Man, whatever you take, double the dosage...
I don't even know where to start. Smarting from criticism that comparing wars 170 years apart makes little sense, and that comparing wars of aggression to independence rebellions makes even less sense, you proceed to invoke the British invasion of the River Plate.
Let's count the ways in which invoking this, in this context, is stupid:
- Need I remind you that the UK was fighting with Spanish forces, not Argentina?
- Need I remind you that the British were fighting in several other theaters at the same time, and this region - which they had never really controlled - was a comparatively low priority?
- "Many of them were killed by house wives who dropped them boiling oil from the roof by house" -
- Is that not exactly what I'd said - "where you are fighting for your own territory and can count on support from your own people" - to the letter? (See following paragraph regarding Spain).
- Do you even remember the point you're arguing?
- Do you even have a point?
- Regarding Spain, whatever troops they sent, they were defeated by an army fighting on its own turf, which is how and why the vast majority of independence wars of that era were successful, be it the United States or most of South America.
I am sure I have a lot to learn about the particulars of the Argentine one - only you know everything, after all. But the general point is clear regardless, as you yourself made clear in the preceding paragraph.
- Finally, I am not making fun of your English, to the contrary I was trying to give you a pass for that. Unfortunately the quality of your logic would require that be a large pass indeed.
You happen to be right about that, but that was just a lucky guess.