Why did Great Britain have the US become its own country instead of just giving it representation in Parliament?

History Lord wrote:

Vilna is our Jerusalem wrote:

The US Won WWII.

Japan freed Asia from American, European, and Russian imperialism as was their stated goal.

Britain, France, Italy, Pope did nothing to help the US defeat Germany.

Instead they helped Germany exile us Jews to Palestine.

We want back into Europe now.

Wow. Some serious history lessons needed across the board.

The UK and US certainly tied up Axis resources, and the US did a great job of deafeating the Japanese whilst the Chinese and British did a good job of tying up Japanese forces. However, the European theatre was won by Russia. Russia defeated Germany. They would have done this without lend lease too. Look at the detail of the Russian campaign specifically in terms of scale and you’ll understand. Until then stop being hysterically patriotic.

You know nothing about Asia. For almost 120 years from 1900s until today, Japanese have happily and willingly donated the bulk of their national wealth to the development of East Asia and South East Asia, with plenty of resources to India s well. From 1930-1945 Japanese dismantled and wiped out the British Empire in China, South East Asia, and India clearing the way for the Asian Economic Miracle. From the 1950s Japanese spent it's resources helping it's own Asian peoples by developing the Five Tigers, China, Taiwan South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. The world we have today can be credited mostly to the gratious and generous people of Japan. Arigato to our Japanese Asian brothers and sisters.

Coevett wrote:

The The wrote:

I'm not sure where you got that notion but you are mistaken.

No, you're wrong. The colonists didn't want to be independent until war broke out. They wanted fair taxation and representation. And there was a strong body of opinion in England that the Americans should be given representation in the Houses of Parliament.

It's crazy to think what would have happened if GB had managed to hold on to the American colonies for another century, or even united into one transatlantic state (with Canada). The US would not have been such an attractive 'new world' destination for millions of Europeans (and British). Maybe they would have turned to South America? Perhaps today the USA would have a similar population to Canada, and Brazil or Argentina would be a world superpower?

The thought of that grosses me out dude. In the 1600s and 1700s Europe was full of people who could not be mistaken for smelly chimps and monkeys. Europe was a hell hole 100% primitive. People came to America to leave the trash heap of Europe. Pathetic.

Strangely Britain didn't learn from its mistakes with the American Colonies and repeated them in India.

Take your meds.

Blue blood incest wrote:

English royalty (including European royalty) are inbred, retarded, bleeders. it's impossible to make intelligent decisions when you are an adult with the brain capacity of a canary.

I mean... you're not wrong? However, Arsenic poisioning was probably a bigger deal for our boy George. Might as well been from Flint.

Vilna is our Jerusalem wrote:

Instead they helped Germany exile us Jews to Palestine.

We want back into Europe now.

Are you trolling as a Jewish Holocaust denier?

Scorpion_runner wrote:

England, IN THEIR FINEST HOUR, never folded. The people of england didn't get scared, an element that Hitler underestimated.

Of course they got scared, and of course they would have folded if they had been beaten, which they pretty much were near the end of the Battle of Britain. Their air power was just about decimated, but Hitler insisted on giving up and attacking the cities instead for terror but no military purpose, allowing the RAF to recoup its losses.

Everyone getting shot at/bombed etc in a war gets scared. They get used to it, sure, but again, everyone in that situation does. Nothing special about England having endured it, compared to any other country. And let's not pretend they haven't done the same to others around the world, as long as we're so proud of them.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Strangely Britain didn't learn from its mistakes with the American Colonies and repeated them in India.

The US didn't learn either and got their asses handed to then each in 1000 pieces in Vietnam. Again the US didn't learn from it's loss to Vietnam is losing again against Islam in the Mid East.

'have'? You effin ANTI_Semite. The US kicked the crap out of England. F U C K the Windsor apes, Lizzie, Charlie,Hairboy, Willie, Katie, the whole litter ;-)

World History buff wrote:

From what I read, GB was not a country when their refugees landed at Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. GB was a island with primitive human-like beasts, tree people, cave dwellers, and fully naked barbarians. Granted 2-3% of the population was civilized and could read the Holy Bible. The remainder sadly lived sordid, pitiful, animalistic lives. Infant mortality was 98%. Few lived until puberty. GB was an island of children.

And Englishmen are all closet gays. Look at Monty Python and Benny Hill and Hugh Grant, they wear dresses and wigs every chance they get.

and the British Navy was proud of the moniker: rum, sodomy and the lash.

Why did Great Britain have the US become its own country instead of just giving it representation in Parliament?

the most important consideration was that King George wanted to keep all the knuckle-dragging, delinquent, pus-ridden, syphillitic, illiterate, bigoted dross in one place, and as far away from England's green and pleasant land as possible. it worked so well that a hundred years later we repeated the exercise by exporting all our convicts to Australia, which is sufficient explanation for surfing at Christmas and Foster's Lager.

cheers.

Why, George? wrote:

As I understand it, all the colonies really wanted in the years leading up to the Revolutionary War was representation in Parliament. Wouldn't GB have been better off to just grant this request instead of forcing the hand of the colonies to move for independence?

You really don't know your history, do you? When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, that created a false flag. That's when the Patriots acquired Tom Brady. The rest is history.

Why, George? wrote:

As I understand it, all the colonies really wanted in the years leading up to the Revolutionary War was representation in Parliament. Wouldn't GB have been better off to just grant this request instead of forcing the hand of the colonies to move for independence?

The US never did gain independence from Britain. You have fallen for one of the greatest conspiracies in history.

In the late 1700's the British realized that there had to be significant changes in the way the American Colonies were governed. The current governing body needed to be replaced with one that would be highly credible with the colonists. The British selected capable and loyal subjects such as Washington, Jefferson and Hancock to lead this change. In the days before mass media it was very easy to fake a war and, sure enough, the "rebels" won. A new government was installed and Britain's loyal supporters installed in power. In Britain, Washington was referred to by his title, Duke of the Potomac, conferred by King George. Jefferson was Earl of Virginia.

The first few years of the revised colonies were difficult though and Britain was concerned that the ruse might be uncovered so the loyalists got together in Philadelphia in 1787 to draft a constitution. That did the trick and, what London refers to as , Colonies Mk III has been very successful and profitable for the British government.

One reason the US has such huge deficit problems if 15% of all tax revenues is sent to Britain. Indeed the US is fully funding the British health care system. The de facto rule by the British also explains why the US can still function even with a gridlocked Congress and questionable selections of Presidents. They don't matter, all the important decisions are made in London. Indeed the very structure of the Constitution, with its division of powers, was deliberate so that governance from London would be much easier.

Of course, you will not read any of this in the official accounts.

There is a lot of evidence that supports the notion that a small group of colonial radicals wanted independence regardless, and none of the demands made were expected to be taken seriously long-term. Even if the colonials HAD been given "direct representation" (the English claimed that the colonists were already receiving "virtual representation", and the argument was closed), it wouldn't have satiated the colonial radicals.

Dur wrote:

It's especially annoying when Canadians say they won the war of 1812 when 1. They weren't a nation yet, and 2. They were still British, and they lost.

Yes, we were still British. No, we did not lose. The Americans thought it was “a mere matter of marching” to take over the British colonies that grew into what is now Canada. It did not happen. The boundaries were restored to their original order, the U.S. gained nothing. The British military, Loyalist militia AND native forces defended their land and the U.S. did not achieve their goal. Please explain how that is losing.

malmo wrote: You really don't know your history, do you? When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, that created a false flag. That's when the Patriots acquired Tom Brady. The rest is history.

actually The Patriots were originally a baseball team made up exclusively of dwarves which is why they were known as the minute men, and their leader was a dim-witted soul called Paul Thornton who rode his horse to church every Sunday morning but not being particularly bright he sat backwards on his horse and was therefore known as Paul Reverse.

the minute men were actually playing an away game in Hawaii that morning and it was them that alerted the townsfolk to the approaching German Bombers, but being so short they couldn't run very fast and were a bit late with their news and the first bombs fell just one minute later. and that is the real source of the story about the Minutemen and Paul Reverse which, as usual, was botched up by Hollywood for public consumption.

cheers.

Why, George? wrote:

As I understand it, all the colonies really wanted in the years leading up to the Revolutionary War was representation in Parliament. Wouldn't GB have been better off to just grant this request instead of forcing the hand of the colonies to move for independence?

Kings don't usually like being told how to run their kingdom by the riff raff...... and besides......would you rather have a world without the musical Hamilton?

Dur wrote:

The thing I really don't understand is why Canada didn't bail the empire during the War of 1812. It's especially annoying when Canadians say they won the war of 1812 when 1. They weren't a nation yet, and 2. They were still British, and they lost.

Canada did win the war though.

Well, they didn’t anticipate a small group of rebels being able to beat the worlds largest army.