America is not a christian nation!

[Dunenewt]

Hey us british can come and take USA back if you want

;D

[Acriku]

I didn't amount anything up to the British Massacre, I just mentioned it as an example of revolt and conflict between colonists and British. Jesus you sure do bring up a lot of strawmen.

And your second paragraph agrees with my post, so I don't see what I'm arguing to save face.

[TMA_1]

lol oh okay, so it agrees with your post? sums it up for me.

No, I just dont like it when you bring into play things that have no reason to be brought up, like the boston massicre. It was not braught up for the reasons you explained. If it was then you are totally off subject from the argument. It was used with the latter part of the sentance, explaining what the british did to the poor colonists. Revolution either ends up in failure, or ends up breeding a dangerous nation. I would have rather it been the first. but it is the second part of the aftereffects of revolution. that is scary in my opinion. There is such a thing as too much independance, and america suffers with that problem.

[Acriku]

I even put the British Massacre as an example of conflict against the British troops, not the other way around, as I'm not sure exactly what happened (I saw a history Channel special on it but forgot about it). So I don't know what you're trying to pull.

What exactly is this great independence doing that is hurting us? I think our country is mighty and strong, and independence had quite a bit to do with it.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

the british were cool. long live imperialism! :)

and that old england is gone, so the british don't owe the african countries anything. and in those days people didn't think of things such as human rights. so they didn't care for anything but profit. it was the african countries which rebelled against the empires and that resulted in chaos. they should have stayed with them, and waited so that the empires could create a real governement and order in the country.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Yeah, the british and other nations acted precisely like House Ordos.

They don't care about rights, lives.

They only care about human lives, if they can do anything for the nation; Slavery, forced labor etc.

Alot of examples are at hand if you read history books about England, Franch and other nations that has puppet nations in the other continents.

The African countries might resist, but their resistance was futile most of the time.

But just like the Indians, it's dangerous attacking foe on their turf.

If the Chinese united for once, they could have beaten the Foreign invaders like England that exploited their lands.

But now, every nation can be deadly and destructive with today's firearms.

A school of Ak-47 armed African people can easily give problems to a platoon of American soldiers.

They might not be trained, but the rain of bullets is the dangerous part.

But NO country has the right to manipulate people and use them as puppets for their industry and own needs.

[ordos45]

Yeah, the british and other nations acted precisely like House Ordos.

They don't care about rights, lives.

They only care about human lives, if they can do anything for the nation; Slavery, forced labor etc.

Alot of examples are at hand if you read history books about England, Franch and other nations that has puppet nations in the other continents.

The African countries might resist, but their resistance was futile most of the time.

But just like the Indians, it's dangerous attacking foe on their turf.

If the Chinese united for once, they could have beaten the Foreign invaders like England that exploited their lands.

But now, every nation can be deadly and destructive with today's firearms.

A school of Ak-47 armed African people can easily give problems to a platoon of American soldiers.

They might not be trained, but the rain of bullets is the dangerous part.

But NO country has the right to manipulate people and use them as puppets for their industry and own needs.

You seem to be forgetting the Dutch held overseas territories and were quite the imperialists themselves.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Holland wasn't that mighty, they had only economical strength.

But if the other countries wanted, they could easily conquer the Netherlands.

But doing so in those days is just very stupid because you're opening fronts and create distrust among the other nations.

But yes, they were imperialists, but still, the Dutch wasn't that huge of a threat to the greater powers.

[exatreide]

Actully Holland couldnt be conqured. England declared war on holland. But holland was part of the League of armed nueraitly. Consisting of Denmark,Holland,Austria Hungaria,Russia. And when they did this in 1781 or two or soemthing when they were fighting the americans and the french they faced the possibilty of fighting all those nations. So they had to stop shiping so many suplies to America becouse they faced war elsewhere.

:)

And the fact that sicily decalred war on them..Talk about kicking a man when he is down lol

[Phage]

Ok Canada did attain its independence but that may have partially been due to US influence and may not have happened in the US for years. In fact Canada and Australia weren't even granted independence until 1931. For much of that time they had to serve a Monarchy. Almost 200 years AFTER America was established as an independent democracy.

Seconly the US was being opressed and its ideas were overall more progressive then Britian's.

I'm not sure you can simply say that the US would have been granted its independence anyways. Not with how the British were treating the US at the time. Britain would have just likely taxed us to support its wars.

In all likelyhood, had the US failed to achieve independence a great bastion of freethought and progress would have simply been lost. Likewise Britain may not have been as lax with its other colonies.

Also look at what the Founding Fathers fought for. Their case was just. They were fighting for freedom of conscience, taxation with representation and a republic. This as opposed to an absolute monarch. So even IF American would have achieved Independence eventually(which means it likely would have had to settle with some opression and not become as strong in the mean time due to restrictions) the revolution was still a just war and it's victory was still a good thing. Certainly there can be no better cause for war then that of freedom and justice.

And what exactly gave Britain the right to tax america? That's a value judgement and the Founding Fathers at the time decided they will not pay tribute at the whim of a Monarch.Especially one who had basically kicked the US ancestors out of their country. What would be next? A draft for England's wars? Forced membership into the Angelican Church?

They decided they would launch a great expiriment, the world's first western republic, a nation not ruled by royalty and it paid off. Thus they were able to demonstrate that a nation could be run by the people, instead of kings and queens, in an era where everyone thought it impossible. Had they not suceeded the world would not have had an example of a working democracy and we may still be living under monarchs today.

There was more to the justification for war then mere economic profit, independence and human life. They were fighting for values, like freedom, democracy and justice. For Enlightenment ideology and for the future, to escape twelve plus centuries of Monarchism.

And to that end they became a bastion or rationality, democracy and freedom, while Canada and the rest of Europe were living under opressive, backwards Monarchies.

We were separating our powers, creating bold new philosophies and speaking our minds while our Canadian breathren were still bowing to England's King as the chosen one of God.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

[quote author=ExAtreides