troops and NCO's that they were able to. Only in a few battles before
Rochambeau's forces came to the US were the colonists able to solidy stand
against the British troops of the line. Moreover during the revolutionary
war the vast majority of British troops were second rate or Hessian
mercinaries. Not the best of troops by any extent. The British army was
heavily engaged in India, and on the continent for most of the revolution.
larry
At 01:49 PM 10/13/2003, you wrote:
>Of course but the general point was we could pretty much go toe to toe
>with the british and be in the same ballpark.
>
>Today thats not possible i dont see any of us revolting today getting
>our hands on any war machines unless we find a way to steal them from
>the military ah la Red Dawn.
>
>
>--
>Bill Wheatley
>Senior Database Developer
>eDiets.com, Inc.
>(OTCBB: EDET)
>3801 W. Hillsboro Blvd.
>Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
>V: (954) 360-9022 ext. 159
>F: (954) 360-9095
>E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>W: <http://www.ediets.com/> www.ediets.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 1:30 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: RE: Question on Israeli Military Strikes
>
>At 12:16 PM 10/13/2003, you wrote:
> >Yea from the looks on the news the Israelis only strike in retaliation
> >for a attack by terrorists.
> >
> >
> >This is an interesting topic because it reminds me of the talks we have
> >about right to bear arms etc. Now back in the day when we had our
> >revolution we were all on the same tech level. British has better
> >muskets but no tanks airplanes etc. So we were able to fight them off
> >with the standard fire arms of the day. Now today we wouldn't be able
>to
>
>You also must remember at this time the British were involved in a war
>with
>the French, Germans and Spanish. All of whom were veyr eager to help the
>
>revolutionaries, up to and including sending in troops and ships. For
>instance the French sent in a couple of large fleets and took control of
>
>the Chesapeake. They also sent in over 30,000 troops under Rochambaut.
>It
>wasn't a matter of the poor colonists holding off the perfidious British
>
>all by their lonesome. They had a lot of outside help.
>
> >overthrow our government with standard household arms. We could kill
> >solders but we couldn't take out a brigade of tanks or apaches etc.
> >So I wonder would we have to resort to suicide attacks to make our
> >point? I mean I try to put myself into the role of what if. But I
> >couldn't see suicide attacks against civilians as being effective.
>Would
> >we hope that by killing innocents the people will be so outraged they
> >will say leave them and let them have what they want?
>
>At the same time the Americans were doing something similar with
>expelling,
>torturing and burning out the homes and lands of those loyal to the
>crown.
>Along the frontier there were quite a few massacres of loyalist Indian
>tribes. So the revolutionaries were not all that innocent.
>
>larry
>
> _____
>
>
>----------
>[
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
