- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,742
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Mesquite, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
FinnMacCool said:Violence is fun though!
But seriously I suppose it could've worked but I dunno. Ghandi was one in a billion. There would have to be a leader like him during that time and I don't think there was.
Calm2Chaos said:I think we would be sipping tea and saying "Hail to the queen".... Or whatever they say.
FinnMacCool said:Not if they couldn't control the more radical ones. I mean some of the patriots back then were almost like terrorists really. scary people. But yeah I suppose it might have worked. might have.
I myself wouldn't classify the principal colonist forces under Washington as terrorist. Perhaps 'asymmetrical for the period' would be a more apt and honest characterization.Gandhi>Bush said:What are you talking about? I don't recall anything like that in any history class I've ever taken. The idea of guerilla warfare was at it's most infantile stages. What acts do you percieve as similar to terrorist's?
Gandhi>Bush said:What are you talking about? I don't recall anything like that in any history class I've ever taken. The idea of guerilla warfare was at it's most infantile stages. What acts do you percieve as similar to terrorist's?
SouthernDemocrat said:One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Gandhi>Bush said:Do you have any other brilliant and mind blowing observations or would you give me a reason?
Calm2Chaos said:Because they would have been just as happy to walk in and shoot anyone that stood against them. In any form or fashion. There was no press to outrage the public. It doesn't work IMO as a rule. yes it work for Ganhdi, but no I have no doubt it would have failed with the likes of saddam. We would still be fighting him. We would just be kicking him out of Kuwait first though.
Tashah said:It might have worked G>B. But first, let me paint an extended scenario for you. Let's just suppose that the colonists did exactly what Gandhi would have done... what you proposed in the above post. Those rebellious actions would have indeed placed the proverbial ball in the court of the Brits.
Hypothetically now, how would the Brits have responded to these provocations? Seeing as how they eventually resorted to brute force, it is obvious that their desire to maintain control of the colonies was of the utmost importance. I can only hazard a guess here, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if their follow-up response would be to confiscate/destroy the livestock and agri-harvests of the colonists.
This would place the colonists in an untenable position... no food and sustenance for their families. A simultaneous Brit naval embargo would also deny critical hardware supplies and medicinal concoctions. From a purely Brit point of view, they could always replenish the dead and dying colonists with new arrivals from Her Majesty's empire... all carefully vetted for loyalty to the crown before any trans-Atlantic voyage ensued.
Although I love Gandhi dearly... how could he have responded in a non-violent fashion to such a dire scenario? Just some possible alternative history to consider here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?