Originally Posted by Vyacheslav Molotov

No, taxation without representation was nothing more than a catchy slogan. In reality the debt brought on by the 7 years war (the French and Indian war) and England's following attempts to secure control over the 13 as actual colonies was the spark for the war. The attempted enforcement of the Navigation Acts, the restriction of migration beyond the Appalachians in order to reduce conflicts with Native Americans, and the various taxes that the English put into place to try to get the American's to pay for 50% of all of their future defense costs were the more direct costs of the war.

In essence prior to 1763 the colonies that would become the United States were mostly under their own control, colonial governments had immense power while the crown engaged in what is known as Salutary neglect, benign neglect, and various other names. In essence they tried to change from a hands off to a hands on government.

Representation within British parliament would have achieved little, as we lacked number sufficient to stop the English from trying to exercise control.

This is why its interesting that we call it the "revolutionary war" when in reality it was a conservative affair attempting to maintain the 1763 status quo.


The phrasing of your question could be interpreted in another manner, asking "why we kicked England's butt" could be interpreted as "for what reason did we win the war." In this case, I would suggest that a comparison with Vietnam is in order. Forcing the British to fight an extended war in a distant land was the deciding factor in the war. While Washington was far from a military genius, he recognized that in order to keep the revolution alive, and in fact in order to win, he simply had to not lose his army. We fought a 'dirty" guerrilla style campaign against the British, and we held out long enough to receive French aide (they were simply looking for a way to hurt the British) which gave us much needed troops and especially naval resources, allowing us to prevent a retreat into the sea.

On the other hand, the British made a number of faulty assumptions. They were constantly looking for a supposed group of loyalists that would join their cause, we are talking massive numbers that they believed existed within the southern colonies (fun fact Georgia originally lacked slavery because it was a defensive/penal colony). In reality, their campaign in the south was counterproductive, just as with the Strategic Hamlet program in Vietnam, the result was not the irradiation of the insurgent forces, but an encouragement to join the cause of the rebels (also no massive loyalist group was ever found). So while the British became more and more tired about fighting their brothers in a war expensive in both lives and money, the American colonists became increasingly angered over their occupation.

As for the 4 banger, I say why not, especially if it increases European sales.

Originally Posted by Hamidar05

Seriously - while your analysis sounds quite educated, it is also quite ignorant in that I can only surmise it was taught in an British colloquial school, or by a left wing American hating professor at a university. There was no comparison to Vietnam, as the North could have been obliterated were it not for the weak political knees in Washington that has continued to this day. Vietnam was fought over the political ideology of Communism vs self determination. I suppose the hearts and minds philosophy could be applied if what you are saying isn't some historical reinvention of the Revolutionary way by England after Vietnam, but the fate of the South Vietnamese was far worse than the Tories.

As for the V8.. well, it is an American icon reinvented by FORD after the Europeans failed to mass produce it for their vehicles other than aircraft, and frankly this thread was started under the belief that the Mustang was an American invention, made an icon by having a V8 and being able to "hot rod" it as well and lamenting the internationalization of an icon. While internationalization is the correct Capitalist thing to do, I tend to believe it will fail. Time will tell if FORD is successful......

Originally Posted by Csrt4to5.0gt

Just read in motor trend that the 2.3L ecoboost is supposed to have an estimated 330hp and 300lb/tq and weigh about 3400lbs. With that power and weight, I wouldn't be surprised if the ecoboost will be as quick as or even faster than the '05-'10 GT. I still wouldn't buy it. I'm a 5.0 guy. I'd take it in a heartbeat over the V6, though.