Do you think Great Britain would have survived WWII unconquered if the US hadn't entered the war? The US provided that needed second front, which may have kept Russia for tipping. I think the Japanese did England a big favor by bombing Pearl Harbor.
No I doubt Britain could have lasted out much longer and Churchill knew it. There is a rather uncomfortable theory that he received some intelligence re a possible Japanese attack on the US but didn't pass it on.
[%sig%]
Britain would never have survived WW2 without US help. Not just after Pearl Harbour, but in the years before, when they supplied Britain with the armaments necessary to fight the enemy. Whatever anyone says on this forum, the United States has been our most trustworthy and loyal friend, in both war time and peace. Yes, they have made mistakes. So have we.
NO Mykle, I don't wanna here your crap view on this.
America had to come in to the War sooner or later in my view. Had Britten fallen to Germany, it was only a mater of time before America was next.
So their!
We're armed to the teeth over here. We could be blown up but not without getting blown up in return. Every monkey and their uncle has a closet full of assult rifles. You wanna be the first one on the beach in Georgia when the shooting starts? I could hold off a batallion from a hill less than a mile from here using nothing but bb gun.
haha. Funny.
I read an interesting think tank on this very subject.
If the projections over the next 20 or so years are correct, the US will invade it's self. ~:
I to have standards missi! Very high standards as it goes!!
*Bends over for Flashy*
"Owww you bugger, so thats why they call you fashy...
"he's ever so quick"
Not sure about the nipple clamps though..
We'll meet again
don't know where
don't know when....
but I know we'll meet againnnn
some sunnyyyyy dayyyy...
la lalala lalala
lalalHHHHH!
*Come on everybody*
La la la la
lalala
lalalAAA....
Hey now, T.O., easy, New Mexico is a _lovely_ state. Apart from the border it shares with Texas...;-) I grew up there.
I've lived in both countries (a few times) and I'm continually fascinated with the similarities/differences in the cultures. I can't quite decide which country, if either, I prefer (Southern Italy does sound good!).
The US, as a 'system', is MUCH more efficient, in terms of banking, access to information, obtaining ID, etc. I mean, Engerlund has only just started introducing PIN machines in supermarkets so you can use your debit card without signing! *snort*. In England, EVERYTHING requires a form, usually in triplicate, having been signed by a person of upstanding moral value (police, teacher, prime minister, etc.) whom you have known for at least ten years.
But I think Britain tops it in terms of 'quality' of life (and this is an ambiguous term, I realise). It's hard to explain, but to a Yank coming from the peculiar Southwest, the Brits have more personal contact with one another, from the market seller to the banker (the one to whom you give your forms in triplicate). And they're far from 'cold', which is a common belief in the States, I think, where everyone is warm and fuzzy and your world's biggest cheerleader.
So right before the election I moved back here. And damn happy I did. The US is in a scary downward spiral now, I fear. The collapse of the second Roman Empire is at hand.
If you think we're obsessed with form filling, dont ever go to an ex east european country archer... you need a license to blink in the street in some places. Regarding your comment as to whether people are cold here, a friend of mine who visited from Serbia said when she got home, that there are three things which are famous myths about the UK... that the people are cold, that the weather is bad, and that the food is awful... all three, were lies, she said.
Touche', Liana. I agree. But the Brits do love their forms.
DR-Denver - History proceeds not in a linear fashion but in a spiral. We are now at the point, if you study your history, that Rome reached: incompetent government by people with more loyalty to special interests than civic duty, a dissatisfied and disempowered populace more focused on being 'entertained' than anything (reality television is the new gladiator, I think...), a HUGE national (imperial) debt and a very, very seriously overstretched, undertrained, and underpaid military fighting off the Huns in too many corners of the world. Just as the denarius ceased to be the currency of choice (in fact, it ceased to be a currency), the US dollar is now collapsing. America's gargantuan (cultural/economic) empire is just too big to manage, just as Rome's (cultural/military) empire became. Rome's collapse wasn't overnight (it decayed over about 150 years,then collapsed in c. 410 through infighting), nor will the States'. But I gar-ron-tee, it'll happen.
Archergirl,
I'll have to disagree in detail with your assessment. You're generalizing to an extreme, which is easy to do. If you look at the fundamentals of the Roman Empire throughout its history and compare them to the fundamentals of the United States, you'll find that most of what your are generalizing about is in case not true at all. The similarity, in general terms, is that the United States at this point in time is the worlds dominant country, as was the Roman Empire in its own time. The similarity ends there. Elephants aren't Locomotives, but both are big. That's your argument in a nutshell.
I would argue that the closest thing in modern times to the fall of the Roman empire would be the fall of the Soviet Union.
I would also say that there is some evidence to suggest that the United States is sewing the seeds for another Civil War within say the next 100 years, perhaps sooner.
I'll try to find time tonight (if possible) to present my disenting view in greater detail. I'm at work now and two many gators are nipping at my legs to delve into it.
Start with these premises.
1. Form of government and means of transfer of power.
2. Public involvment in official policy.
3. Ability to maintain a viable defense mechanism.
4. Use of technology to improve the standard of life and infrastructure.
5. The influx and impact of religion on the masses.
6. The Empire...what Empire...The US isn't an Empire...and isn't expanding its territorial goals.
There's probably about 4 or 5 other valid areas to delve into as well. My Roman history studies were years ago, but I've done this exercise before. It's college stuff and nothing new.
I have always been fascinated with England (well actually any other place in the world for that matter) I do understand the impatience of other nations when it comes to Americans...we do have a certain arrogance that we can go and BE anywhere and others should conform to us...but wouldn't that be a leftover from the British...that conquer, kill, serve me tude?
I hope to visit the country very soon and I promise not to act like a pig head LOL
As for Bush..I didn't vote for him I am on the east coast but I do often find myself asking DID I MISS SOMETHING? Was I so blinded by my dislike for Bush that I missed that he actually is a good guy, a great president? As I watched the outcome of the presidential election I had to question was it I who was INSANE I could not beleive he was voted in again...hell as I pay $2.03 for regular gas I still wonder how the hell he did it?
RIG,
I would certainly hope you aren't voting on a president based on who can get you cheaper gasoline. The US is the worlds largest consumer of oil, and relativly speaking we (US) pay less than just about everybody in the world. It's time we pony up and pay what everyone else in the world is paying. He wants to open the Alaskan oil reserves (which he'll probably get). They estimate at peak production it could generate 1 million barrels of oil a day, they also estimate there could be billions of barrels. Lets assume, billions being plural, there are a minimum of 2 billion barrels...this would be 5 years of production. We're talking trading a pristine wilderness and fragile and vanishing eco system for 5 years of oil, which in the scheme of global production is a drop in the bucket. All he is doing is helping make his oil buddies rich by doing this. It won't drop the price of oil. Nothing short of finding a majorly large amount of undiscovered oil and getting it into production pronto is going to drop the price. Fuh-get-a-boud-it.
Your comments about GWB are interesting also. Most the folks I know that voted for him are now asking themselves, "what the hell did we do?". He's not a great president, he a fascist in disguise and I don't even think HE knows it. When you have a president advocating changing the constitution to advance a far right conservative agenda, you better start to worry. His being in office is a reaction to the liberal lazyness of Clinton and now the pendulum has swung the other way. He's a killer with no respect for human life, despite his posturing about abortion and christian values. Fascist. he just doesn't use the word.
RADIO:
RIG,
I would certainly hope you aren't voting on a president based on who can get you cheaper gasoline.
No of course not it was more of another puzzlement in my head on the state of the economy....
The US is the worlds largest consumer of oil, and relativly speaking we (US) pay less than just about everybody in the world. It's time we pony up and pay what everyone else in the world is paying. He wants to open the Alaskan oil reserves (which he'll probably get). They estimate at peak production it could generate 1 million barrels of oil a day, they also estimate there could be billions of barrels. Lets assume, billions being plural, there are a minimum of 2 billion barrels...this would be 5 years of production. We're talking trading a pristine wilderness and fragile and vanishing eco system for 5 years of oil, which in the scheme of global production is a drop in the bucket. All he is doing is helping make his oil buddies rich by doing this. It won't drop the price of oil. Nothing short of finding a majorly large amount of undiscovered oil and getting it into production pronto is going to drop the price. Fuh-get-a-boud-it.
Your comments about GWB are interesting also. Most the folks I know that voted for him are now asking themselves, "what the hell did we do?". He's not a great president, he a fascist in disguise and I don't even think HE knows it. When you have a president advocating changing the constitution to advance a far right conservative agenda, you better start to worry. His being in office is a reaction to the liberal lazyness of Clinton and now the pendulum has swung the other way. He's a killer with no respect for human life, despite his posturing about abortion and christian values. Fascist. he just doesn't use the word.
funny most of the people I know IRL and through MB's who voted for him STILL believe he is doing a GREAT JOB...color my confusion bright red...I don't get it
Yes, speeling can be a problem when one is tired....
I'll pre-empt some of your protestations, Mile High, by saying that if you are looking for _identical_ comparisons between Rome and the US, then of course you'll fail; the world is not the same place. BUT, we are looking at general trends here (and I, too, have done Roman studies, but as a passionate hobby and not in college).
1. Governorship: Roman emperors were in fact 'appointed'; although they weren't democratically elected by the populace as the Senate was, the general with the biggest army and resources behind him inevitably wound up in power: Rome was, after all, a bully State, and the Senate in general would 'approve' of the coronation. (And I'm saying this only because there were so few 'inherited' emperorships in Rome. Augustus left no heir, so appointed his best-groomed general. Marcus Aurelius left his son Commodus, who was then assassinated because he was an asshole, and another better-suited general was 'appointed', and so on). One might find parallels there with the whole farcical 'election' process in the States. Let's face it: he with the most money (and press influence) wins.
2. Public involvement in official policy: Okay, call me cynical, but how much involvement to Americans -really- have in policyship nowadays? We can't even get half the populace to vote in the first place. Two words: "patriot
act". How did this ever get by?
3. Defence: The US army is crumbling just as Rome's ultimately did; the army has become a victim of its own size and unwieldiness. Militarily there are certainly parallels: Rome had the best-equipped, best-trained, most technologically-advanced armies of its time, hence its ability to kick ass, for a time, from Syria to Scotland. Rome was torn apart by civil war in the end and became the Western and Eastern Empires. Your suggestion of an impending US civil war fits right in, eh?
4. Technology and infrastructure: I can't believe you can't see the parallels, Denver, you must want me to write a dissertation... as mentioned in (3), Rome was the most technologically advanced nation of its time: it brought fresh running water from miles away, Roman roads were unsurpassed (and in England, still in existence, somewhat modified). Roman engineers took the blueprints given to them by their Greek predecessors and magnified and perfected them to a point as of then yet unattained. Public health problems were (relatively, for that time) minimal because of the vast sewage and running water systems, sanitation, personal hygiene, etc.
5. Religion: Well, it depends on which part of the history we're discussing here: Rome had a state religion (pantheon) but was tolerant of the many other religions also in existence, yes, even Christianity (at least at first!). Many Roman soldiers worshipped Mithras, who was actually a Persian god. One might argue that the US also has a state religion (Christianity) since it is the religion of the majority (or the most vocal, at least...), and despite the ACLU's attempts to get the word 'God' out of the Pledge, it's unlikely to happen. In terms of influence on the populace,there's just no real way of knowing. Clearly religion played a fundamental role in the household as seen by the numerous alcoves in Roman houses in Pompeii, but religion wasn't political in the beginnings of the Empire. Only toward the end when Constantine became the Holy Roman Emperor. Maybe there were even nutcases standing shouting on the corner of the street about the world coming to an end...?
6. And, empire, oh dear, Denver, where are you hiding? The US is NOT an empire? Not in terms of land-mass, now, although we still cling to our Pacific territories, but in terms of economic and cultural hegemony, in terms of armed forces serving in remote locations (such as Rome's were), there is no other country or group of countries in the world at this time that even come close. The economic part is collapsing due in some part to the creation of trans-national companies (who are the next imperialists, I fear), but culturally, there can be little argument. And scarily, it's all the shit stuff that gets exported. People in remote parts of Thailand used to talk to me about Baywatch, fer chrissakes, and long to eat at McF**kenDonalds. It's a 'status symbol' to eat at MickeyDees, as you have to be wealthy to afford eating a Big Mac n' fries. That, in a way, is territoriality. Economic/cultural expansion into unconquered realms.
As I said, we're looking for -trends- here, not identicalities. The US is collapsing as an empire, slowly, painfully, but that may not be a bad thing.
Et tu, Brutus?
The American Civil War and American Revolutionary War (the one with the Brits) are two different wars, for the southern hemisphere guy. And, its a fact that the first nuce. was tested in New Mexico, US (very barren area) before it was dropped. Although the "Big boy" was bigger then the others.
the UK is a cool especially london, very non- aggressive and more layed back in comparison london to here in NYC, but there is things, what makes the US better to live. In the UK things are taxed more expensive, insurance is high, gas prices are unbelievably high (US$ evalence of $5-7 per gallon- sometimes $4- for petrol, deisel is cheaper)- so you are forced to drive a deiseled hatchbacks and mini-vans most of the time, and the weather is descent, but the better in the US, even in the northeast US. Other than that in the UK great place. Probably the one of or the best place in Europe to visit, i wouldn't mind living there.
Radio guy, spain already got whipped by Britain and lost that statis and prestige. I don't know about portugal though.
Liberal layness of clinton?
Under clinton our gas prices were much lower. Co the economy was much stronger, eight years of peace and prosperity, no foriegner ever bombed US soil under clinton. The country had a huge surplus because of and under clinton, now has a huge defisate under and because of bush. Social security that the conservatives are finally concerned about (mostly about because they will be clearly the ones responsible for its demise) under clinton was definately clinched for the next 80 years, with the surplus and all. I could go on and on.
The only thing the conseratives had on him was the over hyped "Monica Lewinsky thing", which they were trying for years and they finally caught him with. Since then the conservatives, stirred up alot of propaganda on him and "liberals", because of his truth telling creditablity, since he fessed up. And sexual relations isn't sex or oral sex.
On the topic. I would love to Great Britain visit someday. I'm not sure if it will be as good as southern italy.
Pages