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

[Thermodyne]

I did?

[Loser]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
I did?

Sure enough. Your reply to Jimbob got a chuckle out of me.

[Thermodyne]

What?

[Loser]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
What?

He's grinning at you, because you made with teh funny.

[Cyrien]

Indeed. Funny.

[quote]Originally posted by jimbob:

In the process of becoming a nation it managed to not wage a costly war against the imperial power, not wage a costly civil war against itself and it managed to not perform genocide against it's indigenous tribes (though the nation did institute a number of destructive policies against the indigenous people, it did not have a policy of open warfare against them per se).

10 points and a piece of toast to the person who answers my riddle correctly!

Canada! And you forgot to mention not become a World Super Power... which is probably a mark in their favor. Nobody likes World Super Powers.

Now to some numbers!

While Canada did indeed make large contributions to both WWI and WW2 I don't think you can put it on the same footing as the US at the same time in regards to industrial output and manpower mustered.

A few quick statistics. Sorry no numbers on hand for WW1 and as it is almost midnight here no inclination to go on a web search to find some. But here are some handy dandy ones for WW2.

Top Canadian Contribution to WW2 -
Monetary, Millions of US dollars = 20,104
Max Military Size at Peak = 780,000
Naval Vessels #'s = 32
Total Tonnage = 23,811

Top US Contribution to WW2 -
Monetary, Millions of US dollars = 288,000
Max Military Size at Peak = 12,364,000
Naval Vessels #'s = 19,034
Total Tonnage = 5,457,000

The numbers do not equate. Now look at an alternate history with US as British Colony...

Royal Proclamation of 1763 which restricted colonial expansion beyond the Appalachian Mountains to almost nothing and was a leading cause of the revolution.

Extreme dislike of English and French for each other during Napoleonic times + English with own monetary problems = No Louisiana Purchase = No expansion that way.

No Mexican American War = No Texas / Arizona / California / etc lands.

So at best the US under British control would likely only have had as much production power as Canada all over again. Twice the Canadian contribution to WW2 does not = US contribution to WW2.

In fact my calculator says

Monetary US > 14 x Canada
Military # US > 15 x Canada
Ship # > 594 x Canada
Ship Tonnage > 229 x Canada

So I stand by my statement that without the US in existence save as a colonial holding WW1 maybe and WW2 certainly would have been lost. Save maybe for Soviet intervention, however a strong case can probably be made that without the US threat the Japanese would not have hesitated to support German war efforts against the Soviets, in which case bye bye Soviets, as one of the things that kept them going was unaffected Eastern Soviet production power (No German bombers with great enough range and no war declared against Japan, thus no worries there) and eastern military reserves arriving just in time. Throw Japan in the mix and that goes bye bye.

Oooo... I just realized I need to update my profile. I am no longer a student of history/political science but now a degree holding Bachelor of History/political science...

PS: If you want my sources I can post them. But the numbers are easily verified through any number of sources, even a bunch of Online ones.

[ August 28, 2003, 06:16: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

[Unknown_Enemy]

It is my duty to make sure this thread stay completely out of topic.
So, here is the following article about....Saudia Arabia.



STRATFOR'S GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
http://www.stratfor.com
27 August 2003

Saudi Arabia: The Fracture Widens

Summary

Saudi Arabia is scrambling to save collapsing relations with Britain and the United States. However, Riyadh's unwillingness or inability to dismantle the financial networks supporting al Qaeda will limit chances for saving these alliances.

Analysis

The United States and Britain are giving Saudi Arabia the cold shoulder, prompting a high-level aide to Crown Prince Abdullah, Adel al Jubair, to go on the diplomatic offensive. Jubair recently told The Associated Press that Saudis were not crossing the border into Iraq -- days after U.S. officials blamed Riyadh for not securing the border in efforts to prevent terrorism. Last week, the senior Saudi spokesman gave another interview to BBC Radio 4, trying to counter bad publicity in connection with the six British citizens recently deported from the kingdom. The citizens had been imprisoned there since 2000 in connection with a bombing campaign against Westerners in Riyadh.

London and Washington now are pressing the Saudis both to prevent militants from crossing the border into Iraq and to close the financial networks funding al Qaeda. Riyadh apparently is doing neither. Because targeting al Qaeda's Saudi backers undermines the kingdom's economic and political structure, Riyadh can neither ignore the demands from Washington and London nor comply. This means the quandary will further erode the kingdom's relations with Britain and the United States.

A cornerstone of the House of Saud's stability has been its relationship with London and Washington -- and with Houston. However, the Sept. 11 attacks fundamentally changed Riyadh's alliance with Britain and the United States. Since then, the government of de facto ruler Crown Prince Abdullah has scrambled to develop a cohesive strategy for regaining U.S.-British confidence. Squelching al Qaeda in the kingdom, sharing intelligence about the militant network's global operations and cooperating with the U.S. invasion of Iraq all have been intended to revive the deteriorating relations.

The strategy hasn't worked. U.S. officials have claimed that Saudi fighters are crossing the border into Iraq to wage war against the U.S. military. The Saudi government denies this, but it is logical to conclude that some militants in the kingdom might move into Iraq to escape Riyadh's crackdown. Riyadh is quite happy to push the militants into Iraq and complicate the U.S. military occupation, and the situation has intensified the the diplomatic problem.

Saudi Arabia's approach is a public relations offensive combined with a ride-the-storm-out attitude. Jubair's press offensive is meant to stake out a Saudi position of innocence, while the government sets up a joint task force with FBI, IRS and U.S. Treasury officials to investigate the financial networks connected to the May 12 suicide bombings in Riyadh. The task force's mandate will mean little unless Riyadh follows the investigation by seizing the assets of al Qaeda's supporters.

Riyadh has taken a few tentative steps toward gaining control of alleged or suspected al Qaeda financial networks. For instance, the commercial Saudi American Bank (SAMBA) closed the account of Jeddah-based businessman Khaled bin Salim bin Mahfouz, the London-based al Sharq al Awsat daily reported Aug. 25. The wealthy Saudi businessman is the former owner of the National Commercial Bank in Saudi Arabia and also is named as a defendant in the lawsuit brought by the families of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks.

The decision to close the account likely originated in Riyadh, since the report said the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency was aware of the decision but that bin Mahfouz knew nothing of the closure until SAMBA notified him. However, the move will do little to satisfy Washington, since SAMBA returned to bin Mahfouz the entire value of his deposit. U.S. intelligence and government officials are looking for substantive measures, and failure to seize Mahfouz's assets -- or those of any alleged financier -- will not build confidence in Washington.

Al Qaeda's financial backers in the kingdom pose a clear and present danger to the ruling House of Saud. Exiled Osama bin Laden's primary goal is the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in the Arabian Peninsula. He denies the legitimacy of the House of Saud and has encouraged its downfall. The al Qaeda presence in the kingdom, the enouncements of the kingdom's leaders and its ties with the U.S. military all are intended to lead to the House of Saud being overthrown -- to be replaced by a radical Wahabbi Islamist government that is friendly to bin Laden. The men who provide the network with money are vital to al Qaeda's ability to continue operations inside the kingdom and around the globe.

Given this, it is startling that Riyadh isn't eager to seize the assets of alleged or suspected al Qaeda backers. However, Riyadh is trapped in a nightmarish catch-22. At its core, the House of Saud might be intimately intertwined with the Saudi businessmen and merchants, religious leaders, tribal chieftains, public officials and philanthropists funding al Qaeda. For instance, behind every major business leader in Saudi Arabia is a prince from the House of Saud.

The relationship is profitable for both Groups and critical to the Saudi economy. Without the business relationship, many princes could not maintain their wealthy lifestyles -- and without the princes' influence, many businessmen would not win the government contracts that fuel the economy's growth.

Despite the establishment of the joint task force, there are few indications that Riyadh is ready to redraw the country's economic and political landscape, which is exactly what tackling the moneymen would entail.

However, both the United States and Britain are growing impatient. The guerrilla war in Iraq is making things worse, but it is the fundamental dispute over al Qaeda's finances that is causing the rift. Until Riyadh takes serious steps to stop the cash flow, the kingdom's relations with Britain and the United States will continue to disintegrate.

[ August 28, 2003, 13:27: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ]

[General Woundwort]

UE, I'm guessing this came from Stratfor, right?

It gets even better. Turns out the Ambassador's wife (Saudi Amb to US) is a real Wahhabist firebrand...

The problem is at the center of power, in the person of prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, minister of the interior and the real ruler of the country; he's the uncle of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

Yet notwithstanding continuing revelations about Saudi funding of terror, Bandar remains untouchable in Washington, along with his wife, Princess Haifa. Although her convoluted financial links to Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, the two lead hijackers among the 15 Saudis out of the 19 9/11 terrorists, attracted widespread attention late Last year, she somehow fell through the cracks when the congressional report on the terror conspiracy was recently released. The sojourn of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar in San Diego was reexamined, but Princess Haifa's Islamic covering billowed out, masking her from renewed publicity.

This is appropriate, if immoral, because Princess Haifa has much more to hide than her propensity for charity to terrorists. To certain defenders of the Saudi monarchy, any discussion of Princess Haifa is an unspeakable insult. James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, which once paraded itself as a legitimate and moderate advocacy group for those loyal to American institutions and concerned for peace, has become especially strident on this issue. Recently, he loudly decried how "the donations made by Saudi Princess Haifa to 'needy Saudi women' [have] been transformed into a scandal."

But no magic was necessary to "transform" Princess Haifa into a paragon of Wahhabi obscurantism and anti-Western hatred. It is well-known among Saudis residing in this country that the princess compels the wives of Saudi diplomats in Washington to attend "lectures" intended to reinforce their Wahhabi bigotry and contempt for the West, the better to "protect" them from temptation during their time as our guests. It is similarly notorious that the religious-affairs section of the Saudi embassy, a black hole of Wahhabi hatemongering, enjoys a separate status, with immense financial resources and extraordinary powers, which it abuses to foster Wahhabism in America through, among other channels, Saudi-controlled "Islamic academies" — i.e., locally accredited primary and secondary schools. Prince Bandar's closest associates within the diplomatic staff are troglodytic Wahhabis who don't speak English and have no interest in the affairs or sensibility of Americans.

Full Disclosure - quote is from Send Bandar Home: The U.S. can change the face of Saudi Arabia, by Stephen Schwartz

EDIT - correct spelling of "Wahhabist"

[ August 28, 2003, 13:01: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

[Unknown_Enemy]

UE, I'm guessing this came from Stratfor, right?

Indeed. I forgot to show my sources. That have been taken care of. As said in the article, the Saudia leadership are in a completely impossible situation. They cannot topple radical islam without toppling their primary power base, but if they don't do so, they destroy their alliance with USA, which is their second power base.

I am really glad I do not live in that part of the world. Their future will probably not be a peaceful one, even if NO ONE can allow chaos to spread in that country. Too much oil there.

[jimbob]

Top Canadian Contribution to WW2 -
Monetary, Millions of US dollars = 20,104
Max Military Size at Peak = 780,000
Naval Vessels #'s = 32
Total Tonnage = 23,811

Top US Contribution to WW2 -
Monetary, Millions of US dollars = 288,000
Max Military Size at Peak = 12,364,000
Naval Vessels #'s = 19,034
Total Tonnage = 5,457,000

Okay, this is true (well, as far as I believe you, which I have no reason not to ), and well said. Even if one considers contributions of each nation on a per capita basis (which I think we should do, if only to be fair to the arguement, especially as the US had nearly 12 x more population with whom to contribute), the USA definitely put up a larger contribution. Now your arguement, as far as I've interpreted it (which may be erronious on my part) is:

had the US remained a member of the Commonwealth (ie subordinate to the Imperial master, Britian) it would not have been as helpful in the battle against Germany

I'm not yet convinced of two things:

1) that the USA would not/could not have attained a high population, and subsequently high industrial base, if it had remained a British Colony. Granted, Canada did not become a world power, but it had a different immigration policy (and damn cold weather to boot ) that hindered the degree of immigration as compared to the United States. I do not know my American history well enough to comment on the royal proclaimations visa vie the expansion of the colonies beyond the original borders, but I think it is interesting to note that the Canadian colony(s) were allowed to expand beyond their original boundaries at a later date (which yes, one could argue, was allowed by the Crown as an attempt to check American expansion into the west. Though I may be mistaken, I don't think the Crown was still calling the shots by this time, as Canada had developed a very independent legislative lower-house fairly early in it's history. This would argue that membership in the Commonwealth would not have been a long term hindrance to the American colonies expansion). So, while Texas may have managed to remain independent of the United States of America, I don't easily accept that renunciation of the British colonial system would have cost the USA the west. It could be noted at this time that, had the USA not rebelled against the British yoke, slavery would have been banished at an earlier date. This may have reduced the construction of the American industrial giant, but that too is another arguement...

2) that the USA would have contributed less had it jumped in earlier. Many have commented that the USA best contributed to the war by staying uninvolved in the early years, building up it's military, and then jumping in for a decisive ending action. However, had the US remained a British colony, and then evolved an independance as some other countries had (ie Canada, Australia) it would have joined in the battle from the very beginning. This may well have had a more profound effect, as this would have allowed a more concerted effort from many nations, rather than allowing for the complete exhaustion of individual countries before others joined in. Even had the US not remained a non-beligerant state, and supplied the UK with it's 1000 or so dry-docked destroyers, the battle of Britian could have turned out quite differently. This earlier involvement may well have cost the USA more, but it would have left the other combatants (ie the UK) in better shape post-WWII. Had Britian not been so damaged by it's drawn-out, nearly solo battle with the German forces, it would have been far more effective in the subsequent cold war against the USSR.

Hey, nothings perfect in historical recreationism, but I think that the USA could still have played an important role in the outcome of WWI and WWII, regardless of the revolution several hundred years prior to these conflicts.

[Thermodyne]

All is not well in the kingdom. The king is a drooling invalid who has been known to foul himself in public. His favorite son would appear to have been fathered by Saddam [sic], and at the moment seems to have the most influential position in the family.

When the king dies, his brothers and adult sons will choose a new king. And you can bet that there will be outside influence brought to bear upon this process. The US has someone in mind, and would probably take what ever steps are needed to put him on the throne.

It should also be noted that the royal family is well on the way to insolvency. Stipends now far out run income.