Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:
I think Frazzled is right here. Before the 20th century we really were pretty isolationist

Isolationists don't sign treaties of naval protection with foreign powers, and then take military action when those treaties expire.

Hmm yes. You are correct

To be fair you are all just squatters on land belonging to the Queen of England.

*stiffens upper lip*

Albatross wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.

Even a cursory glance at US history will prove you dead wrong, but to expect basic historic knowledge from you would just be over the top wouldn't it?

off. Talk is cheap. Name one war prior to the 1901 where the US was involved in other nations not touching its borders or involving its citizens?

Barbary Pirates - attacks on US shipping
Quasi War - French attacks on US shipping
1812 - British Impressment of US citizens
Early Indian wars-US territory
Mex War US territory
Civil War - US Territory
Later Indian Wars - US territory
US support for Mexico against France - border of US territory
Spanish American War - conflicts bordering US territory.

I think Frazzled is right here. Before the 20th century we really were pretty isolationist

The Spanish American War ended with the US having overseas colonies, most notably the Philippines. You guys really need to drop this myth of America not being an imperial power and start making your peace with it. You can't have it both ways.

Sure we can. It started with a conflict on our doorstep.

Well, the last time we had a revolution, the French came in and helped us out. I'm pretty okay with that.

Bromsy wrote:Well, the last time we had a revolution, the French came in and helped us out. I'm pretty okay with that.

Sure, but the last time you had a revolution you wern't a country.

Technically speaking, the last time we had a revolution we managed to suppress it well enough despite foreign interests interceding.

Or perhaps I'm weird in considering the U.S. Civil War a revolution. Not a good one, not one that I ideologically support, but it was an attempt to overthrow the government (or at least the government's control of half the country).

Frazzled wrote:
Sure we can. It started with a conflict on our doorstep.

No, no we can't. You can't recognize that we took imperial territory on the other side of the planet in a post-conflict settlement and claim that our involvement in the war was confined to our interest in Cuba. More to the point, why is geographic location important at all? Cuba is an island, there was no danger of the conflict spilling over into the United States. There were economic issues in play, but if that's legitimate, then so is every other war that follows from the expansion of the US economy.

Melissia wrote:Technically speaking, the last time we had a revolution we managed to suppress it well enough despite foreign interests interceding.

Or perhaps I'm weird in considering the U.S. Civil War a revolution. Not a good one, not one that I ideologically support, but it was an attempt to overthrow the government (or at least the government's control of half the country).

An interesting thought, and I would go so far as to support it.

SilverMK2 wrote:To be fair you are all just squatters on land belonging to the Queen of England.

*stiffens upper lip*

I believe the indigenous peoples of North America might beg to differ...

CT GAMER wrote:I believe the indigenous peoples of North America might beg to differ...

I'm sure a few rounds of volley fire from our brave men in red coats will debase them of that attitude.

SilverMK2 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:I believe the indigenous peoples of North America might beg to differ...

I'm sure a few rounds of volley fire from our brave men in red coats will debase them of that attitude.

Or the disease ridden blankets traded to them...

CT GAMER wrote:Or the disease ridden blankets traded to them...

Granted we have a lot more history to teach over here in the UK so tend not to focus much (if at all) on America, but I thought that theory had largely been debased due to the fact that the disease (and others) were already so widespread amoungst the Native Americans that the effects of a few blankets would not even be noticed.

SilverMK2 wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Or the disease ridden blankets traded to them...

Granted we have a lot more history to teach over here in the UK so tend not to focus much (if at all) on America, but I thought that theory had largely been debased due to the fact that the disease (and others) were already so widespread amoungst the Native Americans that the effects of a few blankets would not even be noticed.

Blankets, handshakes, whatever, they still got there the same way: riding on the coattails of colonialism/Imperialism.

Problem is dumping your tea and sending you guys back across the Atlantic didn't improve things for the indigenous. You guys were very good teachers...

I guess in the end it all worked out though, we have SUVs and you have Oasis...

CT GAMER wrote:Blankets, handshakes, whatever, they still got there the same way: riding on the coattails of colonialism/Imperialism.

Technically it came on the backs of people seeking new land and/or freedom and a lack of understanding of disease. Colonialism/Imperialism came a bit later (as I understand it).

Problem is dumping your tea and sending you guys back across the Atlantic didn't improve things for the indigenous. You guys were very good teachers...

Yes, shame that really. Though it did take you quite a while after everyone else to learn that slavery was a bad thing.

I guess in the end it all worked out though, we have SUVs and you have Oasis...

Indubitably.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.

Even a cursory glance at US history will prove you dead wrong, but to expect basic historic knowledge from you would just be over the top wouldn't it?

off. Talk is cheap. Name one war prior to the 1901 where the US was involved in other nations not touching its borders or involving its citizens?

Barbary Pirates - attacks on US shipping
Quasi War - French attacks on US shipping
1812 - British Impressment of US citizens
Early Indian wars-US territory
Mex War US territory
Civil War - US Territory
Later Indian Wars - US territory
US support for Mexico against France - border of US territory
Spanish American War - conflicts bordering US territory.

I think Frazzled is right here. Before the 20th century we really were pretty isolationist

The Spanish American War ended with the US having overseas colonies, most notably the Philippines. You guys really need to drop this myth of America not being an imperial power and start making your peace with it. You can't have it both ways.

Sure we can. It started with a conflict on our doorstep.

I'm pretty sure that the Phillipines are their own nation now, we have protectorates but we don't have any colonies. Puerto Rico for example is considered a US territory but they don't pay taxes to us, in fact we paid them to use some of their island as a target range until a kid got killed and Puerto Rico denied us access. They lost a lot of income from that.

So yeah, most of the territories we claimed we later gave back. Look at the Mexican American war, we pretty much mopped the floor with them and even took Mexico City. We kept a sizeable chunk of land but let them keep the rest. Then later we paid an incredibly large amount of money for a little strip of land known as the Gadsden Purchase.


I would be hard pressed to say that we are imperialistic because we don't keep too much of what we win.

Melissia wrote:Technically speaking, the last time we had a revolution we managed to suppress it well enough despite foreign interests interceding.

Or perhaps I'm weird in considering the U.S. Civil War a revolution. Not a good one, not one that I ideologically support, but it was an attempt to overthrow the government (or at least the government's control of half the country).

It absolutely was a revolution. It was a war of Northern aggression against the rights of southern states so that the north can continue to exploit them with high tariffs to raise revenue for transportation projects that primarily benefit northern states, or at least that's the cool aid that the southern slave owning aristocracy was feeding poor uneducated southern whites as they died in droves for the cause. Like most cool aid it tastes good if you avoid thinking about it.

schadenfreude wrote:

Melissia wrote:Technically speaking, the last time we had a revolution we managed to suppress it well enough despite foreign interests interceding.

Or perhaps I'm weird in considering the U.S. Civil War a revolution. Not a good one, not one that I ideologically support, but it was an attempt to overthrow the government (or at least the government's control of half the country).

It absolutely was a revolution. It was a war of Northern aggression against the rights of southern states so that the north can continue to exploit them with high tariffs to raise revenue for transportation projects that primarily benefit northern states, or at least that's the cool aid that the southern slave owning aristocracy was feeding poor uneducated southern whites as they died in droves for the cause. Like most cool aid it tastes good if you avoid thinking about it.

First of all, it's spelled Kool-Aid.

Second of all, they used Flavor Aid.

And C, the upper class Northern elites were feeding a similar line to poor, uneducated northern whites as they died in droves for the cause. Except the idea was that we had to "preserve the Union."

The North= Preserving the Union with massed numbers and superior manufacturing.

The South= Fighting for state's rights with less number and imported weaponry.

The north held all of the major firearms manufacturers in the country along with the majority of the railroad needed to get troops to the front lines. The influx of irish immigrants helped out with that as well.

The south was mainly agrarian and most of them did not own slaves while richer plantation owners owned many slaves. They had to import weapons from England who was more than willing to help due to the cheap cotton they received. (see union blockade for more information)

The South fired the first shot to announce its separation from the North and the North tried a quick attack that failed miserably for the North. Had the South pursued the Northern army after the First Battle for Bull Run instead of celebrating they would've taken DC with ease. Yet history has a funny way of working itself out. It took the burning of the South and its starvation to finally get the South to surrender.

So yeah, the South fired the first shots and then took the defensive which allowed the North to get into gear. Although the South did attempt some attacks into Union territory, Gettysburg being the example the war was mainly fought in Virginia and in the South.

halonachos wrote:
I would be hard pressed to say that we are imperialistic because we don't keep too much of what we win.

Japan? South Korea? West Germany? You certainly 'kept' them for a while...

Besides, there's much more to imperialism than simply maintaining a military presence in a territory and sticking your flag in the ground. It's an undeniable fact that the USA, over the past half-century, has reshaped the world in it's image - I would posit that America's decline and subsequent diminished influence over the next few decades, which most commentators now see as inevitable, is a result of the USA's reluctance to deal with it's status. Pax Americana has been a failure because Americans didn't really believe in it. I think it has been an opportunity missed.

Empire works. America just needs to get on the bus.

Albatross wrote:

halonachos wrote:
I would be hard pressed to say that we are imperialistic because we don't keep too much of what we win.

Japan? South Korea? West Germany? You certainly 'kept' them for a while...

Besides, there's much more to imperialism than simply maintaining a military presence in a territory and sticking your flag in the ground. It's an undeniable fact that the USA, over the past half-century, has reshaped the world in it's image - I would posit that America's decline and subsequent diminished influence over the next few decades, which most commentators now see as inevitable, is a result of the USA's reluctance to deal with it's status. Pax Americana has been a failure because Americans didn't really believe in it. I think it has been an opportunity missed.

Empire works. America just needs to get on the bus.

You know they said that the sun never set on the english empire, they said that for awhile.

Japan is a protectorate, in return for their compliance with limited military production we promise to defend their nation. Although that is being released as Japan increases its military in size. West Germany was the same deal, we thought it best to keep Germany down militarily and in return we promised to protect it from aggressors. Same with Korea, these nations were weakened by the war and we wanted to make sure they weren't taken advantage of during that time.

In the end we can say 'feth the world' because we really don't get a lot of fanmail for it you know. I would rather have an independent nation that can defend itself against any aggressors than a nation that is charged with defending all nations from aggressors.

halonachos wrote:

Albatross wrote:

halonachos wrote:
I would be hard pressed to say that we are imperialistic because we don't keep too much of what we win.

Japan? South Korea? West Germany? You certainly 'kept' them for a while...

Besides, there's much more to imperialism than simply maintaining a military presence in a territory and sticking your flag in the ground. It's an undeniable fact that the USA, over the past half-century, has reshaped the world in it's image - I would posit that America's decline and subsequent diminished influence over the next few decades, which most commentators now see as inevitable, is a result of the USA's reluctance to deal with it's status. Pax Americana has been a failure because Americans didn't really believe in it. I think it has been an opportunity missed.

Empire works. America just needs to get on the bus.

You know they said that the sun never set on the english empire, they said that for awhile.

Japan is a protectorate, in return for their compliance with limited military production we promise to defend their nation. Although that is being released as Japan increases its military in size. West Germany was the same deal, we thought it best to keep Germany down militarily and in return we promised to protect it from aggressors. Same with Korea, these nations were weakened by the war and we wanted to make sure they weren't taken advantage of during that time.

In the end we can say 'feth the world' because we really don't get a lot of fanmail for it you know. I would rather have an independent nation that can defend itself against any aggressors than a nation that is charged with defending all nations from aggressors.

Agreed

halonachos wrote:

Albatross wrote:

halonachos wrote:
I would be hard pressed to say that we are imperialistic because we don't keep too much of what we win.

Japan? South Korea? West Germany? You certainly 'kept' them for a while...

Besides, there's much more to imperialism than simply maintaining a military presence in a territory and sticking your flag in the ground. It's an undeniable fact that the USA, over the past half-century, has reshaped the world in it's image - I would posit that America's decline and subsequent diminished influence over the next few decades, which most commentators now see as inevitable, is a result of the USA's reluctance to deal with it's status. Pax Americana has been a failure because Americans didn't really believe in it. I think it has been an opportunity missed.

Empire works. America just needs to get on the bus.

You know they said that the sun never set on the english empire, they said that for awhile.

That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.

Japan is a protectorate, in return for their compliance with limited military production we promise to defend their nation.

Most countries in the British Empire were protectorates. In fact, we still have a few.

In the end we can say 'feth the world' because we really don't get a lot of fanmail for it you know. I would rather have an independent nation that can defend itself against any aggressors than a nation that is charged with defending all nations from aggressors.

Well, we didn't exactly get a lot of 'fanmail' for it, either. In fact, you lot still slag us off for it, even though the British Empire was the foundation for much of the prosperity that the western world, including the USA, currently enjoys. At the end of the day, Empire exploits, but it also protects - that's why our empire lasted as long, and became as large as it did. To many people around the world, the American Empire looks selfish because it looks to benefit from the outside world, but baulks at policing it, for the most part.

I genuinely believe that when the USA oversaw the dismantling of the British Empire it should have taken over the job of running certain places, Africa in particular. There were and are, places in the world that aren't fit to govern themselves. That should be obvious to anyone with access to a TV or newspaper.

I would say that Europe can't really govern itself well so maybe we should establish a protectorate there...

Albatross wrote: places in the world that aren't fit to govern themselves.

You should be seeing American paratroopers any moment now...

CT GAMER wrote:

Albatross wrote: places in the world that aren't fit to govern themselves.

You should be seeing American paratroopers any moment now...

We'll get your riots over with in no time my friend, don't be worried. Then we'll deal with the Italian prime minister and save the day all over again. Of course you guys will be happy to give us some economic incentives right?

halonachos wrote:I would say that Europe can't really govern itself well so maybe we should establish a protectorate there...

It's funny because you're American.










It's never too late - if you ask us nicely, we might let you rejoin us...

Albatross wrote:It's never too late - if you ask us nicely, we might let you rejoin us...

We're good, thanks.

Besides, you guys aren't manly enough to handle hurricanes which is why we get them all.

Not to mention the World Wars you guys started and the 100 Years War you fellows brag about. Yeah it was only 70 something years and it accomplished nothing, we know all about your bragging.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4bbe28817f8b9a090fa60200/glenn-beck.jpg

GAAAH! Don't DO that...

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:It's never too late - if you ask us nicely, we might let you rejoin us...

We're good, thanks.

Excellent comeback...

Is that seriously all you've got?