Americans

[tonywalrus]

Tony, wtf does "Industrial decline, the Great depression, the rise of Facism, the Second world war. The bankrupcy of our country, the Cold War, the growth of American hegemony" have to do with keeping a strong navy?!?!?

Guiscard, we must have done something right in India because it is much more advanced and prosperous then other countries that we did not rule which have large population such as Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand/Vietnam/Laos, West Africa, most of the Middle East(until oil was found, but its hardly rich now anyway), etc.. We werent exactly perfect, but overall we werent that bad. Also, the most developed countries in the world, outside of Europe, were mostly in our Empire at some points. USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, India etc..

You asked a question, I answered it, you did not understand my answer.

Your ball.

[Roger Dodger]

well, i do have to say that americans stole the spanish virgin island and made it their own. then used the people there to experiment on.

sound familiar folks??

oh, let's not forget that the conquistadores, new world travelers et so on. killed many indians throughout the new world for the sake of having land & wealth. oh & let's not forget all those diseases

i think every country has at some time or another committed genocide at some point or another

so, don't single out America. European countries have taken their fair share of the spoils of war.

[Fieryo]

European countries have taken their fair share of the spoils of war.

Yeah, like Greenland. Those lucky Danish bastards.

[Titanic]

Tony, expand on what you meant that, cus what you said was utterly and totally irrelevant.

[tonywalrus]

You gave the cause, I explained the effect.

Go read.

Your ball.

[Jgood]

If Britain had gotten involved earlier in WW2, and stopped Hitler while he was still beating his war drum, maybe the world would be a different place.

[Stopper]

If Britain had gotten involved earlier in WW2

That's odd. I always thought Britain was in WWII right from the very beginning.

[minihaymanz]

If Britain had gotten involved earlier in WW2

That's odd. I always thought Britain was in WWII right from the very beginning.

Yeah, im pretty sure they did enter.
Actually, im pretty sure they were the first to declare war...correct me if im wrong on that one. Technically, britian STARTED world war 2 (note:that is not a 'bashing' britian thing at all)

[Koba]

They did, Churchill declared war on Germany for repeatedly ignoring the rest of Europe when they told him to stop (thats the simple version)

[Edit] What Jgood means is it could have been different if they hadn't followed Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. But Britain wern't really ready for way, they had to have time to take arms. But that is still a widely debated topic.

[DIRESTRAITS]

They did, Churchill declared war on Germany for repeatedly ignoring the rest of Europe when they told him to stop (thats the simple version)

[Edit] What Jgood means is it could have been different if they hadn't followed Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. But Britain wern't really ready for way, they had to have time to take arms. But that is still a widely debated topic.

The world would should have declared war on Adolf in the 30s. The problem was, they were pussies

[Jgood]

I am just saying that if you see a situation developing, preemptively stopping it isn't being a bully. It is for the good of everyone.

The US gets involved in situations as a way of keeping peace.

The United Nations doesn't do much except extort from the US. Russia and Germany are caught in the Oil-for-Food deals with Iraq and nothing happens.

Iran and North Korea are major problems, and nobody is doing anything, and people freak out about the US getting involved in another confrontation. Until the situation is out of control. We are going to have to go over there eventually and save the day, Again. (your welcome Britain)

[Koba]

I am just saying that if you see a situation developing, preemptively stopping it isn't being a bully. It is for the good of everyone.)

Yeah, but with WWII there were a lot of factors. I think they should have stepped in sooner, and not conceeded so much to Hitlers demands, but a lot of people who know a hell of a lot more about it than me disagree and think it wasnt a viable option. Personally I'm more interested in domestic politics of the era

The US gets involved in situations as a way of keeping peace.

The United Nations doesn't do much except extort from the US. Russia and Germany are caught in the Oil-for-Food deals with Iraq and nothing happens.

Iran and North Korea are major problems, and nobody is doing anything, and people freak out about the US getting involved in another confrontation. Until the situation is out of control. We are going to have to go over there eventually and save the day, Again. (your welcome Britain)

Shouldn't America finish the wars it has going at the moment before starting more? I could have sworn Afganistan was an American war, but there are actually more British troops stuck out there than Americans I believe. I know loads of guys out there. And all these wars have done for Britain is promote racial hatred, nation wide protests and give a springboard for radical preachers. I couldn't disagree more with 'Your welcom Britain."

[Jgood]

Your right, I usually say your welcome France, when the Anti-American talk comes out, but I was amazed to see the venom from the Brits side of this earlier in the thread

I agree with finishing wars, but like I said, nobody else is seeing the threat, and stepping up.

[Sammy gags]

they r just jealous they lost the Revolutionary War

[Koba]

Your right, I usually say your welcome France, when the Anti-American talk comes out, but I was amazed to see the venom from the Brits side of this earlier in the thread

I agree with finishing wars, but like I said, nobody else is seeing the threat, and stepping up.

There is quite a lot of bad feeling about it. It hasn't don't this country any good, or at least I don't think so.

[Beastly]

From AMERICA to YOU

[reverend_kyle]

still laughing

[Guiscard]

The United Nations doesn't do much except extort from the US. Russia and Germany are caught in the Oil-for-Food deals with Iraq and nothing happens.

Iran and North Korea are major problems, and nobody is doing anything, and people freak out about the US getting involved in another confrontation. Until the situation is out of control. We are going to have to go over there eventually and save the day, Again. (your welcome Britain)

Why do you think the UN doesn't do much (in the way of foreign policy decisions that is, not other work becuase its pretty successful in many other areas).

Constant use of the US veto to block foreign policy actions. Americans cannot complain about the inaction of the UN because it is they who cripple it when decisions don't favour their needs directly (regarding Oil, hegemony in the Middle East etc.)

Shouldn't America finish the wars it has going at the moment before starting more? I could have sworn Afganistan was an American war, but there are actually more British troops stuck out there than Americans I believe. I know loads of guys out there. And all these wars have done for Britain is promote racial hatred, nation wide protests and give a springboard for radical preachers. I couldn't disagree more with 'Your welcom Britain."

/\ Indeed

[Anarkistsdream]

The United Nations doesn't do much except extort from the US. Russia and Germany are caught in the Oil-for-Food deals with Iraq and nothing happens.

Iran and North Korea are major problems, and nobody is doing anything, and people freak out about the US getting involved in another confrontation. Until the situation is out of control. We are going to have to go over there eventually and save the day, Again. (your welcome Britain)

Why do you think the UN doesn't do much (in the way of foreign policy decisions that is, not other work becuase its pretty successful in many other areas).

Constant use of the US veto to block foreign policy actions. Americans cannot complain about the inaction of the UN because it is they who cripple it when decisions don't favour their needs directly (regarding Oil, hegemony in the Middle East etc.)

Agreed, Guiscard... You are dead-spot on right there.

[Jgood]

The UN can make sanctions against a country (17 in Iraq) and nothing happens. South Korea can be told not to have nuclear weapons, and when they show they are testing them, nothing happens. The US gives Africa 16 Billion and thats not enough...

And you hear that Russia, Germany and France had deals with Iraq The UN is corrupt, and the US didn't do it by itself.

As far as hegemony in the middle east, are you talking about the US influence in helping Isreal survive?

[Guiscard]

The UN can make sanctions against a country (17 in Iraq) and nothing happens. South Korea can be told not to have nuclear weapons, and when they show they are testing them, nothing happens. The US gives Africa 16 Billion and thats not enough...

And you hear that Russia, Germany and France had deals with Iraq The UN is corrupt, and the US didn't do it by itself.

As far as hegemony in the middle east, are you talking about the US influence in helping Isreal survive?

Go and read some good political scholars and come back to me (try Doyle, Ikenberry, Morgenthau and Kennan for a start...)

BUT I know you won't bother to educate yourself so if you don't then all I have to say is you're an idiot.

edit: Actually I will clarify a couple of points for you. The UN sanctions were linked to their weapons inspectors making sure there were no WMDs. If we had discovered reasinable evidence of WMDs there would have been UN sanctioned intervention, as there was in the first Gulf War.

The reality? NO WMDs. Who was correct? America (and the UK to a degree) or the UN...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

As for American hegemony in the Middle East: Its not supporting Israel (although that is a major factor). America is the sole hegemon in the world currently. There is no balance of power, so the expansion of the 'empire' comes through having influence in states through proxy. Having a friendly state or two in the Middle East makes the US a much more influential player in the regional politics which effect things which are important - oil, trade etc.

hegemony (hĭjĕm'ənē, hē–, hĕj'əmō'nē, hĕg'ə–) , [Gr.,=leadership], dominance, originally of one Greek city-state over others, the term has been extended to refer to the dominance of one nation over others, and, following Gramsci, of one class over others. Conflict over hegemony fills history from the war between Athens and Sparta to the Napoleonic wars, World Wars I and II, and the Cold War. Gramsci's use of the concept extends it beyond international relations to class structure and even to culture.

[Jgood]

Citing four liberal scholars and calling me an idiot is very classy.

Funny, he had WMD's when he slaughtered the Kurds. Where did they go?

As far as the US setting up a state to influence the others, I say that sounds good. If you give people in the area an example of how a state can rule themselves, and not be ruled by a dictator, then freedom can win out. Why do you think that Iran has been supplying the terrorists? They are scared that their own people will rise up against them.

Are you against freedom and democracy spreading to other nations?

or do you think that these "savages" can't govern themselves?

[minihaymanz]

Are you against freedom and democracy spreading to other nations?

There is a distinct difference between spreading and forcing.

or do you think that these "savages" can't govern themselves?

Thats funny, thats what they called the natives, they seemed to be able to govern themselves since before we knew they existed...

[Jgood]

I was putting words in his mouth, that's why the "quotations"

[minihaymanz]

you can't put words into someone's mouth online.
It is extremely hard