posted 12-02-98 12:15 AM ET            

Sigh. I fear that a thread started this way will just fade away, unless some hothead gets in here and starts slinging the insults.

One thing I do want to say. I remember ages ago someone (not me) using the term "Ronnie Raygun", and a few people (not me again) saying it was spelt "Ronnie Reagan". Anyway, I'd just like to point out that "Raygun" is a deliberate misspelling, and a bit of a play on his name.

Um, so there!

Damn, that probably won't get it started either. Hmmm....

I'd just like to say that Australians are better than Americans in EVERY single way. Hmm, damn, they'd probably realise I was being facetious there. Bugger.

Damn, this is harder than it looks...

posted 12-02-98 12:32 AM ET            

Umm....
How about this to get this "discussion" rolling again? Most so-called American inventions were created by foreign minds.

posted 12-02-98 12:46 AM ET            

sorry about the some of the errors up there...

not defeatedand, defeated and ( lookie Maa! I made a new word!)

posted 12-02-98 01:08 AM ET            

There are others, but this should be a good start to the list.

----

Question that might be of interest to both the anti and pro American crowd. WHat would the world be like if the American Revolution/Rebellion was crushed by the Brits? Would the US and Canada be on big happy francophone hating former colony? Would California still be Mexican? Would there still be a Republic of Texas? Would Alaska be part of Russia? What would the effect of the additional colonial troops on the world wars? Would there be as diverse a population in North America(I'm not sure you would have seen as large a migration from Eastern Europe, Germany, Scandanavia, etc.).

posted 12-02-98 01:28 AM ET            

This thread has devolved into death and should remain that way (hopefully for good).

posted 12-02-98 01:39 AM ET            

I. External
A. Support for Mass-Murderers

Your Honor on this count we plead self defense. Whether the USSR was enough of a threat to our existence to justify it cannot be determined as .. well the threat never materialized. (due to a combination of factors possibly including our actions)

B. Benefitting economically from support of mass murderers.

Guilty, but that is a crime of individual motive as almost anytime any major power gets involved enough they will benefit financially. (i.e. we never got involved unless there was someother reason)

C. Use of Realpolitick

Guilty

D. Use of Realpolitick exclusively

Not Guilty (Exhibit A. S. Africa a staunchly anti-communist country that had diamonds, Uranium, and a whole mess of strategic minerals economically sanctioned because of a simple little ethnic misunderstanding) We realize we may use Realpolitick primarily, but we do not use it exclusively.

II. Violation of Free Trade

A. Tariffs and subsidies

Your Honor, are we to take this seriously?! We admit to proclaiming free trade, but even we realize that totally free trade does not exist, is not possible, and in some cases is not beneficial.
Personally, I hate subsidising farmers but um I don't think that a single nation doesn't reason.. farmers complain because food is well VERY competitive naturally, little name brand recognition, etc. which leads to pathetic profits for all but agribusiness. ALL FARMERS EVERYWHERE are losing their jobs and If any major agricultural country eliminates subsidies and tarriffs you can bet we'll be the first, or at least the second.

III. Internal problems
A. bad voter turnout
Your Honor, we agree that the system may need changes but what? forced voting like the Aussies have? [yes I know its not forced but a nonvoting fee or voting incentive or whatever you exactly have there would be perceived as such here]
B. Economic inequality
Guilty, but again 4 excuses
1) everybody has it (human condition)
2) its part of costs of economic freedom (capitalism)
3) its not as bad as it may seem
(I remember a study that showed some number I forget, it was 1/3 or less, of people below poverty level spend more than 2 years there)
4) its not like we don't do anything about it

C. Racism
Similar to B without reason 2)

IV. Things I just remembered
A. China's MFN status
MFN is normal trade level (every nation has it except for one's like Cuba and Iran, etc.)

posted 12-02-98 01:47 AM ET            

*Dark Nexus wanders into the CWAL headqarters.*

DN: Alright, where's my CWAL handbook?

*All the CWALers look at him, not knowing what he's talking about.*

posted 12-02-98 01:53 AM ET            

Things Australians invented:
The Hills Hoist - yes, the common clothesline.
The toilet - yes, the modern toilet was invented by mr Crapper, an Aussie (no, I am not ****ting you (pardon the pun)).

So there you go, without Australia, we'd all be bashing our clothes on rocks to dry them, like the Indians do on the Hoover add here in Oz, and we'd be ****ting in holes in the ground. So, basically, because of those two great inventions, Australia therefore has the greatest scientists, so Nerr...

And that's not even mentioning Fosters.

Humm, well, maybe not.

Krikkit - we don't subsidise our Farmers, and that's why the US is sending them broke.

posted 12-02-98 01:59 AM ET            

But actually.. with regards to Britain winning the American Revolution would have been interesting.

We might still have gotten the Louisiana Purchase but as a concession from Napoleon as opposed to a purchase.

The Civil War would have occured in 1832, when Britain outlawed slavery.

As for Mexico/California, It would have dependedon how open the British were to the idea of Manifest Destiny, as well as whether or not the colonists got representation in Parliament.

For WWI, The somewhat greater population of the British Empire might have led to an earlier settlement. And without Wilson Moderating I doubt Germany would have existed afterward.

For WWII, It would seriously depend on the Manifest Destiny a while back.
The Big Three could be Churchill, Stalin, and the Presidente of Mexico.
(Or much worse, Hitler, Tojo, and the Presidente of Mexico)

On the other hand If Britain's N. American Possessions had expanded westward, The current U.S. might not be Industrialized (remember the purpose of a colony), meaning that quite possibly if the Japanese cooperated with the Nazis, they could have won. Or morelikely stalemated (the Japanese getting control of the Pacific and Hitler realizing he'd never beat the British in the sea/air or the Soviets on the ground. (the first depends on the Brits getting radar, which I'd imagine they probably would)

Also with regards to the immigrant question, I'd imagine that if America weren't a seperate nation, The British commonwealth would be the politically freest area to go to and America/Australia the best dumping ground for people who didn't fit in to British society.

posted 12-02-98 02:16 AM ET            

Krikkit: You're right, of course. Though I still find the idea of saving people from the evil communists by killing them sorta offensive (like, burning the village you're trying to save). We're losing Vietnam to the commies, so let's bomb it back to the stone age? Yeah, that makes sense. (disclaimer: yeah, I know, nobody here means that).

Anyway, America would definitely do better without the "we are the greatest defenders".

posted 12-02-98 02:21 AM ET            

You Don't?
I assume you have tarriffs,
Well actually I guess Australia might not.
The ones I know who would, would be Europe, paricularly the French, as well as Japan and the other developed (in terms of pop density as opposed to tech/industry/civilized behavior.)
The thing is (and I'm afraid I'm may be terribly degrading here to Australians and Canadians) Is that if you just look at the population density of your countries you'll see that it's very low. Therefore, what most of your economy involves is getting stuff from the ground [an assumption]
(mining/lumber/agriculture/etc.)

Therefore interms of subsidies it would be difficult to subsidize something that is 40+% of your economy (its probably not and my figures are bad but you get the idea)

Anyways actually agriculture is one of those things that there is a free trade justification for Mr. Locke himself said Britain doesn't wan free trade in sailing canvas, it is necessary in war. And as Brtain learned in WWII being self-sufficient in food is a good thing in war.

Anyways I agree with you that we subsidize to much, and if I got made dictator-for-life, agricultural subsidies would be all but gone(we, like you, really don't need to worry too much about feeding ouselves)

posted 12-02-98 02:33 AM ET            

(although admittedly whether colonists whose grandfathers were defeated would have learned their lesson or be waiting for a rematch)
[I think if the colonists weren't granted some rights/concessions after being put down the British would have something like the Irish problem--a bunch of people unwilling to submit, dificult to totally crush and getting to hate the British more and more, with eventually only historical reasons.)

posted 12-02-98 02:44 AM ET            

DCA,

posted 12-02-98 09:53 AM ET            

CrackGenius

posted 12-02-98 02:35 PM ET            

America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned, while the scum floats to the top.

posted 12-02-98 02:57 PM ET            

Why did/does the US always support the right wing leaders? In several occasions when you entered a conflict in a country, you chose to ally with the right wing parties. You never bothered to think whether they were better of worse than the communists. Like for instance in Russia, China and Vietnam. The communists had more public support, more firepower, more ethuastic forces, were less corrupted etc. It was clear in all of those wars, that the communists would win, but you just entered in them because of your principles or something.

Think of a scenario: You had allied with the Reds in Russia back in 1917. Well not fought with them, but given them mental support and not help the whites. USSR would have been a lot stronger against Germany and perhaps you wouldn't have never had to join the II World War!

And at least in Russia huge support to the whites would have been just about the worst option. Half of them supported monarchy, half democracy. After they would have won the communists in a LONG civil war, there would have been another. And if the monarchist would have won they would have had to find a new czar. That unrest wouldn't have settled in a few decades.

And I don't just blame the US. Finland also supported the whites, but we had a reason: to annex East Karelia.

posted 12-02-98 04:34 PM ET            

1) I agree, industrialization in America would have taken longer. The railroads would probably have instigated industrialization, once to coal fields of the Appalachians and iron deposits had been found. Steel is so much easier to transport than ore.

2) Civil war in 1832? Could be, could be. Texas likely would be a part of it(they'd never have joined the Empire).

3) I agree, the British Empire would likely have been the freest country, but would they have allowed a large influx of foreigners into their colonies? The Irish immigration might have still happened.

4) WWII. Would the lack of lend-lease destroyers early on have made a significant difference on the outcome of the war? And here's one to scare YYYH: Where would the American Generals be, if they even existed? Eisenhower for the Germans? Monty in the role of Supreme Allied Commander(or actually in charge of British and colonial forces)?

posted 12-02-98 04:38 PM ET            

The way this played out, however, was that the US eventually got its freedom and became a democracy, while "Jefferson" came under the beliefs of Alexander Hamilton, and became a dictatorship, sounds good. I'm going to see if they have it in my home library. I thinks it is called For Want of a Nail, or something. I think the founder fathers creating another nation is feasible. Whether the US, or any other colony would have gained independence before 1900 is doubtful to say the least. I believe the American Revolution, especially, the Declaration of Independence changed the world, made more revolutions the norm, after all one revolution had one. Think about this one, No Amer. Rev, then no French Rev. and Napoleon might have become the leading general in an army under Louis the 14th (?). Interesting stuff.

posted 12-02-98 04:55 PM ET            

1781- Liberty (working title) founded by Washington in present day Texas, named first President.

1801- Treaty of Mexico City signed between Spanish and Liberty, forming the Mexican alliance.

1805- Napoleon Bonaparte promoted to head of the French Army.

1808- Liberty buys Louisiana (not the whole territory) from Spanish for $10 million.

1810- Napoleon conquers all of Prussia and Austria for Louis the 14th. Louis stops Napoleon from invading Russia, and focuses him on the British. Louis signs peace treaty with Russia

1811- War of 1811 begins between British Colonies and Liberty, Spain, and French colonies in North America.

1812- Napoleon defeats the British at the Battle of Waterloo. Wellington dies in battle

1813- Treaty of Paris gives Florida to GB, British Columbia up to 54' 40" to Spanish.

1816- French and British sign Treaty of Berlin, ending the war between them and giving France, among other things, land in North America.

1823- Liberty purchases Louisiana Territory from the French for $25 million.

More to come later,

posted 12-02-98 05:04 PM ET            

----

posted 12-02-98 06:30 PM ET            

CrackGenius

posted 12-02-98 06:54 PM ET            

The French revolution was different from the American one, but it is also known that the success of the American revolution lead the French revolution to happen. Had the American revolution not succeded, the French revolution may never have started.

posted 12-02-98 07:02 PM ET            

I think that although there would have been a French Rev, i do not think it owuld have happened at the same time, it would probibly have happened latter. And also would not have had some of the ratical republican characteristics. Probibly would have been more along the lines of a Constiutional Monarchy.

Hothram Upravda
TB

P.S. Anerica was really the first radical Federal Nation. And was the first to have even closs to a free democratic process.

P.S.S. Many of the reasons that America is still going strong is because of the genus of Hamilton. He really was a man out of his time, he understood the power of a Central govermant and the usefullness of the Federal System.

Jeffersion on the other hand was a man from his time. He was a int man, but still was limited by the knowlage he had read, and by the ideas common in the 18th century.

posted 12-02-98 07:43 PM ET            

Yes, Hamilton did want a strong central government, but I am glad that Aaron Burr killed him before he could get anymore power (probably not, his Federalists were broken). Hamilton was a proponent of an American monachy!! Jefferson was the true hero. I believe that Hamilton was not a man to be trusted, and I am sooo glad he never became President.

posted 12-02-98 08:43 PM ET            

I am a strong proponite of the Feds Power. Never did understand the States Rights Argument. Always thought that had been delt with in the Civil War. With the Feds wining.

Hothram Upravda
TB

P.S. History Note. After A. Burr Killed Hamilton he tried to create a military take over of the goverment, this was stoped . He then was sent flying from the US and died somewhere in Europe i believe.

He is actualy the 2nd Great Trader of the American Rev.

posted 12-02-98 09:04 PM ET            

As for the whole French Revolution thing - we can't argue what would have happened. It would be like trying to argue that if Alexander hadn't died so young, he would have conquered the entire world, and we'd all be living in a Greek (well, Macedonian) society.

Or if Caesar hadn't been killed, the world would now be run by Italians, who would have colonized America themselves...

The fact is, you can't categorically state that something would or would not have happened, you can just guess. In reality, anything at all could have happened. Sure, some things are more likely than others, but nothing is certain...

Chances are that the French, who were obviously upset anyway, would have rebelled in the end, but there is just no way to be sure. Maybe they would have peacefully reformed. Maybe they would all have fled to Canada (well, Quebec), and Quebec really would be a separate country now (in name, rather than just in practice).

Maybe Ohio would REALLY have existed. Um, well, maybe not...

And damn, whatever happened to the Yank bashing. This thread is getting way out of hand. Umm, lemme see.

Imran: Americans all suck, and I'm not going to give you a reason.

Damn, he'll probably see right through that pathetic attempt...

posted 12-03-98 01:49 AM ET            

I always reserve the right to be hypocritical, just like Octopus. I also reserve the right to have a go at hypocrites like Octopus. Hmm, maybe I should have a go at myself too... LOL

I was thinking of a "What if everyone in Europe was killed in WWII, and Aussies rushed in and ruled Europe" scenario, and the effects that would have on the world today.

Then I sorta figured that I was insane, so I din't bother.

posted 12-03-98 01:54 AM ET            

It is no accident that our list is almost entirely American. It does include Sony's Akio Morita, and it arguably could include a handful of other leaders from abroad, notably Japan's Soichiro Honda and Eiji Toyoda (Toyota), Italy's Giovanni Agnelli (Fiat) and Australia's Rupert Murdoch (now a U.S. citizen). But if the 20th century was, as Luce also said, the American Century, it was largely because our system, espousing freedom of markets and freedom of the individual, rewarding talent instead of class and pedigree, bred a group of leaders whose single-minded fixation on getting rich--and creating great products in the process--led to unheard-of levels of productivity and prosperity. It was America's industrial might that enabled it to win wars and rebuild continents. Other countries may have had the capital, the natural resources or the skilled workers needed to industrialize, but their economic and political systems usually favored consensus management and faceless bureaucrats while denigrating the kind of individual initiative required to take an idea and turn it into an industry. The 21st century will no doubt include a larger number of great business leaders from outside the U.S. as more nations embrace capitalism and come to understand the importance of rewarding individual initiative.

posted 12-03-98 02:33 AM ET            

All the stuff it says is true from what I can tell, and yes, a lot of those things are what makes America one of the leading powers in the world today.

Of course that is not to say that things cannot always improve, nor that the things that make America the best are necessarily good for the rest of the world (such as American wheat subsidies (which I do seem to harp on, don't I? )). Then again, American values for freedom for Americans have little to do with foreign policy...

But yeah, I wouldn't argue that America is one of the freest countries in the world in terms of personal freedom, in theory at least. Australia ranks up there, but we just don't have the population to keep up. In WWI we were one of the most industrialised countries in the world, but we have fallen way behind.

In fact, quite recently I saw that Bill Gates' net worth now exceeds our GDP for last year (over 400 Billion dollars).

Scary, huh?

So, where was I? I have no idea. Hmm, sure doesn't help me bash Yanks, does it? Bugger.

posted 12-03-98 02:34 AM ET            

I have always found it funny when people from other countries constintly say that America is in decline. This is not true, what is true is that the world is finnaly starting to get to the point where they can compete with us. And they got to that point because we showed them how.

The 20th Century was ours. Hopefully with a little help from some allies we can still be peacefull and dominate in the 21st.

posted 12-03-98 05:52 AM ET            

Show me where - that would be really interesting. Actually, the declaration of independence was inspired by european 17th/18th century enlightenment (Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, etc). Jefferson did a brilliant compilition of it. (I just had to do that, ah well...) The french declaration had the same "ideengeschichtliche" (there isn't a word in eglish for that, is there ?) roots.

The time article... well, it doesn't say that america enjoyed the benefits of huge resources and no war on its territory since 1865. What it does not tell is that europe's catching up to the US took place with the model of the welfare state. In the 1920s, per capita income in western europe was maybe 50-60 % that of the US; in 1950, still suffering from WWII, it was 40 %; today, it is about 80-90 %. Despite the fact that it was severed from the east and only slowly built an internal market and is only getting one currency, that was achieved by what that article calls "consensus management and faceless bureaucrats". Think about it.

posted 12-03-98 05:55 PM ET            

The trade deficit really is not a big deal. When you take into acount the amounts of money that are sent to the US in terms of Investments (stocks, US Bonds) and the like the amount of money that we "lose" do to the deficit is completly taken care off.

Its only of the US greatist strengths. The ability to sell Billions of dollars in Treasury Bonds because we have the only truely save currency as well as stable goverment. Although we maybe should have some compition with this industry once the Euro Dollar starts...

posted 12-03-98 06:02 PM ET            

ISTM that this version is a bit more, erm, imfalmmatory than the document signed.

posted 12-04-98 01:29 AM ET            

Please Excuse me DCA but i really have no idea what your talking about. I would not think that a little minor probilem like the war in Bosnia would in any way effect the US Dollar. If anything i have been reading about how for the past 2 years the dollar has been increaseing in strengh to a hight it has not seen in decades. I truely have never heard of any Economic problems of any sort created by Bosina in the US or for that matter in the World in general. I have always thought that its such a small little thing it does not have a great deal of power outside its small geografic area(the southern balkins).

If anything i would assume that people would move more money from Euro currancy to US Dollars because of the problems that are going to happen do to the Euro Dollars introduction. Not long lasting problems but still enought to slow down economies and lose a good deal of money.

Hothram Upravda
TB

posted 12-04-98 04:27 AM ET            

While the war in Bonian was raging at its worst, when Croats for instance wanted to rent some Serbian artillery for barraging the Muslims for a while (they did these sort of things on a regular basis), DM was the only accepted 'hard' currency.

So, in a small part of the world, for a very limited period, USD was not considered hard currency. Big deal

posted 12-04-98 07:16 AM ET            

First, many of them date back to the time of rapid US industrialisation. The process in Europe went over a longer time, but such names appeared there as well. Just look at the names of some big european companies. Many germans among them (Siemens, Daimler...) as the process there was faster than in the rest of europe...

Second, there is the different economic style, if you want. Very simplified, a Bill Gates type will start his own business in the US, but might get to lead an existing big company in Europe. The US is more dynamic in that regard, but the results are about the same. And we don't have so many people getting ridiculously wealthy. Bad from your POV, good from mine.

Hothram: "The trade deficit really is not a big deal. When you take into acount the amounts of money that are sent to the US in terms of Investments (stocks, US Bonds) and the like the amount of money that we "lose" do to the deficit is completly taken care off."

Well, it can't be another way, as somehow, the trade deficit has to be covered. But: The foreign money flowing in is not a gift. It increases the US foreign debt. The net foreign debt of the US (public and private) is now at about a whopping one trillion dollars - around 1980 you were some hundred billions in the plus. The difference is simply the accumulated foreign trade (goods+services+some other minor stuff) deficit. 50-150 billion $ per year over about 15 years = 1,5 trillion = about that difference.

"If anything i have been reading about how for the past 2 years the dollar has been increaseing in strengh to a hight it has not seen in decades."

Ehm... strength measured as in the exchange rate ? Nah, can't be. Up to 3.47 DM for one greenback in the mid80s, now about 1.68. The dollar is so undervalued now that it starts to be a problem for european exporters. But which other strength ?

posted 12-04-98 08:26 PM ET            

----

As to some of the rantings of rabid Americans I refered to earlier(here or possibly some other thread", check this letter to the editor of our local paper(brackets refer to my comments):

Get US out of UN

If there is a medal to be given to someone who has opposed the United Nations from the beginning, I was against the UN before I got out of the US Army in 1945.
First of all, the UN flag is a spider web flag[Huh? Can anyone say "Ad hominim attack?" What's the design of the UN flag have to do with anything?]. The UN headquarters started out at Lake Success, NY which should have been Lake Failure[So the UN is a failure, then? On what does he base this? Maybe he'll enlighten us in the next paragraph.].
The United States doesn't need to be pushed around by the United Nations[To pay our debts?]. Those men who established the United Nations were poor leaders, and had no foresight of the future whatsoever[Um. Excuse me? Wasn't the UN founded because the founders had foresight and wanted a stabilizing forum?].
If I had my way, I would throw a ring of steel around the UN headquarters and give them 60 days to pack up and get out of the United States[So, we finally succeed in lifting the Iron Curtain from Europe and decide to now raise a Steel Curtain around ourselves? Sounds brilliant, eh?]. And if they weren't out in 60 days, I would move them out by force[I'm sure this would go over _real_ well with the rest of the world.].
We don't need the United Nations[No, apparently what we need is to go back to our old ways of isolationism and let another World War brew while we turn a blind eye to the rest of the world.]
The Rev. Conner Corey

----

posted 12-04-98 11:29 PM ET            

Anyway, isn't "flourinated" and "fluorinated" sorta altogether different things..?