nvm
Printable View
nvm
Hmmm; well, I've seen Tribesman around and he seemed pretty reasonable.Quote:
We try to tell him that all the time, it has absolutely zero effect. There are many theories as to why.
But honestly I don't even know what point he's trying to make in this thread; all I've seen is some arguing back and forth about which forum users need a better education.
So I think I can speak for the lurkers when I say that the argument has become so out of control that we don't even know what it's about!
I'm not even disagreeing with Tribesman's viewpoint (I don't even know what it is), I'm just saying he would be more effective if he stuck to standard debating guidelines.
So anyways Tribesman no offence, just I think you might wanna give more material. :thumbsup:
Yes, that's how they put it. They're much to clever to say what they mean. :laugh4:Quote:
Wasn't it more like they said there was a potential threat from extremist conservative groups ?
Which holds fairly true if you look at the other thread in the backroom, abortion doctor killing.
I agree with what you say though... there are plenty of ways to make americans suddenly seem less american... or like americans that don't deserve to live anyway...
But seriously, look at how they defined radical conservative: [paraphrase] "wholly dedicated to single issues such as abortion or immigration..."
They're practically saying, "these guys are radicals because they DARE to have an opinion! And what's MORE, they don't subscribe to the canned opinions that we shove down their throats!!!"
And then as a caveat to pretend that they weren't playing favorites, they gave a cute little memo about how some liberals are bad... (ok it was more than that but still).
True, except for a few things:Quote:
If someone is to try and kill me i would rather they had a knife or some home made bomb rather than a half decent gun. Unless this guy is some knife combat expert, or very good at handling home made bombs (as in accuracy rather than making them) he is going to have a far easier time killing me with a half decent gun...
Essentially, gun killings will decrease, but successful home defense with guns will be completely eradicated. So all that the ban does is increase the success in the criminal's success/failure ratio.
Personally, I would rather face a criminal who has a gun with my own gun, rather than a criminal who has a knife with my own knife. I'm guessing that a serious criminal is bigger than me, on average. Especially repeat offenders who've done time. :duel:
However, if we both have guns, his size is taken out of the equation, and then my familiarity with my house will give me a decisive advantage. Not to mention that many bad guys will run blind after hearing a "click-CHUNK" sound. :sneaky:
But yes I'm glad we agree on these issues. I just want to clarify for... other people... :eyebrows:
So true; soooo true.Quote:
Illegal guns are easy to get. I really doubt most people in the debate here mix around with shady characters, but I know for a fact that I can walk down the street in the middle of suburbia where I live and get a 9mm or maybe a 45 with a full clip for a decent price of 130-150; most likely with the bar code already filed off.
Hey, if the black market was plenty successful in the USSR, it'll do just fine here.
I mean, some legislators want to LEGALIZE meth just because it's hard to enforce a ban on it!!! And you know how badly prohibition of alcohol failed. And people expect us to believe that guns will disappear just because they say so? Yah; believe that one when I see it.
OK, having read Tribesman's posts...
I'm still not sure what he's trying to prove. :clown:
I guess you're saying that the "well-regulated militia" of the colonies had nothing to do with the British defeat (because the French did everything and they were more powerful than G.B.), therefore the American Revolution is not any evidence of the value of an armed citizenry.
And that everyone who disagrees with you is uneducated in either history or geography. :inquisitive:
Well, as to the French doing all the work, I would remind you that they didn't enter the war until relatively late. The colonials certainly pulled their own weight for a few years.
And I also point you to the battles of Saratoga, Concord, Brandywine, etc. The last one was a loss, but the point is that there was no French presence on those fields. So it seems to me that the colonials did the fighting...
Also I see no reason to rate the French as more powerful overall then the British. Consider that even AFTER the British defeat, they still managed to whup the French under Napoleon.
Waterloo and Trafalgar hardly seem to demonstrate French military supremacy AFAIK.
And even if the French HAD been superior to the British, it's not as if they sent that great of a percentage of their military might to help us anyway. I don't know the numbers, but it wasn't THAT many.
Therefore, considering these two evidences, we see that:
1. The colonials did the majority of the fighting.
2. The French were not powerful enough to best the British alone anyway.
3. The colonials, who did most of the fighting, were comprised mainly of citizen militia who possessed personal firearms.
4. Thus, personal firearms played an important role in the War for Independence.
Any (relevant ~:))history book should verify these findings; at least the gist of them.
I think with the geography comment Tribesman was saying he isn't British... or at least thats how i read it... the other bit was about france being the military superpower that defeated britian... ill admit Tribesman can be a little cryptic for my liking sometimes... it can be hard to figure out what he's sayng...
Yes, that's how they put it. They're much to clever to say what they mean.
We did have a whole topic on the report, a few weeks back if your intrested...
I think someone theorised that the report was actually done under the Bush admin, or at least started under the Bush admin as these reports take sometime to compile... It did also mention radical left wing groups as well... It didn't seem paticularly biased to me...
I'm guessing that a serious criminal is bigger than me, on average. Especially repeat offenders who've done time.
Not nessecarily, I've known a fair few criminals whose physical stature was less than mine... and im a little under the average hieght...
Personally, I would rather face a criminal who has a gun with my own gun, rather than a criminal who has a knife with my own knife.
Well that depends really... If i just wanted to block myself in a room and wait till he goes away/ the cops arrive i would much rather the criminal was armed with a knife. I would feel alot more confident holding the door shut or holding something to keep the door held shut if he had to try and stab through the door rather than shoot through it...
Or if i simply wanted to run away, with the knife armed attacker i just need a little space to make a break for it... with the gun armed attacker i need some serious obstacles to dodge between whilst trying to run away...
I think you can do the example counter example thing all day, the thing that sells it for me is i would prefer my criminals without guns...
However, if we both have guns, his size is taken out of the equation, and then my familiarity with my house will give me a decisive advantage. Not to mention that many bad guys will run blind after hearing a "click-CHUNK" sound.
The criminal though will have the advantage of being prepared for this situation awake and alert, rather than woken up by strange noises downstairs whilst still half asleep, then the terror of seeing an intruder in your home... im fairly sure your average criminal is more ready for a confrantation than your average citizen
Illegal guns are easy to get. I really doubt most people in the debate here mix around with shady characters, but I know for a fact that I can walk down the street in the middle of suburbia where I live and get a 9mm or maybe a 45 with a full clip for a decent price of 130-150; most likely with the bar code already filed off.
I know a few shady characters... through friends of friends i could get you just about any of the fairly common drugs, crack, heroin, LSD, Weed, Amphetamines... hell even Ketamine. I think within at least a day or two of trying i could get any one of those with relatively little effort... ask me to get an illegal gun though and i don't even think i could do it with a few grand and a few weeks to do it in....
Just look at our criminals... the majority don't seem to be getting armed up, this could be for a number of reasons... but to stay on the safe side i would prefer we didn't have guns legalised over here...
You live in the UK?
Well, when a "radical conservative" is defined as someone who is ex-military or someone who has a definite oppinion, and a "radical liberal" is defined as someone who blows up offices for the good of the environment...Quote:
I think with the geography comment Tribesman was saying he isn't British... or at least thats how i read it... the other bit was about france being the military superpower that defeated britian... ill admit Tribesman can be a little cryptic for my liking sometimes... it can be hard to figure out what he's sayng...
We did have a whole topic on the report, a few weeks back if your intrested...
I think someone theorised that the report was actually done under the Bush admin, or at least started under the Bush admin as these reports take sometime to compile... It did also mention radical left wing groups as well... It didn't seem paticularly biased to me...
it seems like they are targeting a lot more conservatives than liberals.
Yeah, we could go allllll day.Quote:
Not nessecarily, I've known a fair few criminals whose physical stature was less than mine... and im a little under the average hieght...
I think you can do the example counter example thing all day, the thing that sells it for me is i would prefer my criminals without guns...
And yes, criminals without guns would be nice, especially for our examples. :clown:
But the unfortunate reality is that criminals can still get guns after they're illegal. So actually it would end up where he has a gun and I have a knife...
Also keep in mind that you and I are men. Do your average women want to tangle with ANY size of criminal with a knife? Nosireebob.
Well, in the US there are environmentalist extremists getting bombs. :inquisitive:Quote:
I know a few shady characters... through friends of friends i could get you just about any of the fairly common drugs, crack, heroin, LSD, Weed, Amphetamines... hell even Ketamine. I think within at least a day or two of trying i could get any one of those with relatively little effort... ask me to get an illegal gun though and i don't even think i could do it with a few grand and a few weeks to do it in....
Just look at our criminals... the majority don't seem to be getting armed up, this could be for a number of reasons... but to stay on the safe side i would prefer we didn't have guns legalised over here...
So I think it's not too difficult to see that illegal firearms are quite accessible. Also, I don't think you've done a lot of checking. I hope not, at least.
Again, in a perfect world (at least in the area of suppressing crime) guns would not exist. True.
Reality, however, dictates that guns DO exist, and government will be no little more effective in keeping guns from criminals then they are at keeping drugs from dealers.
Turn it into simple math if you want.
Criminals + Law-abiding citizens = can have guns.
(Initiate gun ban)
SUBTRACT citizens.
Criminals +Law-abiding citizens= can have guns.
Therfore, only criminals are left to have access to guns. So all we have done is force a few bad guys to revert to knives.
The serious ones can find guns (it's not like they need a whole bunch; just a Ruger .22 would do), and now the playing field has been seriously altered in favor of the criminals.
Oversimplified perhaps, but it seems logical to me.
ALSO consider:
Due to pathetic laws, people can sometimes be prosecuted for injuring/killing criminals who illegally enter their homes.
Probably the most people victimized by this foolishness are those who use guns in home defence, simply because ignorant people find guns menacing.
So if you take away guns, do you think that people who injure/kill criminals using KNIVES in home defence will be given any slack? No way.
In the US at least, you can sue people for just about anything.
I've heard about a guy who took out insurance on his cigars, smoked said cigars, and then filed suit to have insurance pay for the cigars he smoked. And won.
In the US you can sue somebody if you trip off their front steps!
So anyways, it's a criminals game, so to speak.
Its quite simple really.Quote:
I'm still not sure what he's trying to prove.
If Britain was they greatest military power then how did a greater military powers defeat them?
If the armed citizenry was such a threat how did they achieve nothing without the
support of a global superpower(yes Alex that covers Saratoga too)?
Since the myth about the armed citizens was thoroughly destroyed within a few years of independance why the hell are people still trying to sell the myth centuries later?
Hold on Grizz , Eire is in the country of Europy which is above the nation of Africy so they are right on the geography:2thumbsup:Quote:
I think with the geography comment Tribesman was saying he isn't British...
Well, when a "radical conservative" is defined as someone who is ex-military or someone who has a definite oppinion, and a "radical liberal" is defined as someone who blows up offices for the good of the environment...
it seems like they are targeting a lot more conservatives than liberals.
I think it was more like thier wary of ex military especially those who are big on hot button issues like abortion or race...
And with the left wingers it was they are wary of those who are big on hot button issues like the enviroment or a general dislike of capitalism...
Both are vague and could potentially include huge chunks of coservatives and liberals
So i think the general idea is some nice middle aged man who served in the military and attends the occasional peaceful anti abortion rally is not going to be branded a right wing terrorist...
The same as some nice middle aged woman who is big on the enviroment and attend the occasional peaceful enviromental rally is not going to be branded a left wing terrorist...
The report wasn't biased and it didn't shy away from the different definitions because they are completely true... you should be wary of extreme enviromentalists and watch thier groups because they do have extreme elements that go out and break the law....
Same thing with anti abortionists and every other group mentioned in the report, it may be insulting to you personally but some conservatives do go out and break the law in the name of thier politics, so the goverment simply pointing out these threats exsist and monitoring them is simply good policy... and same with the left wing groups the extreme elements go out and cause trouble so its perfectly acceptable for the members to be on some kind of watch list...
But the unfortunate reality is that criminals can still get guns after they're illegal. So actually it would end up where he has a gun and I have a knife...
Well its not the case that making guns illegal stops all criminals getting them... its also a common fallacy that all criminals can still get guns whether they are illegal or not...
In britian for example there are plenty of criminals not armed with guns, i imagine there could be a few reasons for that to be the case, such as harder to get as theres less guns in the country, less likely to want a gun as you probably won't be up against one, ect. but i can't paticularly think of many factors outside of our guns laws why US criminals would arm up with guns and UK criminals wouldn't...
Also keep in mind that you and I are men. Do your average women want to tangle with ANY size of criminal with a knife? Nosireebob.
If women everywhere were crying out for guns and saying they needed them to have any chance to defend themselves i may be swayed by that argument but women seem at the very least less into guns than men...
So I think it's not too difficult to see that illegal firearms are quite accessible. Also, I don't think you've done a lot of checking. I hope not, at least.
Well thats the thing, with all the other illegal things i mentioned i know i could get hold of them without me having asked around to try and get hold of them, ive known friends or at the very least friends of friends that could get it. Either that i have seen them with it or they have talked about it, people are usually pretty proud when they have good contacts for this and that...
But despite all the other stuff they have talked about and i have seen guns have never once been even mentioned...
I will out of interest ask around (though obviously not buying one) ill ask firends to ask friends and see what i get back... but i am highly doubtful that anything will come back...
Dude... no. Just... no. The French gave us loans and blockaded Yorktown to bring about the endgame. The land war was fought entirely by American soldiers, milita and partisans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
And if France was a greater military power, how come Britain had just defeated them in the Seven Years War, and went on to defeat them once again in the Napoleonic conflict?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
The land war was fought entirely by American soldiers, milita and partisans.
Considerinng that Du Pont was't set up until 1802 can you think of something really important the French gave you ? Well more than important as in absolutely essential.Quote:
The French gave us loans
It was. Also I took the liberty of removing your unnecessary smilies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Yeah... loans. Aside from some maritime support, that was it. The French only engaged the British on land a few times, and even then I wouldn't count it as their actions were entirely inconsequential as compared to the American forces. And in fact, the French gave us so much money that it ruined them financially, eventually leading to the collapse of their government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Where do you get your history anyway? The Big Book of Being Arrogant Towards Americans?
and went on to defeat them once again in the Napoleonic conflict?
People keep bringing up this Napoleon conflict as proof of Britians superority, its nice and the compliment is appreciated but unless my history is well off we may have had a little help from one or two minor powers that might have just given us the edge...
Ok i did a little reading up to try and figure out what Tribesman is talking about...
Are you talking about the yorktown campaign ?
Well, I brought up the Napoleonic conflict because Britain's use of sea power was one of the main factors in the eventual defeat of Napoleon, as he was unable to press his advantage overseas, especially in a conquest of England. On the land, yes, England needed help, but it was the naval power that made her the greatest military power of the day, and anyhow her soldiers were patently better than the American troops in standard combat, at least until we had enough experience to fight back.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
I really don't know what Tribesman is talking about. I suspect he is basing his entire argument on Yorktown which is terribly inaccurate as it was the only time that a major French force assisted the Colonies.
Or maybe he is arguing that the French supplied us with guns, in which case he is only reinforcing my argument, because of the French armed our populace, and that saved us the war, wouldn't that prove the point of a well-armed populace?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
It was. Also I took the liberty of removing your unnecessary smilies.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Yeah... loans. Aside from some maritime support, that was it.
Blimey I thought the earlier discussions about the 1812 war were funny but this really beats it hands down :2thumbsup:
No I am talking about the vital support the continental got from a European superpower . What did America lack ,by lack I mean having pretty much bugger all at all ? Its something that when lacking means all the guns in the world are useless . Du Ponts later business venture should be a good enough clue.Quote:
Are you talking about the yorktown campaign ?
Though I do find it really funny that Napoleon has been mentioned twice .Napoleonic France was in existance after France had bankrupted itself defeating Britain
Tribesman is talking about gunpowder. The Du Pont chemical company we know and love today was the first full scale manufacturer of gunpowder in the US. They didn't get started until 1802, so during the war the Continentals were reliant on either French supplies or captured magazines.
:stunned: :stare: :wall: ARE YOU SERIOUS?! THAT'S YOUR BIG ARGUMENT AS TO WHY A MILITIA IS USELESS?!
I wish I could find this as funny as you do but that's the dumbest argument I've heard so far. So they needed foreign magazines. So what?! Who isn't reliant on foreign supplies at one point or another?! It absolutely does not disprove my argument that it was the Militia won the war, because they fired the goddamn magazines. Did major French armies go toe-to-toe with the British? No. Did French fleets blockade Britain en masse? No. The American Militia went toe-to-toe with the British army, and after they figured out how to beat them with militia tactics, they beat them fair and square.
Besides which, you know who else depended on getting their supplies from overseas? The damn British, that's who. And I would think that having to either capture your magazines or smuggle them in would say a lot about the tenacity of your milita army, as opposed to the complacent regulars who were used to regular supplies of the stuff.
Anyhow, in the event of a war, I would fully expect American Partisans to do perfectly well with smuggled/captured arms and ammunition. No, it wouldn't be easy, but it would still work.
Your ace in the hole was a freakin' two of diamonds, Tribes.
That is one aspect of it . Since the Americans relied on French weapon supplies French money French troops the French navy French political power and prettty much all things French .Quote:
Tribesman is talking about gunpowder.
Well , apart from the Northwestern campaigh which was reliant on Spanish support .
No that isn't the arguement.Quote:
ARE YOU SERIOUS?! THAT'S YOUR BIG ARGUMENT AS TO WHY A MILITIA IS USELESS?!
Well done you got something right , though of course the French were stopping the British from getting those supplies wasn't they:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Besides which, you know who else depended on getting their supplies from overseas? The damn British, that's who.
Actually looking at that post you made you seem to contradict yourself a hell of a lot , but I suppose thats normal when you are trying to defend mythical history
Then what is your argument? Lay it out and quit hiding behind a wall of smilies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
There's nothing clever about laughing at a person and saying they don't understand when most of your posts consist of smilies and vague references. Oh, wait, you'll post more smilies and claim I ought to do research because apparently being comprehensible is a big problem for you.
In the end, your claim that I was posting "absolute bollox" is wrong.
What I said:
The British had just won what Winston Churchill called the first world war, gained most of France's colonies in the New World, and had great control over the seas.Quote:
Whereas this nation was founded by throwing off the tyranny of a nation (in fact, the nation with the greatest military power in the world at the time) by citizens with guns.
Did France help? Yes, they helped. But it was the Americans who initiated the conflict and were able to provide enough resistance that France and others began to openly assist them. In the first military engagement, the battles of Lexington and Concord, it was the armed American citizenry - the militia - that defeated a detachment of British soldiers. If the rebels hadn't been able to provide enough military resistance to prevent Britain from occupying all of the colonies, then the international assistance wouldn't have mattered.
Now, let's look at the second amendment - drafted by the founding fathers after the war. They secured the right of the people to keep and bear arms because they believed that a bulwark against tyranny. They lived in the war and understood how the common man owning a gun had affected the war.
CR
Whoever is right in this historical debate, surely it's irrelevant given the nature of warfare today?
What is the nature of warfare today?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Earth to Grizzly...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
I've posted that link before. Your criminals can get guns. Why they do or don't has, obviously, little or nothing to do with your gun laws. And you could get one just as easily if you spent a little bit of time looking. All the drug dealers you claim to know of could probably recommend someone to you if you bothered to ask.
:rolleyes:
You know, some women do. You know, women who actually want to defend themselves. Women who don't share your often laughable and sometimes disturbing phobia of firearms.Quote:
If women everywhere were crying out for guns and saying they needed them to have any chance to defend themselves i may be swayed by that argument but women seem at the very least less into guns than men...
Sensible women.
CR, would you mind terribly taking up the fight against the Tribescoat? I really have no idea how to redress his claims. They're just... bizarre... and very smiley infected.
Edit: wait, let me try...
No. We greatly benefitted from French loans and gunpowder, but the rest... no. The French navy wasn't very successful, their troops didn't do doodley-squat and French political power was only helpful in keeping France from getting invaded because other European countries declared they would support France in the case of an invasion. The Americans did all the fighting and, as CR pointed out, the fact that they fought for so long, and with such surprising success (although not exactly stellar) was the key to their victory, as they proved themselves able to defeat Britain in the long term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
No, the French were not that successful. Read a book. And I'm not being contradictory; now you're just making stuff up.Quote:
Well done you got something right , though of course the French were stopping the British from getting those supplies wasn't they:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Actually looking at that post you made you seem to contradict yourself a hell of a lot , but I suppose thats normal when you are trying to defend mythical history
Well then, thanks for wasting my time.Quote:
No that isn't the arguement.
I'm not denying that the French (and Dutch and Spanish) contributed heavily to the colonial cause. What you're ignoring is there wouldn't have been any support if the local militias had been crushed early on. It wasn't until 1777 after the Saratoga campaign that the French openly backed the colonials, and that's two years of fighting, much of it done with American militia armed with personal weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Give no quarter to the Tribescoat!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
As a sidenote, France sent 10000 regulars in America, which accounts for more or less half of the total amount of professional soldiers on the US' side.
That, and the whole fleet, which was for once kind of successful at fighting the British navy (must have been the first and last time since the 14th century).
Anyway, had Great Britain decided to commit all of its force to the fight, the war of independance would have been lost, with or without France, Spain and Holland help.
15.000 british soldiers and 30.000 mercenaries were sent in America, while Britain could easily have fielded 5 times this number.
Some people are, indeed Revered Joe seem to be thouroughly clueless about the revolutionary warQuote:
I'm not denying that the French (and Dutch and Spanish) contributed heavily to the colonial cause
But the support was there from the start, thats the whole point.Quote:
What you're ignoring is there wouldn't have been any support if the local militias had been crushed early on.
What is the key word there ?Quote:
It wasn't until 1777 after the Saratoga campaign that the French openly backed the colonials
So since most people seem to have forgotten where this started....
That statement is bollox . Britain was not the greatest mititary power in the world asit was thoroughly screwed Navy wise as a result of the seven years war and Army wise as a result of the ongoing conflicts in India . The citizens with guns can have achieved bugger all without the support of global superpowers which they got right from the very start of the conflict.Quote:
Whereas this nation was founded by throwing off the tyranny of a nation (in fact, the nation with the greatest military power in the world at the time) by citizens with guns.
Ah, and we are reminded why tribesy so infrequently actually posts an argument:
Gee, I suppose the nations on the losing side of the seven years war came out of it significantly better than the winners. I suppose it was those other nations that prevented the British troops in some coastal cities from marching out and dominating the countryside of the colonies, and not armed Americans.Quote:
That statement is bollox . Britain was not the greatest mititary power in the world asit was thoroughly screwed Navy wise as a result of the seven years war and Army wise as a result of the ongoing conflicts in India . The citizens with guns can have achieved bugger all without the support of global superpowers which they got right from the very start of the conflict.
:rolleyes:
Posting scads of smilies in reply to anything you disagree with doesn't make you right, no matter how hard you believe. Now, various people have posted arguments and reasons supporting our argument. That's about the longest stretch of anything resembling an argument you've posted here, and it seems based just on your beliefs and your unceasing need to disagree with me.
CR
I've posted that link before. Your criminals can get guns. Why they do or don't has, obviously, little or nothing to do with your gun laws. And you could get one just as easily if you spent a little bit of time looking.
Yes becuase we have huge numbers of gun crimes.... no wait a second... almost had me...
All the drug dealers you claim to know of could probably recommend someone to you if you bothered to ask.
Earth to EMFM don't believe everything you see about drug dealers in hollywood, real lifes a little different.
You know, some women do. You know, women who actually want to defend themselves. Women who don't share your often laughable and sometimes disturbing phobia of firearms.
You know, some women don't. You know, women who don't want almost anyone getting thier hands on guns. Women who don't share your always hysterical and mostly disturbing love of firearms.
I don't know if you noticed the really important part of my sentence If women everywhere were crying out for guns your link doesn't seem to disprove that so im still fairly happy with that point i made
Well thanks for the abuse anyway... always feel charitable coming down to someone elses level...
Gee I suppose the winners in the Revlutionary war came out better too ...oh sorry they came out bankrupt didn't they .Quote:
Gee, I suppose the nations on the losing side of the seven years war came out of it significantly better than the winners.
So Rabbit what did Britain win in the seven years war?
Oh they won the wonderful prize of errrrr.....more very expensive wars to fight didn't they.:dizzy2:
Didn't Britain win Quebec and other areas from the French, and several Caribbean islands from the Spanish? I remember coming across this in my history course, since it led to some government-backed emigration from Scotland to those newly-acquired regions in order to form strategic settlements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman