wait it seems I missed something, did that idiot use the US Civil war and the Revolutionary war as examples to fortify his claim. Now I don't know for sure but reading K's response to the idiot it seems to be what he claims. Correct me if I am wrong
first of all our revolutionary war would have been lost without the French army that is a fact, in truth it was almost lost anyway and could very well have been lost if the British would have decided to stay the course. They did not for a variety of reasons one being money. The civil war was won by the side that had the better army. But, even so he is so stupid as to not realize that both sides had an Army. The south were not simply farmer soldiers, they also had many generals from the country of the USA. So to argue differently is wrong in two respects. First, is my argument that you need an army was vindicated by the north winning, but even more than that it is a very bad example because the south had their own army which was basically 50% of the USA army. so both examples he gives are both bs, and probably the only two revolutions he can even mention. Of course, it is one more than his brother knows.
The bottom line is again he is full of shit, again he proves he is an idiot. And excuse me but I have difficulty reading his crap, the only reason I caught this was I read K's response.
And maybe I am mistaken, maybe he didn't even make these two examples however, I was expecting at least the revolutionary war example from him because I would make a huge wager he knew nothing about the French army and the great assistance to the rebels (at the time)
first of all our revolutionary war would have been lost without the French army that is a fact, in truth it was almost lost anyway and could very well have been lost if the British would have decided to stay the course. They did not for a variety of reasons one being money. The civil war was won by the side that had the better army. But, even so he is so stupid as to not realize that both sides had an Army. The south were not simply farmer soldiers, they also had many generals from the country of the USA. So to argue differently is wrong in two respects. First, is my argument that you need an army was vindicated by the north winning, but even more than that it is a very bad example because the south had their own army which was basically 50% of the USA army. so both examples he gives are both bs, and probably the only two revolutions he can even mention. Of course, it is one more than his brother knows.
The bottom line is again he is full of shit, again he proves he is an idiot. And excuse me but I have difficulty reading his crap, the only reason I caught this was I read K's response.
And maybe I am mistaken, maybe he didn't even make these two examples however, I was expecting at least the revolutionary war example from him because I would make a huge wager he knew nothing about the French army and the great assistance to the rebels (at the time)
Originally Posted by chico2663 
