The world should be kissing our feet!

[slamdunkpro]

It just fascinates me that the US is so vilified by the world and even people in our own country. Don’t they realize that the only thing that has kept them from enslavement is the US Constitution? Think about it – in the 20’s 30’s 40’s and 50’s we could have crushed most countries like bugs – but we didn’t. We gave Europe back twice and the Far East back once. Imagine for a moment that all that power was in a monarchy. Was there a more colonial or imperial president than Teddy Roosevelt? If Teddy had been king the middle east would be a territory now, once FDR succeeded him in the Roosevelt dynasty Canada and Mexico would be added to the list. Europe would all be Soviet Satellite states.

No matter how incompetent (Grant, Carter) or corrupt (Buchanan, Nixon, Clinton) the president has been, they have had at least the bare respect for that single document.

It’s very possible that without that document FDR or Truman could have cut a deal with the Soviets and the Chinese to slice the world up three ways. If that happened who could have stopped it?

Not bad for a bunch of rebel drunks in the 1700’s

[SpearsBritney]

...wake up Neo...the Matrix has you....

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
It just fascinates me that the US is so vilified by the world and even people in our own country. Don’t they realize that the only thing that has kept them from enslavement is the US Constitution? Think about it – in the 20’s 30’s 40’s and 50’s we could have crushed most countries like bugs – but we didn’t.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really have no idea why the US is so vilified because you don't know the role that US "advisors" played in supporting corrupt dictatorships and suppressing more-legitimate populist movements worldwide. If you support corrupt dictatorships who behave in an inhumane way, you aren't that much better than they are. The fact is so easily grasped by people worldwide and yet so utterly lost on many Americans it is rather astonishing.

[player24]

I'd be interesting in knowing which "corrupt dictatorships" the US is currently supporting.

[The once and future king]

The only appropriate response to this drivel is:

"America fu.ck yea coming again to save the motherfu.cking world yea."

*Team America-World Police.

[The once and future king]

The Yanks+Rusikeis+Brits had a hard time stoping the Germans, and would have been even harder if they hadnt had that strategic tard Hitler in charge.

Now imagine that in 39 Germany allied with Britan+France. Britain still rules the waves, germans lead the way in armements. Yankland was docile and unprepared, we could have had you easy.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Now imagine that in 39 Germany allied with Britan+France.Britain still rules the waves, germans lead the way in armements.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the French are what? Waiting tables? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Yankland was docile and unprepared, we could have had you easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only until production in the heatland increased. Remember that you Brits were woefully unprepaired as well in 39. In fact the only thing that saved you until 41 was our lend lease program.

A much more fearsome alliance would have been Stalin+Hitler. If that had been the case you would be eating borche right now instead of Fish & Chips.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact the only thing that saved you until 41 was our lend lease program.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont remember you lending us any spitfires. Also having the mightiest navy in the world isnt unprepared. Add to that the wermacht and youd be drinking T and eating bratwurst in no time.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be interesting in knowing which "corrupt dictatorships" the US is currently supporting.

[/ QUOTE ]

ummm... are you kidding?

pakistan?
russia?
saudi arabia?
half of central and southern america?
CHINA?
etc...

(though some of these call themselves democracies or monarchies or republics or whatever)

[Greg J]

The worst:

Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Saudi Arabia

[johnc]

[ QUOTE ]
The Yanks+Rusikeis+Brits had a hard time stoping the Germans, and would have been even harder if they hadnt had that strategic tard Hitler in charge.

Now imagine that in 39 Germany allied with Britan+France. Britain still rules the waves, germans lead the way in armements. Yankland was docile and unprepared, we could have had you easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler had absolutely no intention of giving squat to the Brits or the French nor did he want their "help" in any way shape or form if conquered (the Vichy gov't offered Hilter their military help and he flatly turned them down). It was all about the Germanic race from the very begining and never included the Brits or any other non-Germanic nation. Learn your history before you spout off.

[lastchance]

Imagine if Hitler had been sane (somewhat)... That would have been scary.

[slamdunkpro]

Actually it was P-51 Mustangs, P40 Warhawks, Curtis Avengers, in all over 5000 aircraft were sent via the lend lease act; almost 1500 were sent before 1941. Along with aviation fuel, rubber, ammunition, you know, small items like that.

As far as the mightiest navy; in 39 I’d have to rank Britain a distant third behind Japan and Germany, in ’39 most of your capitol ships were built in the early 20’s. They were no match for the late 30’s construction of the Japanese and Germans. (Look at the short work the Graf Spee made of 3 Brit heavy cruisers; the Bismarck made of the King George. The Turpiz sunk two entire convoys single-handed. – yes I know you got the Bismarck in the end but it took an entire fleet)

P.S. I like Bratwurst

[slamdunkpro]

Methinks you missed the word “imagine”

[johnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine if Hitler had been sane (somewhat)... That would have been scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was his psycotic fanaticism that was the driving force behind the National Socialist Party rise. His insanity in "Mein Kampf" really scares the crap out of me.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
It was his psycotic fanaticism that was the driving force behind the National Socialist Party rise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the driving force behind his rise. The rise of the NAZI movement can almost be Laid directly on the League of Nations when they tried to put Germany in a Box with no way out; then didn’t act to keep the lid on.

[johnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was his psycotic fanaticism that was the driving force behind the National Socialist Party rise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the driving force behind his rise. The rise of the NAZI movement can almost be Laid directly on the League of Nations when they tried to put Germany in a Box with no way out; then didn’t act to keep the lid on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hilter's rise = Nazi rise, the two are inseparable. Without Hilter the National Socialist Party would have easily been swallowed up by the plethora of party's jockeying for power, the Communist Party being one that comes to mind given their strong opposition to the Weirmar gov't (an extremely popular view held by the fringe and not-so fringe groups at the time in Germany).

[andyfox]

FDR did make a deal with the Soviets to slice up the world.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
The only appropriate response to this drivel is:

"America fu.ck yea coming again to save the motherfu.cking world yea."

*Team America-World Police.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL!!

I loved that movie: it goofed on the right and left heavily.

Very funny!

-ptmusic

[andyfox]

And tell us how lovely it smells.

[Cyrus]

I mean, you are practicing your bluffs, right ?

[ QUOTE ]
It just fascinates me that the US is so vilified by the world and even people in our own country.

[/ QUOTE ] You are easily fascinated. There's nothing mysterious about this. People the world over admire the American system of governance, its people's intrinsic values and its culture. (Do I need to scare up "polls" to show any of this? I hope not.)

At the same time, people the world over resent American imperialism. You should read a couple of dozen quotes from American political leaders of the 20th and 19th century about "America's destiny in the world" (read: the need to assert and project its power over the globe). Perhaps you'd be fascinated.

[ QUOTE ]
Don’t they realize that the only thing that has kept them from enslavement is the US Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ] If you are referring to the American people, you are putting cart before horse. If you are referring to foreign people, the U.S. constitution had nothing to do with any of the "humane interventions abroad" (=military action) that America engaged throughout its history.

Nations do not have "feelings", señor Iglesias! They have interests.

...Fascinating, innit?

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine for a moment that all that power was in a monarchy.

[/ QUOTE ]
If forced to choose, yes, I'd much rather have American imperialism than Nazi or Soviet imperialism. This is a no brainer. I'd rather have a democracy oppressing me than an despotic nation. For obvious, selfish reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
Was there a more colonial or imperial president than Teddy Roosevelt?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll say No! /images/graemlins/grin.gif And thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
It’s very possible that without [the US constitution] FDR or Truman could have cut a deal with the Soviets and the Chinese to slice the world up three ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, the constitution stopped them - and not the stone cold assessment of the power balance and the prospects for a hot war, either conventional or nuclear? I'm fascinated with your fixation on the US constitution as the end-all and be-all in world affairs!

But I suppose you are not aware of the fact that the United States did actually "slice up the world" with the Soviets in a series of "deals"! Most publicly, in a little conference held in a little city inside the USSR called Yalta. (You didn't know that? Fascinating.)

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
in 39 I’d have to rank Britain a distant third behind Japan and Germany,

[/ QUOTE ]

Utterly and totaly wrong.

Germany may have had a handfull of kickarse battleships, but this a navy does not make. Note how most of these Battleships spent there time in port.

The British had naval deployements in the Pacific+Atlantic+ the Med, we still had an Empire then remember.
The Japs had just one deyployment in the Pacific. If the Brits had combined there whole Naval force in 39 and put it in to one theatre, no one could have stoped it.

The Naval bases we had in the Caribean would have been our spring board for the recapture of Yankland. British and German forces would have Blitzkrieged to New Mexico with French forces holding our gaines and doing some impressive catering to bost morale. Canada would have obviously fought on ourside and this would have forced you to fight on 3 fronts.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually it was P-51 Mustangs, P40 Warhawks, Curtis Avengers, in all over 5000 aircraft were sent via the lend lease act; almost 1500 were sent before 1941.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL 99% Of this stuff went to Russia. Utterly insignificant numbers of US made warplanes took part in the most significant confrontation between Britain and Germany which was the Battle of Britain.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Yanks+Rusikeis+Brits had a hard time stoping the Germans, and would have been even harder if they hadnt had that strategic tard Hitler in charge.

Now imagine that in 39 Germany allied with Britan+France. Britain still rules the waves, germans lead the way in armements. Yankland was docile and unprepared, we could have had you easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler had absolutely no intention of giving squat to the Brits or the French nor did he want their "help" in any way shape or form if conquered (the Vichy gov't offered Hilter their military help and he flatly turned them down). It was all about the Germanic race from the very begining and never included the Brits or any other non-Germanic nation. Learn your history before you spout off.

[/ QUOTE ]

You total moraaaaan. This whole thread is about HYPOTHETICAL and IMAGINED situations.

Perhaps try to comprehend the nature of a thread before spouting off.

Now imagine that in 39 Germany allied with Britan+France.

This was your clue you retard.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Democracy was not invented or first implemented in the US. I think US should thank Oooooold Europe /images/graemlins/cool.gif.

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
ummm... are you kidding?

[/ QUOTE ]

ummm...I'm not sure how a question can be "kidding"?

In any event, what do you think we should we be doing about our relationships with these countries?

[slamdunkpro]

Sigh,,, I suppose I have to spell it out .....

Yes I know about Yalta - I was speaking in broader hypothetical terms.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Utterly and totaly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, I don't know about that - In 39 Japan had made the jump to projecting power via Aircraft carrier with modern monowing aircraft. I believe at that point they had 7 or 8 carriers. The Brits had an aging surface fleet with I believe 2 carriers – Ark Royal and I can/t think of the other one except that it was a converted vessel. Both of these were stocked with WW1 Swordfish biplanes. Sheer numbers didn’t help at Pearl Harbor or at Leate Gulf. Hell even the Bismarck was really done in by those antique Swordfish, so with 7 carriers plus modern support ships the Japanese really were #1 at that point.

The German battleships spent so much time in port after the Bismarck went down due to their fear of aircraft. The Turpitz was infract done in by bombers. Also don't forget about Germany's Uboat fleet.

[ QUOTE ]
LOL 99% Of this stuff went to Russia.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - Since Russia wasn't involed in WW2 until September of 40 and lend/lease was a program between Britan and America ....well.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I concure tha England did have the most powerful navy in the world at the start of WW2. However, England had a shortfall of destroyers which were needed to fight the U-boats (a 40,000 ton battleship is not very effective against a U-boat!).

The USA/England announce a trade where the USA would give destroyers to Britain in exchange for access to naval bases. On a side note, the Japanese navy also had a shortage of destroyers and because of this the US Navy submarine force was able to smash the Japanese supply lines. No one knows whether these destroyers saved Britain from the U-Boats but they certainly helped.

Personally, I think what saved Britain was Hitler. At Dunkirk, Germany could have destroyed the heart of the Britsh Army. Then Germany could have:
1. Dropped paratroopers into England seizing a port/airfield.
2. Pour German troops into England via air transport with superior German airpower keeping the English Navy/Airforce at bay.
3. Send German heavy equipment (tanks/artillary) by sea into England under the protection of German airpower. During the Battle of Britain, England was forced to withdraw all ships bigger than destroyers because of German airpower. Even if England sank 50% of heavy equipment transports, the Germans would have enough firepower to roll over the remains of the English Army.
4. Once enough heavy equipment had reached the shores of England, the Germans could attack London.

But since Hitler screwed up Dunkirk, the Britsh Army survived largely intact where they could make a German paratrooper assault too risky.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Democracy was not invented or first implemented in the US. I think US should thank Oooooold Europe .
**************************************************
Shouldn't the USA by thanking the ancient Greeks rather than Oooooold Europe. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

Hmmm, I don't know about that - In 39 Japan had made the jump to projecting power via Aircraft carrier with modern monowing aircraft. I believe at that point they had 7 or 8 carriers. The Brits had an aging surface fleet with I believe 2 carriers
************************************************** **
Good point. Aircraft Carriers were the queens of the sea in WW2. You just convinced me.
Japan's navy was smaller but MORE powerful than Britain's navy at the start of WW2.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL - Since Russia wasn't involed in WW2 until September of 40 and lend/lease was a program between Britan and America ....well.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL+LOL x 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 .

Utterly mistaken. Try google with Lend+lease+russia.

Also have you conceded that the Brits fleet wasnt in a distant third place.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Democracy was not invented or first implemented in the US. I think US should thank Oooooold Europe .
**************************************************
Shouldn't the USA by thanking the ancient Greeks rather than Oooooold Europe. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooooooold Europe should be thanking Greece /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
what do you think we should we be doing about our relationships with these countries?

[/ QUOTE ]
I will chime in here. You hear a lot from the right about how bad the UN is. The fact is that the UN does not limit our sovereignty like the WTO does. So what should we do? Economic embargo! No products from any countries that commits widespread abuse of human rights go in or out of the country. This includes China, Pakistan, Egypt, and other countries like Russia and Israel are put on notice. Of course we need oil, so this means we can't stop trading with the Saudis. However, I think the Saudi's treat thier people so bad invading might be the best solution. That way we secure our oil, but more importantly women don't have to live in fear of gang rape, stoning, and being burned alive if they allow too much hair to show from under thier viel.

[slamdunkpro]

This would make an interesting seperate thread. I've contacted a friend of mine in the Navy acrhives and he's going to pull the TOE (or as much as he can find for a steak diinner) of all three Navys in 39. I await his results.

You're right - not a distant third /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what do you think we should we be doing about our relationships with these countries?

[/ QUOTE ]
I will chime in here. You hear a lot from the right about how bad the UN is. The fact is that the UN does not limit our sovereignty like the WTO does. So what should we do? Economic embargo! No products from any countries that commits widespread abuse of human rights go in or out of the country. This includes China, Pakistan, Egypt, and other countries like Russia and Israel are put on notice. Of course we need oil, so this means we can't stop trading with the Saudis. However, I think the Saudi's treat thier people so bad invading might be the best solution. That way we secure our oil, but more importantly women don't have to live in fear of gang rape, stoning, and being burned alive if they allow too much hair to show from under thier viel.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is logic in what you propose.

Of course you realize, you are going to get flamed for the remarks regarding Saudi Arabia. If liberating Iraqis was such a bad idea (in the minds of many), you're not going to get much support for liberating Saudis. After all, if we were to go down this path, we might create more Saudis/Arabs which will hate Americans, prompting them to become terrorists and attack innocent American citizens at home, and join the 'insurgency' in Iraq, etc...

The US is running a massive trade deficit with most (probably all) of the countries on your list and stringent economic sanctions would undoubtedly get their attention. Unfortunately, however, the US will then be accused of killing millions of citizens in these countries who will suffer from economic depression, lack of food, medicine, etc...

Thanks for addressing the issue with a plan. (As opposed to merely blaming the US for all of the world's problems - past, present and future...)

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
If liberating Iraqis was such a bad idea (in the minds of many)....

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly whose minds believe liberating Iraqing was such a bad idea?

********unfair partisan attack alert**********

-ptmusic

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If liberating Iraqis was such a bad idea (in the minds of many)....

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly whose minds believe liberating Iraqing was such a bad idea?

********unfair partisan attack alert**********

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

*********sarcasm alert***********

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If liberating Iraqis was such a bad idea (in the minds of many)....

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly whose minds believe liberating Iraqing was such a bad idea?

********unfair partisan attack alert**********

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

*********sarcasm alert***********

[/ QUOTE ]

Who was sarcastic? You, when you said that many believe liberating Iraqis was a bad idea? I doubt it. Nice try, though.

-ptmusic

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sigh... I guess I have to spell it out. I was speaking in broader hypothetical terms.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's nothing "broadly hypothetical" in what you claimed. Which was this little piece of stupidity:

[ QUOTE ]
It’s very possible that without [the US constitution] FDR or Truman could have cut a deal with the Soviets ... to slice the world up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spelling it out, once more for ya: That's a false claim! What you claimed would not happen, actually did happen.

And the "US constitution" had nothing at all to do with it.