Deport (from US) all Arab non-Citizens?

[Mhari]

This whole thread is really just sort of...wow.

I agree with a lot of things people have said there...and I disagree with a lot of things (often said by the same people who have said things that I agree with).

The problem is that there are no easy answers. Non-Americans tend to say that the US is a big bully and we get involved where we shouldn't...yet when things get tough, other countries often turn to the US for aid. Some here have said that the US does nothing without an ulterior motive. Does that somehow negate the actions themselves? (I'm talking about the good ones, in this case.) The funding that the US gives to organizations all over the world...that counts for nothing? (And yeah, I read the things Svenska posted on the qualifications the Moron Administartion has put on some of that funding. I guess it's good that at least the funding is still there.)

Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. I find Ann Coulter's words...I don't think I even have the right words to describe what I think of them. But like Colly, I would point out the date of those first articles. A lot of people said things they didn't really mean, in the shock of the aftermath. (Tell me none of you have ever said things you later regretted, when you were upset or angry or overwrought.) Like shereads, though, one of my first acts was to do what I could to make sure innocent Muslims didn't take the brunt of what a few did. That doesn't mean I supported the terrorism, by any means.

This whole National Homeland Security stuff makes me ill. I feel like we should all be wearing jackboots and armbands with swastikas. The whole "war on terrorism" seems to me to be an excuse to impose restrictions on the American people that we normally wouldn't tolerate. But it's hard to know what the right answer here is, either. Does anyone know if patting down air passengers for their deadly tweezers has actually prevented further acts of terrorism within the US?

This has been rambly, I know. I'm still half-asleep. Hope I made a few cogent points...

 

[shereads]

This whole thread is really just sort of...wow.

Does anyone know if patting down air passengers for their deadly tweezers has actually prevented further acts of terrorism within the US?

Yes, there was an attempted tweeze-jacking of a unibrowed flight attendant aboard a Miami to Buenos Aires flight recently. Apparently, the terrorist had acquired some of the new x-ray defeating polymer grooming tools. The worst of it was, he was able to do only one eyebrow before the other passengers restrained him. The poor woman is completely ridiculous looking now. Cosmetologists say the eyebrow may never grow back to its original shape.

 

[Icingsugar]

To my knowledge, we had nothing to gain in Somalia and a lot to lose; we went in anyway, and sacrificed lives, in an ill-fated attempt to stop a slaughter of sickening propertions I may be wrong, and in Europe you might have another perspective on why Clinton sent troops to the balkans. l believe that President Clinton didn't want to send troops; he preferred to be a peace-time president.

But children were being hacked to death and pregnant women were having their bellies cut open so they could watch their babies die. A pacifist who hated war could no longer stay out of the war in Somalia, no matter the risk to his presidency. I think that the Clinton adminstraton tried to use the power of the U.S. military where it seemed necessary to prevent genocide in Bosnia, and in an ill-fated but well-meant attempt to end the slaughter in Somalia. If they had anything we wanted for ourselves - if Clinton had an ulterior motive - I'd like to know what it was.

Not an ulterior motive per se, but the Clint was smart. He knew which battles to fight and when. Bosnia was an obvious deal. A modern, central european state close to the reality of many Nato and general Western World allies and friends of the US. It was an interresting war, in a not too alien enviroment. Of course, there is no conflict where losses even for the strongest can be avoided, and I have no doubt that it was a sense of humanity that pivoted the desicion to interact, but I daresay that both Bosnia and Somalia (as wars go - all wars suck) were measured to be reasonably manageable battlegrounds.

Meanwhile, the single biggest and most grotesquely horrible genocide of recent times, Rwanda in -94, passed by, in plain enough sight, with a collective yawn from the entire western world. This is not an American or Clintonian spot of shame as much as it is one for the world community at large. Nonody did what should be their bloody duty. Not you, not we, not the UN, not their African neighbors. Nobody. And the slaughter of the decade went on uninterrupted.

Had a foreign military power charged in there, who knows how many civilians' lives that had been saved and tragedies avoided? But in that environment, they'd have a dog-eat-dog messy hell on their hands that could make Vietnam look like Band Camp.

/Ice

 

[shereads]

Clinton took an enormous amount of political flack for Bosnia and Somalia, most notably from Republican critics who accused him of "nation building," and who maintained that a military man in the White House would never have risked U.S. troops to intervene in countries where there was no direct threat to our interests. One of them was Donald Rumsfeld, who told Newsweek Magazine that Clinton was too eager to go into the Balkans and should have insisted on continued negotiations with Milosovich.

No one that I know thought Somalia would be "manageable." On the contrary, even those who supported our going in were afraid we'd end up trapped in an open-ended involvement in a civil war with no exit strategy. It had no political upside for the president. He did it anyway. There's a difference between the two men that's more significant than who got head and how often.

Edited to add: a lot of Americans wondered why we had to be involved in the Balkans at all; they had expected Bosnia's European neighbors to act decisively to end a genocide that was taking place right next door.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My grand father fought in World War II. Not in Europe, but in the Pacific. I grew up with older gentlemen all around me who lost thier innocence, thier freinds, and sometimes even thier body parts to rid the world of Hitler. Sadly, the greatest generation is almost gone now and those who remembered them and thier sacrifices are almost gone as well. Soon WWII will no longer be a living memory.

To see people like Flicka who say (we didn't need you) is heartbreaking. To see revisionist versions of history like those of the Earl is sickening.

I have tired to be conservative all my life. I have a respect of that generation that borders on awe. Hero worship even. This thread has given me an epiphany this morning, perhaps aided by drugs. When a natural disaster of any kind occurs, who is the first country to send aide? Generally the U.S. When something tragic occurs and money, technology or volunteers are needed who is usually there in the fore front? Us.

My Epiphany for today is the real problem this country faces. You all hate us. And we just don't hate you back like we should.

-Colly

 

[Icingsugar]

No war is manageable. But there are more or less complicated situations. I think Clinton was brave to stand up for his choices against the political pressure at home, and use his powers at hand to engage in the Bosnia and Somalia conflicts. Both those wars were much more gritty and potentionally endangering to individual troops than the Bush clan's wars of grand scale presicion bombing and generals in front of desert maps on TV. All I was saying was that there was a limit to the risks that even the US under Clinton admin was prepared to accept.

In comparision, nobody dared to touch Rwanda with a ten foot pole. Cue shit hitting fan.

/Ice

 

[Svenskaflicka]

No, no, we don't hate you. If we hated you, we would do nasty things against you.

We just don't like your politics all that much.

 

[Mhari]

Yes, there was an attempted tweeze-jacking of a unibrowed flight attendant aboard a Miami to Buenos Aires flight recently. Apparently, the terrorist had acquired some of the new x-ray defeating polymer grooming tools. The worst of it was, he was able to do only one eyebrow before the other passengers restrained him. The poor woman is completely ridiculous looking now. Cosmetologists say the eyebrow may never grow back to its original shape.

Dammit, sher!

*sends off yet another bill for monitor cleaning*

I hope you make enough to cover all these costs!

 

[Mhari]

What Colly said. She always does it so much better than I do!

 

[Guest]

This simple address by President Abraham Lincoln, explains to me why America gets involved, sometimes its simply the right thing to do.


The Gettysburg Address

Nov. 19, 1863

"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.
We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that this nation might live.
It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground.
The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work, which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

 

[shereads]

Meanwhile, the single biggest and most grotesquely horrible genocide of recent times, Rwanda in -94, passed by, in plain enough sight, with a collective yawn from the entire western world.

If Rwanda were predominantly white, the reaction would have been different. Europe and the U.S. and Australia and Canada would have intervened, despite the quagmire that awaited us there.

You won't find anyone in the U.S. government who can explain the essential difference between Cuban immigrants who are allowed to stay, and Haitian immigrants who are either deported immediately - or if they had the misfortune to arrive on our shores during a highly publicized boat grounding and police chase, on foot, through downtown Miami last year, are being held indefinitely under guard at a Motel 6 where even small children are not allowed to go outside for fresh air. It's not a rascist policy, says Attorney General Ashcroft; it's the danger that terrorists might enter the U.S. posing as Haitian immigrants. Some of this group were granted the right to be surrendered to relatives in Miami while they await their asylum hearing. Ashcroft overruled the immigration court "for security reasons." The oldest male among them is 16. There is a boy who was three when he was placed under house arrest with his mother.

 

[Icingsugar]

I have tired to be conservative all my life. I have a respect of that generation that borders on awe. Hero worship even. This thread has given me an epiphany this morning, perhaps aided by drugs. When a natural disaster of any kind occurs, who is the first country to send aide? Generally the U.S. When something tragic occurs and money, technology or volunteers are needed who is usually there in the fore front? Us.

My Epiphany for today is the real problem this country faces. You all hate us. And we just don't hate you back like we should.

Colly(and mhari seconding), this really makes me sad.

I'm not going to justify slander and simplified "you evil imperialists" aggressive attitudes, because they are IMO simply expressions of debate uneloquence.

But setting that apart, please try to remember one thing: You're boss. The whole planet is your bitch. There isn't one single nation in the word (except maybe China) that you couldn't crush at will. And there isn't a corner of the planet that you couldn't be among the first to reach out a helping hand during a disaster. You are after all the guys with by far the most resources for both those kind of things.

A more unified and well organised EU could be your peer in this, but we're too diverse and too bickering amongst ourselves to make that happen.

That leaves the US.

To be in power is to be the subject of critisism. It goes with the territory. The world have high expectations on you, higher than anyone else, because you have the Means and the Ambition to be the Good Leader. The same demands and critisism for pretty much the same reasons were aimed at the British empire some century ago.

The only ones who truly hates America is those who feel threatened in their ambition to live an eremite, non-global life where their narrow view of society is challenged.

/Ice

 

[Icingsugar]

oops. quoted when I was going to edit. I'll try again.

 

[Edward Teach]

Correct me if I'm wrong, which I know you will, but I believe that it was Bush I who sent troops into Somolia in December, 1992, leaving the Clinton administration with an immediate problem as they took office in January, 1993.

The Clinton adminsistration had subsequently developed a plan to invade Afghanistan in 2000, but Clinton ordered the plan put on hold, not wishing to leave office dropping a war into the lap of Bush II and had Sandy Berger and Madalyn Albright brief Colin Powell and Condoleza Rice.

Ed

 

[TheEarl]

My grand father fought in World War II. Not in Europe, but in the Pacific. I grew up with older gentlemen all around me who lost thier innocence, thier freinds, and sometimes even thier body parts to rid the world of Hitler. Sadly, the greatest generation is almost gone now and those who remembered them and thier sacrifices are almost gone as well. Soon WWII will no longer be a living memory.

To see people like Flicka who say (we didn't need you) is heartbreaking. To see revisionist versions of history like those of the Earl is sickening.

I have tired to be conservative all my life. I have a respect of that generation that borders on awe. Hero worship even. This thread has given me an epiphany this morning, perhaps aided by drugs. When a natural disaster of any kind occurs, who is the first country to send aide? Generally the U.S. When something tragic occurs and money, technology or volunteers are needed who is usually there in the fore front? Us.

My Epiphany for today is the real problem this country faces. You all hate us. And we just don't hate you back like we should.

-Colly

I don't see anything of what I've said to be revisionist. I have stated nowhere that the USA wasn't needed in WW2 (because they very blatantly were). However the idea that the USA stormed in and saved the day single-handedly is laughable. The USA lost 1 million soldiers, Britain lost 1 million soldiers, Russia lost 25 million soldiers. Something of a team effort and let us not forget the fight that Britain and the other European allies put up while the USA faffed. The war didn't start in 1941. It started in 1939 when Britain stepped in to defend Poland when there was no threat to our borders. Britain held the Germans almost singlehandedly, fighting against an army of superior numbers who had been spending years preparing for this war and it does disgust me that a lot of Americans see themselves as single-handed saviours of Europe.

Look at it conversely, if England had folded, then Germany would have held all of Europe. Russia would not have been able to stand without the Western Front and would have fallen. Germany would have held all of EuroAsia and then would have turned their attention to the USA, whom Hitler hated with a vengeance. Would the US have been able to stand against both Japan and EuroAsia? Thank god for Britain and Russia Americans, because 27 million died to protect your freedom.

We don't hate you because you help. We don't even hate you that much when you hinder. It's the high-handed attitude of casual superiority, as though only your foreign policy means soemthign that gets on people's backs. The USA got Saddam, but no mention was made of the SAS troops who got the intelligence, scouted out the area and actually made the way clear. The USA helped win the war, but without the Russians and the Britains they would have been in trouble.

That is no revisionism - that is an honest assessment of the facts. And I would appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of 'sexing up' my historical knowledge.

The irate Earl

 

[deliciously_naughty]

Ann Coulter is a pyschotic lying bitch...can we deport HER?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Lets ignore the fact that one of the reasons the USA became involved in WW2 was that the English intelligence service passed them intercepted transmissions describing a Nazi Germany offer to Mexico to help in the invasion of America in return for California. Germany was out to get you lot too, but let's leave that one alone.

(The Zimmerman telegram was a PR windfall for the British and FDR, it did not however bring us into the war. Adolph Hitler lacked a Bomber capable of reaching the U.S., let alone reaching the U.S. dropping a payload and returining. He lacked a navy capable of supporting a cross channel invasion, let alone a cross atlantic one. Short of U-boat attacks and agents provocatuer he represented no threat to us. He certainly didn't want to bring us into the war any more than he wanted to bring the U.K. into it. How could he know that you would honor your promises to Poland after you let him carve the Chezes up)



Let's go to the point where you compare helping (and I do mean helping, without the Russians and the British, the USA wouldn't have won WW2) defeat Hitler to some of the almighty cock-ups the USA have made in foreign policy.

(Helping. Your assertion that the U.S. Could not have defeated Germany alone is just that, an assertion. Naked and unsuportable by any facts. We defeated the japanese empire and with the men we had under arms from that conflict as well as the carriers, trransports, landing barges, veteran Marine and navy pilots and crews, there is no reasonable reason to assume we couldn't have defeated Nazi Germany. On the other hand, without us "helping" russia and Britan would not have emerged victorious. Period.

That is not a naked assertion. Just a statement of fact. Without our "help" the U-boats would have strangled Britian. Without aide from us, and with no second front it is not questionable that Hitler would ahve pushed the soviet's beyond the Urals. In fact, had it not been for fear of a british second front in Yugoslavia and Greese Barbarosa would have begun two months earlier as planned and the russian winter would have found the germans enjoying the amenities in Moscow and other Russian cities.)

Like starting the problems in the Middle East in the first place. By promising the Palestinians self-determination in return for fighting the Turks and Hungarians in WW1 and then reneging on that promise. Then doing it again in WW2 and then taking their land away and redrawing the map to create Israel. Then interfering constantly in the politics of that region, by switching from side-to-side - being best friends with the English and French and then screwing us over Suez when Nassar effectively declared war by buggering our currencies.

(Interesting take. We started the problems in the middle east? Last I checked jews had been killing Arabs over their since well before we became a nation. Before you became one too. Bit that dosen't matter, in a revisionist histroy prior problems can be discounted. It was all the mean ol U.S. of A's fault)

The USA does not have a past record to be proud of in foreign policy. They have a reputation for high-handedness, lack of knowledge and doing nothing without an ulterior motive. You may not be one of the blind faithful, but backing up your points with one of very few examples where the USA did the right thing (and even then, only after screwing the UK for every penny before entering), is a specious argument when it comes to the topic of 'the world's policeman.'

(Screwing you for every penny? The U.S. was neutral. A non belligerent. Theoretically we couldn't even sell you war material, but we sent you 50 destroyers for leases on bases that might have meant something in the time of steam, but were paractically valueless in the time of fuel iol powered ships. We sent ships laden with cargo on credit because you didn't have the money to buy it and when U-boats started strangling the life out of Britan, well before war was declared we were escorting merchant ships halfway across with our war ships. Screwing you? You didn't have enough oney to pay for it and by rights we weren't alowed to send it to you, but we did so on credit, in violation of our neutrality. )

You aren't sexing up historical fact. You are just plain ignoring it. Or taking the litle bits you want to support your position and ignoring the body of it.

While you are blaming us for causing the mess in the middle east you might as well blame us for the black plague. It's more sensational and has about as much root in fact.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

No, no, we don't hate you. If we hated you, we would do nasty things against you.

Ha. As if IKEA furniture isn't intended to fall apart after a year. Have you see the quality of the lamination on some of those pieces? And the shipping policies are almost impossible to decipher when you try to order from them online.

 

[Edward Teach]

Coulter is a whore. She isn't very bright, you only have to hear her on air once to know that. She sells sex packaged in right wing clap-trap.

Hell, most TV programs sit her on a stool so that her ass and legs will be above table height. When even that was hiding too much, Geraldo switched to a glass topped table.

The problem isn't that Coulter is an idiot who lies, calls former presidents traitors and foments racism, it is that many on the right believe her. They want to "pull" for their team.

An election has been stolen, we have been attacked, we have started a war, we are incurring trillions of dollars in debt, our jobs are being sent out of the country and our rights are being eroded.

This ain't no game no more, friends, and we need to quit cheering for the theiving bastards in office.

Ed

 

[shereads]

The Queen wears ugly hats.

 

[shereads]

An election has been stolen, we have been attacked, we have started a war, we are incurring trillions of dollars in debt, our jobs are being sent out of the country and our rights are being eroded.

Yes, but is that necessarily a bad thing?

 

[Edward Teach]

Yes, but is that necessarily a bad thing?

It makes the pie higher.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Ha. As if IKEA furniture isn't intended to fall apart after a year. Have you see the quality of the lamination on some of those pieces? And the shipping policies are almost impossible to decipher when you try to order from them online.

LOL

That's just part of our cunning plan to slowly, slowly drive you insane, so that we can take over as a world power. Kinda like we were a couple of centuries ago.

 

[shereads]

Not an ulterior motive per se, but the Clint was smart.

The need for a smart president has been greatly exaggerted.

JMT, your post of Lincoln's address was inspiring, but there's no need to reach so far back in history for inspiration. More recently, the man who occupies Lincoln's old office had this to say:

"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency." — George W. Bush, June 14, 2001. Speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaware that a live television camera was still rolling.

"Do you have blacks too?" - Bush asked Brazil's President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Reported by Der Spiegel.

"Sometimes when I sleep at night I think of 'Hop on Pop."- G.W. Bush speaking on educating children, April 2nd, 2002

''I had no idea we had so many weapons, ...what do we need them for?'' — George W. Bush, stunned when told the extent of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, Newsweek, June 25, 2001

 

[TheEarl]

Before I start this rebuttal, I'd just like to make a disclaimer. I'm not perfect and so anything I have got wrong is from a lack of knowledge, rather than a lack of principles on historical discussion. However...

Lets ignore the fact that one of the reasons the USA became involved in WW2 was that the English intelligence service passed them intercepted transmissions describing a Nazi Germany offer to Mexico to help in the invasion of America in return for California. Germany was out to get you lot too, but let's leave that one alone.

(The Zimmerman telegram was a PR windfall for the British and FDR, it did not however bring us into the war. Adolph Hitler lacked a Bomber capable of reaching the U.S., let alone reaching the U.S. dropping a payload and returining. He lacked a navy capable of supporting a cross channel invasion, let alone a cross atlantic one. Short of U-boat attacks and agents provocatuer he represented no threat to us. He certainly didn't want to bring us into the war any more than he wanted to bring the U.K. into it. How could he know that you would honor your promises to Poland after you let him carve the Chezes up)

There is more than one way to bomb the USA. If Russia fell then the ports of Smolensk would take him within reach. Although Hitler lacked a bomber capable of reaching the USA, Britain didn't, so if Britain fell, Germany would have both the technology and the manufacturing capabilities. Using allies would have been a possibility too, whether he managed to convert Mexico (and it was no secret that the promise of California would have bought Mexico's support), or whether he entrusted the bombs to Japanese kamikaze pilots, who wouldn't have worried about the return journey.

Hitler didn't want to bring Britain into the war, that's true and honestly didn't expect us to enter over Poland, because of Chamberlain's peacemaking previously. In Mein Kampf Hitler states that he wants Germany to rule all the lands and Britain was free to continue ruling the seas. However in the same book, Hitler declared his hatred of America, his disgust of the freedom of the people, the proliferation of Jews and blacks and other 'inferior people.' In his long-term plan he stated that he wished to co-opt Russia for Lebensraum (living-room) to breed the new German nation. Then he wanted to go after the USA. His own words.

(Helping. Your assertion that the U.S. Could not have defeated Germany alone is just that, an assertion. Naked and unsuportable by any facts. We defeated the japanese empire and with the men we had under arms from that conflict as well as the carriers, trransports, landing barges, veteran Marine and navy pilots and crews, there is no reasonable reason to assume we couldn't have defeated Nazi Germany. On the other hand, without us "helping" russia and Britan would not have emerged victorious. Period.

That is not a naked assertion. Just a statement of fact. Without our "help" the U-boats would have strangled Britian. Without aide from us, and with no second front it is not questionable that Hitler would ahve pushed the soviet's beyond the Urals. In fact, had it not been for fear of a british second front in Yugoslavia and Greese Barbarosa would have begun two months earlier as planned and the russian winter would have found the germans enjoying the amenities in Moscow and other Russian cities.)

I do not deny that without the USA the war would not have been won. I do appreciate that fact. However the American navy managed to defeat the Japanese by the narrowest of margins. Although towards the end, victory was never in doubt, the USA were looking utterly defeated until some extraordinary luck over the battle of Midway Island prevented the Japanese from reaching resource-rich Australia. May I also mention the heroics of the Australian army in defending the Pacific Rim too - The Americans would not have held them alone. Britain brought Australia into the war. If the German army had taken Russia, they could have reinforced the Japanese through Smolensk and harried the USA, providing the straw that would have broken your back.

Even if the USA had stayed out of Germany's way entirely, given 20 years of building and plannign for war on the great enemy, with the entire resources of EuroAsia behind him, do you really believe that Hitler would not have been able to have a good go at defeating you. To claim yourselves immune from the greatest military threat faced by the world at that time is very presumptuous.

(Interesting take. We started the problems in the middle east? Last I checked jews had been killing Arabs over their since well before we became a nation. Before you became one too. Bit that dosen't matter, in a revisionist histroy prior problems can be discounted. It was all the mean ol U.S. of A's fault)

Israel wasn't a nation until the USA created it. The USA stepped into the region, took land from Palestine and called it Israel and declared it to be the land of the Jewish. The Palestinians were quite understandably upset about a foreign power effectively evicting them and called their friends to come and take the land back. The USA armed Israel to the teeth and applied pressure on the Arabic countries to back down. They did so, but only in deference to the USA's might. The creation of Israel caused two major wars and god knows how much of the current terrorism (How many members of Al-Quaeda are former Palestinians?). I'd say that counts as starting some of the problems. I will apologise for blaming the whole thing on the USA, that was incorrect - tension was high there beforehand (partly thanks to British Imperial policies). But the USA lit the powderkeg.

(Screwing you for every penny? The U.S. was neutral. A non belligerent. Theoretically we couldn't even sell you war material, but we sent you 50 destroyers for leases on bases that might have meant something in the time of steam, but were paractically valueless in the time of fuel iol powered ships. We sent ships laden with cargo on credit because you didn't have the money to buy it and when U-boats started strangling the life out of Britan, well before war was declared we were escorting merchant ships halfway across with our war ships. Screwing you? You didn't have enough oney to pay for it and by rights we weren't alowed to send it to you, but we did so on credit, in violation of our neutrality. )

And then after the war, you used our debt to control our foreign policy. Take Suez. Nassar effectively issued a invitation to war from the British and French by stealing the money of French and British companies in Suez. We went to war and were 30 minutes from victory when the USA decided to side with the Soviet Union who were supporting Nassar and crashed both the pound and the franc, collapsing both our economies. The US foreign policy was that they would screw over our economies until we fell into line. The Soviet line incidentally.

I will apologise if I am actually wrong on any facts and I understand that the sections referring to What-if history (The future of the USA if Germany became dominant) are conjecture. However I feel that I have debated my side of the argument quite well, backing up everyhting with facts and I do not appreciate being told that I am revising history to fit specious opinions.


Just on a side-note to people: Does anyone know whether the US declared war on Germany? I know they declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbour, but I'm not sure whether Germany declared war on them, or whether America declared war on Germany. Anybody help?

The Earl

Edited because I forgot to close quotes