OT:US don't qualify for EU membership, don't spank children, WW2 history.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
if the USA was not around then we would replace the word USA with either canada or mexico.

Who knows, maybe the French would own the place. That sure would have put an interesting twist on history!

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Ak how about a thread called if some one Posts something i don't like or agree with then they are making fun of my country and me personally etc...

p.s. yea i got nothing. and i am most likely the worst come back typer going. i look forward to the reply

take care ak.

Sorry Tesco, it was a bad day by 11am. Just a little tired, I guess. You've got to admit that this thread really stretches its off-topicness, though. (And, I'm still trying to figure out what on earth we would want to have to do with a mess like the EU, anyway. )

[Alpha Kodiak]

Of course, the one great disaster if there was no US: no SEIV!

[Erax]

We do so need another thread pointing out all of the evils of the US and its allies. It would be so much better for the world if we just didn't exist. I'm sure that the world would be a harmonious paradise if the US wasn't around to mess everything up.

I'm sure this has been said a thousand times here, but I'll say it again : with great power comes great responsibility. Some other governments can be as evil as they please because it won't affect anyone besides themselves and their neighbors, but everyone keeps an eye on the US, because if they mess up, the whole world is affected.

Or as we say down here : when the US sneezes, South America catches double pneumonia.

[Loser]

To start with, I agree with Erax, but I also think we're doing fine. There will always be noise, and usually it will come from expected places.

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
Who knows, maybe the French would own the place.

This is improbable for many reasons. Some of which would come off like flames, so I'd best watch myself.

Most importantly, though, the Last chance the French had at regional domination was under Napoleon during the birth of modern nationalism. Unfortunately Napoleon, like Alexander and Hitler, did not have that so-necessary skill of empire-building: restraint. Take-and-hold or take-and-take-and-lose-and-lose-and-lose. Few warlords have both the patience necessary to do this and the initiative to take over the world, though. Genghis Khan had it, who else?

[oleg]

Originally posted by Loser:
...Unfortunately Napoleon, like Alexander and Hitler, did not have that so-necessary skill of empire-building: restraint. Take-and-hold or take-and-take-and-lose-and-lose-and-lose. Few warlords have both the patience necessary to do this and the initiative to take over the world, though. Genghis Khan had it, who else?

Roman Empire should give plenty examples, I think. It was the most impressive Empire building in human history IMO.

[Loser]

Originally posted by oleg:
Roman Empire should give plenty examples, I think. It was the most impressive Empire building in human history IMO.

Quite possibly the most impressive, especially because unlike Genghis Kahn's it Lasted many generations, but it wasn't one man. Genghis didn't get his continent spanning empire until late in his life (he was over fifty, I believe), but it was all under the period of his own rule.

I'm not going to knock the Roman Empire for Empire building, but it wasn't anything that could be mistaken for the work of an single individual. Rather it would have been the work of a system that developed and exploited quite a number exceptional individuals.

Now if we could just model the development and exploitation of exceptional individuals in SE IV...

[ August 21, 2003, 20:23: Message edited by: Loser ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Loser:
To start with, I agree with Erax, but I also think we're doing fine. There will always be noise, and usually it will come from expected places.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
Who knows, maybe the French would own the place.

This is improbable for many reasons. Some of which would come off like flames, so I'd best watch myself.

Most importantly, though, the Last chance the French had at regional domination was under Napoleon during the birth of modern nationalism. Unfortunately Napoleon, like Alexander and Hitler, did not have that so-necessary skill of empire-building: restraint. Take-and-hold or take-and-take-and-lose-and-lose-and-lose. Few warlords have both the patience necessary to do this and the initiative to take over the world, though. Genghis Khan had it, who else?

---

Actually, I was just referring to the fact that if the US didn't make the Louisiana Purchase, the French would still own a significant part of what is the US. Of course, given France's situation, they probably would have sold to someone else (most likely, England or Spain) but it still makes for an interesting thought.

Then again, if the US wasn't around, the post WWII world would have probably been dominated by a Stalinist USSR, and the rest of the world could be trying to figure out how to deal with that.

[oleg]

...Then again, if the US wasn't around, the post WWII world would have probably been dominated by a Stalinist USSR, and the rest of the world could be trying to figure out how to deal with that. [/QB]

If US was not around, WWI could end other way - Germany forcing France to surrender. There would be no Versale treaty, Prussian empire survived and hence no fascism in Germany. But may be in France instead. The history would be trully different. There would be no USSR too, I pretty sure.

[sparhawk]

But!!, with no europe there should be no US...
In fact US was just a colony of europe. some time ago...

Sparhawk