OPINION OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! (White Giant)

Slayke i dont now what you are on about the princes balls are in his mouth because his mother is dead you daft twat PRINCESS DIANA

About the raceist topic at the begning of this furom i would like to say that me and maria (my girlfreind) are both nazis. Now i no what your thinking that were stupid rasist bastards but thats my oppinon and it should be respected. I think racism should be aloud because it is a beleaf and if you dont like nazis or other racist groups heres a good word of advice. Dont get involved with us if u dont like it.

i would also like to add that i agree with zorridor but the american casulties only number 4000 cause were kick ass warriors!

also im a white american and tom im from german descent stupid brit! :p

Hiel Josey Wales!

@little nazi
I'm pretty sure your 'beleaf' has to do with your low level of education. I could try and argue with you but i'd never get an intelligent response.

your choicecoen just my oppinon

bump

"Now i no what your thinking that were stupid rasist bastards but thats my oppinon and it should be respected. "

I think you're a stupid racist bastard, I know you're thinking I should respect you, but that's my opinion and it should be respected.

Good one zyna!!! No guys im not really a nazi i added this to make my furom NAZISM more beleavable. Plz read NAZISM and add your comments.

ANYBODY KNOW WHY NO ONE REPLYS TO MAIL THEY GET???????

bump

bump

America rocks. Second only to Britain.

I HAVE ONE THING TO SAY TO EVERYBODY WHO SAYS THAT AMERICA IS THE LEADER OF DEMOCRACY AND THE FIGHTER OF TERROR, WELL WHICH COUNTRY OWNED MOST OF AMERICA
BRITAIN
AND ENGLAND WAS THE LEADER OF DEMOCRACY AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN BECAUSE IT TAUGHT AMERICA.
ALSO IF AMERICA PEOPLE ARE THE WORLD POWERS THEN SO IS BRITAIN BECAUSE EVERY WHITE AMERICAN IS FROM BRITISH DESCENT.
AMERICA IS ALSO A FAGGET WHEN IT COMES TO WAR BECAUSE I CANT THINK OF ONE WAR WHICH AMERICA FOUGHT SOULY ON THEIR OWN
AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDANCE:FRANCE HELPED
AMERICAN CIVIL WAR:IMMIGRANTS FROM CHINA AND THE EAST HELPED
THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR:HELP FROM FRANCE AND ALSO IMMIGRANTS FORCED TO FIGHT
WW1:THEY ONLY FOUGHT FROM 1917 TO 1918 AND WENT ON SAY THEY WON THE WAR
WW2:JOINED IN AGAIN LATER THAN ALL MAIN COUNTRYS AND SAY THEY WON THE WAR
PACIFIC WAR:HELP FROM BRITISH SOLDIERS AFTER FIGHTING 6 LONG YEARS OF WAR NOT JUST 3YEARS
KOREAN WAR:HELP FROM MOST MAJOR POWERS IN THE WORLD BRITAIN,FRANCE AND OTHER PLACES TO BE MENTIONED
VIETNAM WAR:HELP FROM BRITAIN ALSO AND AUSTRALIAN HOMELAND AS A BASE
COLD WAR:FOUGHT BY BOTH BRITAIN AND AMERICAN AGAIN
DESERT STORM:HELP FROM ARAB COUNTRYS AND LITTLE HELP FROM UN FORCES
AFGAN WAR:BOTH BRITAIN AND AMERICA MAJOR FIGHTERS IN THIS WAR
IRAQI WAR:SAME BOTH BRITAIN AND AMERICA MAJOR FIGHTERS IN THIS WAR BUT MOST BRITISH DEATH AT THE HANDS OF AMERICAN DICKHEADS, ALSO HELP FROM MOST COUNTRYS OVER THE WOR

I just read through this whole damn thing, and this was the MOST entertaining post to date.

1: I am of Italian/Scottish/German/French descent your dumbass Brit! lol. Nothing british about me whatsoever. Plus, the American colonies (particularly Pennsylvania, where I'm from, is mostly GERMAN descent, NOT British)

2: Your right about your country teaching us about Democracy: Your arbitrary, monarchical decisions were no good. Hence: we LEARNED from your crappy system, so we INVENTED a new one....called Democracy.

3. The French did jackshit to help us during the Revolution. They finally sent their ships to blockade Yorktown to keep the British army from fleeing the Americans. That, and they sent Laffeyette (spelling?) to help us....actually, he wasn't sent, so much as he wanted to help America himself.

4. The American Civil War was faught completely, and totally on American soil, and faught BY nothing BUT Americans.

5. There used to be a thing called a "draft" and immigrants were drafted at the same rate as "regular" Americans. If this is going to be peoples' adopted country, then they should fight for her as well. Also, once again, the French did jackshit during the Spanish War. The American Navy emerged as the strongest navy in the world, surpassing GB for the first time. And it was America's Great White Fleet which brought swift victory. Also brought Japan out of isolationism.

6. I WILL concede the point that Americans did the least during WW1. But I think of us entering the war, like a baseball team bringing in a closer in the 9th inning, trying to preserve that 1 lead. All others were tired and exhausted, and the war was likely to go on for another decade at that rate. American troops were incredibly fresh, and brought new vigour into the war for the Allies.

7. We didn't join in WW2 for the same reason why we didn't enter WW1: It wasn't our fight. It took Pearl Harbor to make the American public realize how much a threat this war was to us. Before Pearl Harbor, however, Roosevelt knew America had to eventually become involved to "preserve the World for Democracy." Also the great Winston Churchill even admitted that since Pearl Harbor was attacked, the war was won. ALSO the Japanese admiral who was doing the attacking said that all they did was "awake a sleeping giant." The Russians, too, realized the war would be won now that America become involved. Jews all over Europe, indeed, Jews the world over, celebrated wherever they were, after the American Declaration of War. We led the way into North Africa. We led the way into Anzio. We liberated the southern half of Italy. We led the way to Normandy. Our 101st Airborne was disrupting German supply lines and all that. Our airforce nearly collapsed the German economy. By this time, English, French, and Italian troops were mainly supporting roles, in a largely American offensive. (Yes, there were Italian troops fighting against the axis. My grandfather was one of them. He's from Sicily, and was an underground partisan throughout most of the war. He then hooked up with the Patton's Army in North Africa, and got a scout-like role for the army....like I said, they were support roles.)

8. The Korean and Vietnam Wars were mostly support roles for the British....the French were hardly there, if at all. Most other countries didn't even bother.

9. The "Cold War" wasn't even a FIGHT, so your "point" there can just be totally stricken out altogether. Although it was a good 90%, if not more, of American supplies and airplanes that were used to drop supplies into Berlin during that one crisis, whatever it was called. The British didn't even DO anything to help West Berlin. But other than that, I don't think the "Cold War could even be counted at all. That was mostly the USSR struggling to survive, and eventually collapsing because Communism sucks.

10. The Iraqi wars...particularly the first one, was, once agian, a good 90-99% American troops fighting those. The first war, the Gulf War, was a spectacular success, and was completely justified. We went in, demolished Iraqi forces with very little collateral damage while protecting Kuwait from an aggressor nation. We didn't go into Iraq and meddle in their gov't, we were there simply to protect a nation that didn't have the means to do so on their own. The second (current war) in Iraq is a quagmire, and I would love to see us leave, but I have no clue as to how the hell that could happen.

As for the US getting involved around the world in wars that don't really pertain to us:

Well, all I can say is: We have been attacked twice, unprovoked, in the 20th century. Our gov't has frequently tried to stay out of Europe's affairs before and between the wars. The first wars' attacks were just tragic...hundreds of American lives being lost on the high seas. The second attack was (could have been)catistrauphic (shit can't think of how to spell that word! LOL)

After that, we became suspicious of foreign nations, and what they plan. Hence: the CIA's involvement in governments around the world....Now I'm not saying that's right, but it is what it is.

As for Israel, yes OF COURSE they have a right to exist. Just like any other group of people around the world has a right to exist. They have a right to exist right where they're at, because that is their homeland, ordained by God himself (I'm Christian, and I strongly believe this). Not only that, but self-determination is an ideal sanctioned by the UN. I could go on, I have other points, but Iv'e been at this for a long time now and would like to talk a bit about the UN

The UN:

The UN is a just, and rightful organization. It may not be able to prevent wars, or political strife directly. But I often wonder: How many wars would have erupted since WW2, if there wasn't a medium for gov'ts the world over could sit and discuss the problems they have with eachother? I'm mainly thinking of the US, USSR/Russia, and China. There have been MANY heated debates, I am sure, in the rooms of the UN building in NYC. But ya know, we have never come to blows...isn't that amazing? I would much much rather see a bunch of old stodgy men screaming at each other than to see a bunch of nukes raining down on NYC, Washington, Philadelphia, Moscow, Paris, London, Beijing, Tokyo and what have you.

Not to mention all the smaller wars that could've happened. I'm thinking of some of the disasters around the world in which the UN was the only organization able to respond. Yes, it didn't do much to stop the genocides in Africa, such as Sudan, Rwanda, and Darfur (which is part of Sudan, but I was thinking of sudan BEFORE Darfur...going in and out of violence the way it does). But it does do some good as well.

Whoa! Big post. Just wanted to respond to a few of the points you raised:

I am of Italian/Scottish/German/French descent your dumbass Brit! lol. Nothing british about me whatsoever.

I think you'll find that Scotland is part of Britain which makes you 25% British. There is nothing English about you (though most of the English, me included, have some Scottish and Welsh in them plus bits from all over Europe and further afield, so you probably have a bunch of everything in you).

Your right about your country teaching us about Democracy: Your arbitrary, monarchical decisions were no good. Hence: we LEARNED from your crappy system, so we INVENTED a new one....called Democracy.

Yes, we had a crap democracy when you broke away. We did give the vote to women before you (although New Zealand was first in 1897) and I believe that residents of Washington D.C. are not represented in the U.S. Senate? Beware of claiming to have a good democracy. ALL democratic countries have their problems. Switzerland puts most issues to its population in referenda making it far more democratic than most countries. Unfortunately this usually gives vent to prejudice and tyranny of the majority.

Re: American involvement in various wars, and non-American involvement in American-led wars

Most countries seek out a coalition of powers when starting a war. It gives it a veil of decency and legitimacy. There is no shame in fighting alongside other countries.

The U.S. was late joining both World Wars for political reasons (had the Germans not sunk the Lusitania, nor the Japanese bomber Pearl Harbour, it would have been political suicide for the President to join either war).

What irritates me is when I hear Americans state that they declared war on Germany in WW2. I believe it even states something like "America and her allies declared war on Germany" on a War Memorial somewhere in the States (not sure on this one). America didn't declare on ANYONE in WW2. Japan declared on America by bombing Pearl Harbour and Germany declared war on America in support of Japan.

Cold War: The British didn't even DO anything to help West Berlin.

No, we were too busy repairing damage to our own country being virtually bankrupt after the war with many more pressing domestic problems. We did provide some demobilised cargo planes, I think, and a number of runways from which American cargo took off.

Iraq wars

This would be an example of an American-led war that we were dragged into (I'm responding more to early posts that America was dragged into too many European wars, more than your post, Michael). The first gulf war could be justified. The second, I don't think so; particularly British involvement in it was unjustified, following a demonstration by over 750,000 people (police figures, organisers claim over 2 million). Some democracy we have!

Israel: They have a right to exist right where they're at, because that is their homeland, ordained by God himself

Hmm, Britain really botched this one when it gave Palestine to the Jews. Far too many religious groups claim that area as their homeland and it is a recipe for disaster. That said, Israel exists and I do not advocate getting rid of it.

I worry that there are too many nutters in America (and here) that think that peace in the Middle East is the first step on the road to some sort of End of Days rubbish based on prophecies in the bible. Anyway, this gets into whether or not one should take the bible literally which deserves and requires a thread of its own, so I shan't argue about it here.

The UN

Hurrah! Another champion of the UN. It's toothless and corrupt, but the best we've got.

Back to the point about helping West Germany... Britain did help, the most obvious example being the rebuilding of the Volkswagen company. Others include rebuilding in general. Not to mention stopping the Soviets invading Denmark at the end of the war.

Just an FYI.

Zetetic:

Scottish is not Brittish. The Scots are a Celtic tribe, there long before the Brits. The Brits were a Germanic tribe, who lived in Normandy orginally. In the year 1166, or 1266, or 1366 or something like that. I'm pretty sure it was in the 60's of one of them centuries way back then lol, when the British invaded the island.

Oh, and uh, just because I AM Christian, doesn't mean I take the Bible literally all the time. The whole thing about creationism v. evolution, I believe they actually go hand-in-hand. I do not believe God created the Earth in 7 days. It's mostly the New Testament I believe in (and most of the history of the Jews in the Old).

As far as prophesy is concerned: No, I do not believe peace in the Middle East would bring about the End of Days. In fact, I would welcome peace over there, since all the major religions (Western ones I should say) stake a claim there.

Other than that, I'm pretty much agreed with you on the rest of your post.

Zeta: I'm not really all that familiar with the rebuilding of Volkwagen, sorry. And I will give credit to the British special forces in Denmark as well

Scottish and British may well originally be two different tribes. Although I think you're forgetting that "British" is a combination of numerous ethic groups, created over millenia. Angles, Saxons, Normans, Celts, etc.

But do a little research on the Act of Union 1707, and you will find that Scotland has been a willing constituent of the United Kingdom for quite some time, which makes them British.

Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales are all part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland. Britain or UK for short. Each one is British.

On a geographical note, Great Britain is actually the name of the large island on which you will find England, Scotland and Wales - The British mainland. So Scotland is indeed British, both politically and geographically, no matter what the tribes were originally called.

Can't help but jump in here. I've been following the thread, but have been determined to stay out of it because a lot of the folks posting (particularly the one MM quoted) are just so far off base in their thinking that they scare me.

I am an American, but I have also had the opportunity to live in 4 other countries, I have visited every continent except Antarctica, been in every country in Europe, etc.

Is the US perfect? Of course not, we've done some stupid things, just as every country in the world at one point or another in their history.

The "you suck/we rule" arguments are ludicrous and serve no useful purpose.

But now that Zetetic and MM have jumped in, and Zeta, the tone has gotten a bit more civilized, so couldn't resist jumping in.

Just a couple points. The US is not a democracy, it is a republic. The difference is slight, but there nonetheless. With the exception of some indigeneous (doggone it MM, it's contagious! Spelling?) tribes in the far past there has never been a true democracy anywhere. Ancient Greece is often held up as an example, but they only allowed male property owners to have a say.

The US originally was set up as a confederation modeled after the Iroquois "7 Nations" confederation. MM, as you're from PA, check into Ben Franklin, he was the major player in using the Iroquois example.

The United Kingdom has never pretended to be a democracy. They are a Constitutional Monarchy. The Magna Carta was the first step in the evolution of the modern concept of individual rights. Prior to that, if you weren't in the aristocracy you had no rights. And even the Magna Carta only granted rights to members of the nobility, not the commoner.

The peeing contest about who did what and who did the most is silly. In the American Revolution the French did not help in a massive military way, but their naval power was a godsend, the colonies had no viable navy. Also, if you want to get down to it, the world was at war at that time. The French alliance with the colonies forced the British to maintain forces in other areas to deal with the French threat.

The original neanderthal's claim that the Chinese fought the American Civil War is not worth going into.

The Spanish-American War was the first war that the US as a nation took on an established European nation and won. It established the US as a global power, and as MM states, was the birth of American naval power. I wouldn't go so far as to say they surpassed the British navy at that time. BTW, Commodore Perry actually opened Japan back in 1848.

WWI would have gone on a lot longer without the US entry. The October Revoulution in Russia had removed the Russians from the Allied force, and allowed the Central powers to fight on just one front. The populations of France and the UK were extremely war weary, and the economies were is great disrepair. Women handled most of the agricultural duties in Great Britain (land girls), and also were the vast majority of the ambulance drivers just behind the front lines (known as VAD's). The influx of fresh American bodies and material, along with the British naval blockade of Germany, turned the tide.

WWII was a joint effort. No one has mentioned the Canadian contribution, which was significant. But without the US industrial contribution it is very doubtful the war would have been won as quickly as it was. Incidentally, the US did indeed declare war against the Axis. On December 8th Congress voted a declaration of war against Japan. They did not declare against Germany until Germany declared against them. One point of interest about both of the Congressional votes is that the votes were passed with only one "nay" vote. The woman representative who cast this no vote was the same woman who cast the only "nay" vote in the WWI declaration.

The Korean War was the first truly UN war, and armies from over 100 countries actually contributed troops.

Vietnam was also a joint effort, albeit on a much smaller scale. It originated with the US assisting their French allies, then the French got smart and got out. Units from Australia and South Korea fought with the Americans until almost the end.

The Cold War was, as MM points out, not a "hot" war at all. It was a political, economic, and intelligence war. It was again a worldwide effort.

The recent fights in the middle east have again been worldwide efforts. I disagree strongly with our tactics in Iraq after the total destruction of the 4th largest army in the world, but militarily we did everything we were supposed to.

Mr. Richardson irritates the crap out of me with his idiotic rant and total lack of any knowledge or sense of world history.

As for the UN, I'm not a huge fan. Only because the corruption runs deep and wide. But I will definitely agree that without it there would have been much more bloodshed. One of the primary causes of WWI was the interlocking and complex alliances that nations had built, strictly for their own national security.

Because Ausria declared on Serbia, Russia had to declare on Austria. Because Russia declared on Austria, Germany had to declare on Russia. Because Germany declared on Russia, France had to declare on Germany. And so on and so forth. At least the UN allows a forum for these grievances to be talked out before the first shots are fired.

Okay, already. To sum up, I wouldn't live anywhere else but the US, as bad as it is (LOL). But I love to travel to the UK, and Ireland, and Europe. Australia is also one of my favorite places to visit. Every country has SOMETHING to offer.

Oh, forgot one thing. Zetetic, Washington D.C. was never intended to have a "live-in" population. It was designed strictly for the operation of the Federal government. The idea was the people would come in, work, and go back home to Virginia or Maryland at day's end. Funny, their license plates on their cars have a "taxation without representation" slogan!

MM: Scottish is not Brittish. The Scots are a Celtic tribe, there long before the Brits. The Brits were a Germanic tribe, who lived in Normandy orginally. In the year 1166, or 1266, or 1366 or something like that.

Yes, the Scots are a Celtic tribe. In terms of blood or genetic material, you'll find a handful of people on remote islands off the coast of Scotland who can still claim to be Celtic rather than British.

The "Brits" were not a Germanic tribe, or rather, they were not a tribe at all. The Angles were the first to invade England (well, after the ice age crossings, romans and vikings, and a few others) which is where it gets its name from (it is still Angleterre, or Angle-land, in French). We still have a county called East Anglia. The Angles were Germanic.

They were joined by a whole bunch of Saxons (another Germanic tribe) so that when the Normans arrived (they're French, not Germanic) in 1066 we became a nation formed primarily from three tribes.

The intervening millenium resulted in much procreation involving neighbouring peoples, including the Celts to produce the mix we have today. There is no way anyone can lay claim to being descended from one particular tribe as they have all interbred in the meantime forming the current batch of Brits.

JMR: WWII was a joint effort. No one has mentioned the Canadian contribution

Agreed. The "British" forces were an extremely multinational bunch. It is interesting to note that we got more volunteers from India than were conscripted in Britain. We also had a huge contingent from other countries in the Empire including, of course, the ANZAC forces (Australia and New Zealand).

Whilst I do not defend our imperial conquests as a particularly ethical era in our history, I think it is important to note that we must have got something right when we ruled a quarter of the globe, as millions of men from across the empire volunteered to help us out in Europe and East Asia without being coerced or conscripted.

JMR: One of the primary causes of WWI was the interlocking and complex alliances that nations had built, strictly for their own national security.

Not just for their own national security. Europe had been through periods of large-scale warfare before, often the result of a contested succession in one of the ruling Houses (very common given the level of interbreeding between them - Princes and Princesses from all over Europe could probably come up with a justifiable claim to any throne, and the interbreeding did cause problems with procreation at times). The complex web of alliances were supposed to prevent large-scale warfare breaking out again. Needless to say, it failed. Miserably.

JMR: To sum up, I wouldn't live anywhere else but the US, as bad as it is (LOL).

You highlight the difference between a patriot and a nationalist. A patriot loves his country, but can see its faults. A nationalist is unable to see any fault in his country.

I would never live anywhere other than Europe (though I haven't made it very far out of it yet). The cultural diversity here is amazing in such a small area and even a 2 hour train ride takes you somewhere completely different, often requiring a new language!

JMR: Washington D.C. was never intended to have a "live-in" population. It was designed strictly for the operation of the Federal government... Funny, their license plates on their cars have a "taxation without representation" slogan!

I thought there would have been a reason for it! I think this is a result of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Seems history has gone full circle with another group of Americans demanding no taxation without representation.

MM: Oh, and uh, just because I AM Christian, doesn't mean I take the Bible literally all the time.

Meant to add in my previous post that I didn't mean to offend you by suggesting you take the Bible literally. Your previous post triggered my worries that too many people do take it literally and my comments were meant to be directed at them.

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean for that to sound like I was offended. That was not my intention. I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't one of "those" Christians.

JMR: That was a very good history lesson. Most of that I already knew, just wasn't too clear on the dates. (Although I did think Commodore Perry [That was his name! yay!] was in the late 19 century, but I looked it up, and you were right)

I was gonna respond to the Washington thing, but forgot to. I was going to say people make the choice to live in DC rather than MD or VA. Originally, as you already said, people weren't supposed to live in the District, and so never set a way to have representatives in Congress, becuase they wouldn't be representing anyone LOL. Amazing how THAT worked out.

As for calling Scots, or Irish, or Scots-Irish British, I know my brother whole family he married into would take offense to that lol. I can only hear it now "I am NOT British!!" in his father-in-law's scottish accent.

No, I think of more like how it is in America. We all consider ourselves to be American here, but we're all of different nationalities and cultures. Only I think England is actually composed of more diversity than anywhere in the States.I know the city of London has got to be one of the most diverse cities in the world.They have Seikhs, Sunnis, Christians, and Jews all living in a few blocks of eachother.

I've been to Europe myself, twice, but never further north than the Southern Coast of France/Northern Coast of Italy.

Other than that, the reason why I got into this thread is because, first of all, I read the whole damn thing, and came down to the complete nonsence that was typed in all caps and was immidiately irritated. That's is the exact reason why people from other countries hate Americans. That sence-less redneck ranting does no good.

Other than that, I think JMR did an excellent job in summing up American History. One thing I would like to add though:

Reason why America gets involved in world affairs in these modern times, for the most part, is because others around the world are needlessly suffering tremendously. We being the richest, most powerful, resource-rich nation the world has ever seen, coupled with our Christian background, we have a concience, and feel like we can, and SHOULD do something to alleviate that suffering, despite what others may believe.

And just because someone is democratically-elected, does NOT mean they are going to be good rulers and abide by international law. (Hitler is a perfect example of a democratically-elected leader, and he led the world into one of the worst tragedies in human history).

As quoted from Zorridor:

1949 CIA helps overthrow the democratically elected government of Syria, which brings in the dictatorship of Husni al-Za'im
1953 Operation Ajax: CIA and British MI6 successfully orchestrate the removal of democratically-elected Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh, and installs the Shah as dictator.
1963 -- Iraq. The C.I.A. supports a coup in Iraq against the democratically-elected Qassim government.
1973 -- The destruction of democracy in Chile and the support of a bloody dictatorship there under Augusto Pinochet.
1987 -- Fiji. Support to coup against Timoci Bavadra, democratically-elected Prime Minister.
2002 -- Venezuela. CIA-backed abortive coup against democratically-elected President Hugo Ch�¡vez.
2004 -- 2004 Ha�¯ti rebellion occurs. US-backed rebel leaders gain control of Haiti, ousting the government of democratically-elected, populist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Hugo Chavez? Husni al-Za'im? Mohammed Mossadegh? Not to mention all the countless democratically-elected war-lords in Africa.

Those guys have all been idealist nationalist types a lot like Hitler himself, and after what happened throughout the early-mid 20th centuries, and beyond, the American gov't is a bit paranoid, and that's why they try to be a police force in the world.

I'm not syaing America policing the world is right by any means, I'm just saying the reason WHY it is the way it is. The only way to figure it out how we got where we are at, is by studying history.

It's like a football game (American, but you can think soccer, doesn't matter what sport at all). It's the 4th quarter and people are screaming and yelling, and someone walks in who hasn't seen the first 3/4 of the game. He starts analyzing, and criticising everything the coach or team does on the field. He's never going to be able to figure out why a coach made such-and-such a decision without first seeing the begining of the game.

Same thing with modern history. You'll never be able to understand why the world is the way it is, or why America pokes its nose into everything, without first studying history.

(Note: did I just rant or what? I think I changed subjects about 800 times without ever meaning too lol)

Also, about the heavy stuff we got involved in in the 50s, 602, and 70s. You gotta remember, the world still had WW2 fresh in its mind. They also had the idea that Russia and the United States was going to duke it out with nuclear weapons. Americans thought of Russia in the same light as 1930s Germany. Everyone wanted to steer clear of another war with Germany, and so they appeased Hitler. They allowed him to take nation after nation in Eastern Europe. Germany and Russia even divided Poland up between them. Hitler allied itself with Italy and Japan, and eventually attacked yet more countries. Czechoslovakia, I believe, was the last straw for both France and Britiain. They had almost no choice bu to prepare for war.

Well, after the war, it was Russia's turn to take over Eastern Europe. China went Communist and pretty much backed up Russia (I know they definitely had their disagreements, but still). America was the ONLY nation able to stand up to Russia. Yes, we had support from other countries,as did Russia, only becuase, well, with two nations squaring off with nucs pointed at eachother, other countries, such as the UK and Australia, didn't want to just sit around and get THEIR asses blown away in a war between 2 countries, so everyone....I mean EVERYONE chose sides, and kinda turned into this, "either your with us or against us" kind of mentality, for both the USSR (not Russia, sorry) and the US.

The US did'nt want to follow in the footsteps of the UK and France in the 1930s and be like "oh, sure, you can have such and such a country as long as we don't have to go to war". Well, that appeasement policy did not work, and actually failed quite miserably.

Well, the USSR collapsed in 1991, leaving the US the sole superpower on the planet. and since then, the US tries feverishly to keep any upstarts from upsetting this 63 years of "relative" peace

A good example of this is the bully on the playground.

He can go around picking on kids, stealing their lunch money, because he knows noone is willing to do anything to stop him. He'll continue doing it until someone is big and strong enough to put a stop to it. That's kinda what WW2 and post WW2 is like. Big bad Germany picked on the kids in Eastern Europe for while, got in a fight and was defeated. Big Bad USSR picked on the kids in Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, the only one left to put a stop to it is the US. Big Bad USSR becomes a more civilized, democratic Russia, and isn't really considered as much a threat, so USA polices the playground to keep some other ballsy child from stealing another kids lunch money

Hmmm... very interesting takes. Would like to throw something out for Zetetic, since he referenced the Norman conquest in 1066 at Hastings (I think). Were you aware of just how close the British Isles came to being something completely different?

On 25 Sept. 1066, a Norwegian army under King Harald Hardrada landed some 300 ships filled with Viking warriors on the shores of the British Isles. He was met by the English King Harold Godwinsson at a place near York called Stamford Bridge. The battle was a disaster for the Norsemen, only 24 ships survived to return to Norway.

It was only a matter of a few weeks when the Normans showed up. Many historians attribute the English defeat to the losses they suffered at Stamford Bridge.

Glad to accept the clarifications regarding the backdrop of WWI, and also glad to accept the gentle chiding reminder that during WWII Canada was still a Dominion. And yes, the ANZACS were critical to victory in Italy, among other places. And the Indian contingent was doubly amazing considering the push for independence going on there during that time frame. I learned something, I wasn't aware of the fact of Indian volunteers outnumbering conscripted Brits.

I think that the British Empire (upon which the sun never set) was successful in part due to the fact that they copied one aspect of the ancient Roman Empire. That aspect was that, after conquering a region, both of those Empires more or less allowed the region a good deal of self-rule. Yes, the Governor would be from the Empire's homeland, but as long as the local rulers kept the population quiet, the Empire let them do their own thing. My personal bet is that Britain learned from their experience in North America during the latter half of the 18th century!

Back now to MM: Some well put points. Just a couple things to say. It was actually Poland that pushed the UK and France into war. The annexation of the Sudentenland (part of what was then Czechoslovakia) was allowed with nary a whimper. Which was ironic considering that Czechoslovakia at that time had the most pure democracy on the planet.

It was when Hitler decided to stop his successful diplomatic war and turn to his military that the UK and France could no longer just hope he'd go away.

Your take on the cold war era is good. What the bashers have conveniently overlooked are the Soviet coups and actions during this same period. The world was a gigantic chessboard, with the US and USSR commanding the table, and their allies all standing at the ready. The implications of having a communist (or even Soviet supporting democracy) in our back yard was something that could not be tolerated, just as having a democracy or US supporting government in most of Asia or anywhere in Eastern Europe was not to be tolerated by the Soviets. I refer you to Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, and others. Afica was unfortunately for them, the only open battleground left in the world. Can anyone remember Cuban troops in Angola? Not because Cuba wanted what Angola had, but the USSR said, if you want to keep getting foreign aid this is what you need to do. And while I respect David Walker's opinion of Castro and Cuba, I think he's a little misguided. Cuba has indeed accomplished some amazing things under the Castro regime (their literacy rate is among the highest in the world, as is their % of people covered by health care), however, without the USSR footing the bill economically it's questionable whether the result would have been the same.

Be careful about buying into the idea of the US being the only superpower remaining. Russia is slowly but surely returning to a more autocratic style of leadership, and has quietly but steadily been increasing their economic power throughout the world. They control a majority of the oil and natural gas shipments into much of Europe, and have some of the largest known reserves of both those commodities on the planet.

Additionally, China has been upgrading their military at an alarming rate and has been exerting itself politically and economically round the globe. The old saying used to be "sure, they've got the people, but they don't have the trucks to move them, and sure they've got nukes but they can't fly them straight." Well, they're getting the trucks, and thanks to a certain US president they now have the technology to fly the nukes straight.

There's an old Arabic curse which goes "May you live in interesting times." I think we are, and I'm curious to see how all this washes out.