a decisive battle only to have to withdrawal their forces. As a result, England lost. Their loss was purely due to logistics and strategy. It had nothing to do with resolve or desire to hold onto the Colonies.

Already debunked!!!

History has proven the importance of the United States. Stupidity like your posting will not change that fact.

 

No worries. I'm not sure where he's getting his information from.

 

I would have the lurker concerned with facts and explanation of world events, past and present, as well as assuring our futures; NOTE, that procon never did explain the global prominence of solstice shrines of major significance to all the peoples in their locations.

Latin is the language of Rome, as in church, which reviles Pagan sunworship. Accordingly the definition of circa as not relating to the circadian rhythm is not accurate and accompanied the complete failure to address the countless solstice alignment instruments of our planet dating back before the first runes were carved into stone.

It should also be noted that human beings are only operating from their waking state with around 14% of their total mental capacity at any given time and that long term memory is more a feature of right brain function, also associated largely with unconscious operation. Accordingly, oral histories were kept in the hypothalamus which is the primordial mind and referred to as "deep memory" by psychologists.

The ancients utilized deep trance states to create oral histories and perpetuate them for generations functionally enough to be written down and retain their usefulness.

Most significantly, the human unconscious mind, will not remember a lie it knows of, whereas lies can be written down and perpetuated as long as people read them and believe them.

 

You never asked nor did it come up.

Italian. Latin isn't really used any more.

The hypothalamus does not hold "deep memory" or any such function.

The ancients being......?

No if someone lies they can remember it.

 

The explanation is easy. Those societies were all agrarian for whom knowing when to plant would have been vital. The original structures grew for as long as those societies thrived and often took on secondary roles commiserate with trying to shape the world so it would suit them best, sacrifices to insure rain at the right time and the like. And again the term Circa came into use in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries when all educated people in the West spoke latin.it is latin for around as in circumnavigation for around the world. For instance when you see the phrase in older history texts circa 1800 what it means is around 1800 or about 1800.

 

The Russians didn't even have enough shoes to wear to even go after the Germans until we gave it to them. They didn't have the trucks or trains to haul their weapons to the front until we gave it to them. Yes, we gave them the time and cushion to hold out against the Germans until they could get their factories up and running.

Lets hope they could muster up enough to fight a big battle on their own territory. Heaven knows what they would have done transporting half their army and equipment 10,000 miles away like America did.

 

Modern psychology has been dumbed down in order for MKultra to be effective, so the fact of the old primordial mind acting as deep memory is all but unknown.

>>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

I was referring to oral histories kept in huge unconscious. You just misrepresented what I posted.

 

The most important information is that the purpose of free speech is to assure information creating unity is shared so Anericans can alter of abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

But I doubt you have any interest in constitutional defense, so that won't mean anything to you.

 

Societies that did no agriculture whatsoever still have solstice alignment instruments, and they have often have great precision. Something not needed for planting crops.

You are covering for the church misrepresentation of the facts regarding how humanity kept the past from the beginning.

Only secret societies, the church or the CIA to protect MKultra cares so much about obscuring such truths.

 

Really so I was taken to a CIA fortress somewhere and given LSD? Come on.

>>>MOD EDIT Quoted Post Deleted<<<

You know it's funny in my experience it's usually the people that accuse me of one or another actually turn out to be the very thing they accuse me of.
As I said who were the ancients because that is a very broad term?

No I did not. It is up to you to specify exactly what you mean.

 

There are no societies from that time period that did no agriculture at all. It was agriculture that allowed them the ability to stay in place long enough to build these monuments. The church no more controls modern University life than I control the orbits of the planets. What I care about sir is the truth. I couldn't care less about the Roman Catholic Church. It has, largely, in many regards, been a disaster. As for the constitution it is the greatest single document ever created in the history of Mankind other than the Bible. Our current government ignores it because it would limit it's ability to trade power for money. But most of the rest of the stuff you've produced is baseless nonsense.

 

We have Gary answering for procon who is so busy evading, he's not reading, or simply pretending to be ignorant.

It came up pages back. Your misrepresentations or misinterpretation cause so much cognitive nonsense, other posters have to try and clean up for you. Of course Gary is woefully erroneous covering for the churches misrepresentation of the origins of history.
As if 2,000 years and millions of lives being taken to conceal humanities capacity to operate unconsciously and to keep the truth of its vital past could be wiped out that easily.

My original post asking for explanation IF you are going to deny.

Another of the same requests, and you pompously continue with the unaccountable denials anyway.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=393195&page=7&p=1064678475#post1064678475

Below you pretend context had switched from discussing the past, above, to discussing the present in blatant intentional misrepresentation facilitating evasion.

If I ever saw an agenda and covert cognitive infiltration with collusive operations, you and Gary are it.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

 

That is one of the first ploys an agent tries when exposed and accused.

Gary just failed the test, and you will fail it too. The fact I am applying it PROVES I am a sincere American doing exactly what I say I'm doing.

Do you agree and accept that the purpose of free speech is to enable the unity required to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

If not, to be reasonable, you will need to explain how the framers intended Americans create that unity if free speech is NOT the intended means.

An agent cannot agree because their agenda is to prevent unity.

What shall it be?

Attempting a little ridicule now are you? Typical agent tactic.

I mean the WHOLE world of people long ago as in, "The Ancients".

I did, pages ago agent. But you do not give a crap about what you are discussing. You are a here to create brain farts.

Here is what I posted.

I mentioned the unconscious mind, but you chose to ignore and try and pretend I was not specific. You tried to misrepresent it and state lies are remembered, and left out the unconscious.

The reason the unconscious will not remember a lie is because everything the unconscious remembers in ancient oral histories has a purpose. It is knowledge serving the lives of the people the bearer of the oral history loves.

Lies do not serve love. Truth does.

Now prove you are not an agent by agreeing with and accepting the purpose of free speech, or explain how unity serving the purpose of altering or abolishing is created without it having that purpose.

 

No I've read what you've written and I've answered appropriately. I can assure you that garyd does not answer for me and to the best of my knowledge responds by his own accord.

No it did not

That hasn't happened either

No scientific evidence exists to supports your theory.

English please

I didn't contest your explanation of the term 'circa' because it wasn't relevant to the general discussion.

You were not specific.

You're deluded

Crackpot websites.

 

You have to accuse someone before you expose them otherwise it's an unfair trial so with that in mind do you have any evidence of this?

There's a test now?

I agree that free speech is a right.

What?

That was a pretty ridiculous thing to imply.

You have to specify who, what and where.

I was trying to discuss the war of independence hence I ignored your stuff about solstice alignments because it has no relevance to the topic.

What you wrote didn't make any sense whatsoever.

I don't need to prove anything and the rest of that isn't even in English

I don't know how mental health works in the US but I suggest you go and see a GP or find some sort of counsellor because it's clear that you need help.

 

1. Sending a large Army across the Atlantic, would be very costly and might have turned off many Tory supporters.
2. Sending a large army would require using lots of ships, leaving it very vunerable to the French or other European powers.

Britain lost the war simply because they underestimated the rebels, and allowed them to show the French they were worth investing into. Once France was involved, the chances of victory were miniscule.

 

This forum shows that if some ridiculous troll starts a moronic thread, it will keep going and going.