Ireland demands an official apology from Kain for 800 years of occupation.

To keep this on topic, The United States demands an apology from Kain also.

A point I find interesting about the Revolutionary War was that the British crown actually agreed to most American demands, albeit somewhat late in the game, offering representation in parliament, and other consessions. If the US had gone for this, they may have evolved into complete independence more the way Canada did, and indeed the new country would have likely included most of North America in that case.

The offer was refused, for reasons that are likely not completely known- but one can guess. Affluent members of the rebel forces, including George Washington, had a stake in not just achieving independence, but also in having a free reign in the west, where land was to be had (at the expense of aboriginals), and fortunes to be made. Going back to some form of British sovereignty would probably have put a damper on this. Also, America had become dependent on French and Spanish aid, and from the latter's point of view, a comlete break between the waring sides was desirable; something less was probably not worth supporting militarily.

Well, one ought to also take into account, that by the time the Motherland DID offer those concessions, they had already gone back on their previous "concessions" more than once. That's always the trouble with trying to make an offer of negotiated peace: if you've got a reputation for lying at the bargaining table, people tend not to take you seriously.

Yet the Revolutionary war here WAS very much more complex than MOST American school children are taught. It's beginnings had more to do with rebellious merchants, trying to cheat the Crown of their legally applied duties, than with a genuine pursuit of "liberty and justice for all." Luckily for the rebels, the British authorities played into their hands over and over again, until enough colonists joined the other side (and got the help of the French) to tip the balance.

MOST wars are much more complicated than they are portrayed as, to the masses. Every nation likes to portray itself as "fighting the good and righteous fight," and not as what is too often the real case, "suckers, doing the dirty work for a bunch of self-serving jerks out to enrich themselves and their friends," or as "panicky fools who went to war for fear that if they didn't, that somehow the sun wouldn't rise on time tomorrow."

All in all, I think i would be accurate to describe the American War of 1812, as resulting from British arrogance, in the face of American egotism. The British KNEW that the Americans were getting angrier all the time, but chose to ignore them, and continued their petty habit of impressment. The powerful self-centered "entrepeneurail" Americans wanted to take advantage of this British foolishness, to try to take Canada again (this is actually much like Bush's taking advantage of Sadaam's arrogance, to try to take Baghdad again). Both sides were riddled by selfish arrogant fools in positions of power. Somewhat appropriately, the War of 1812 (as it is known here) netted NOTHING for either side, except dead peasants. Various individuals profited hugely, including Andrew Jackson, who became President in part, because of his victory over the British in Louisiana.