Ladies and Gentlemen, I Give You the American Empire

[LordShaithis]

Oh wow, I though the British were supposed to have a keen sense for irony and sarcasm. Threelions, ignoring the obvious "sarcasm" label, look at the spelling and grammar of that last message. It was typed in pure American "hillbilly" dialect. In other words, that was my oh-so-clever IMPERSONATION of the stereotypical boneheaded American who can't get over the fact that his country won a war sixty years ago. I thought my soccer reference made it clear that I was talking out of my ass. I was also going to add a reference to how Budweiser is a really good beer (it sucks) but I figured that would just be over the top. Pull the pointy stick out of your ass already. I quite like the Brits. They're the only European country that still has it's testicles, so to speak, and the troops they've put on the ground in Afghanistan haven't escaped my notice. So chill the fuck out. LOL.

[Mr. B]

They claim that a "global Pax Americana" is proof of wanting an American Empire, despite the fact that "pax" means "peace"?

Dumbshits.

They were referring to the Pax Romana of the ancient rome, rule through absolute power. They suspect that the US will use it's monopoly on superpower status to enforce any policies they wish.

[NecronLord]

They claim that a "global Pax Americana" is proof of wanting an American Empire, despite the fact that "pax" means "peace"?

Dumbshits.

It's context. The phrase Pax Romana meant "You will do as we say or you will die horribly. That said America would never make as effective an empire. ever. no-one will.

That said this document is old news. It was out about a year ago IIRC. They read too much into it.

PS. the Sunday Herald is not a respected newspaper.

[Slartibartfast]

They claim that a "global Pax Americana" is proof of wanting an American Empire, despite the fact that "pax" means "peace"?

Dumbshits.

They were referring to the Pax Romana of the ancient rome, rule through absolute power. They suspect that the US will use it's monopoly on superpower status to enforce any policies they wish.

They already do that most of the time, specially - but not exclusively - when they can get away with it.

[Coyote]

Let's remember that British newspapers are not the same as American newspapers-- what for the UK is a respectable journal would be a tabloid rag here in the States, sold at Wal-Mart checkout lines. US newspapers are expected to report the news although a bias does admittedly reside in the overall slant; but British editors are expected to take strong personal opinions in things and present their opinions with tidbits of fact. UK papers are more like political rally-rags than sincere attempts to convey information.

[Oddity]

Futheremore, the bizarre idea that somehow, Britian would have managed to resist Nazi Germany without support from the United States never fails to amaze me. Yes, one small, battered island was going to hold out for decades, drive forward, and sweep millions of Nazi soldiers off the entire continent.

A few points:

1) The Germans lacked a heavy long-range bomber, and thus could not defeat RAF.

2) The German army was an continental army. They were not trained for amphibious attacks.

3) The Germans didn't have any landing crafts to carry the army over the English Channel.

4) Most of the German navy was composed of submarines. They needed surface vessels to keep a supply line open across the Channel, and surface vessels they had precious little of.

5) The German plan for the invasion of England was called 'Operation Sealion'. It was renamed 'Operation Seamonkey' behind Hitler's back - because the whole thing was bullshit. With luck they might have been able to land ten battalions of light infantry at the shores of England... they would have been slaughtered by heavily armed British forces.

6) England was not the main enemy of Nazi-Germany, the Russians were.

In short, Nazi-Germany never had a chance at invading Great Britain.

And before you ask: No, I'm not British.

Why do you think Germany was fighting on two fronts? Gee...maybe because there was an invasion of France, an invasion made possible only by the victories in North Africa, victories made possible only by American intervention?

At the height of the war, 80% of German forces were fighting the Russian army. And yet, it was the Russian army who conquered Berlin.

And before you ask: No, I'm not Russian, either.

[NecronLord]

Let's remember that British newspapers are not the same as American newspapers-- what for the UK is a respectable journal would be a tabloid rag here in the States, sold at Wal-Mart checkout lines. US newspapers are expected to report the news although a bias does admittedly reside in the overall slant; but British editors are expected to take strong personal opinions in things and present their opinions with tidbits of fact. UK papers are more like political rally-rags than sincere attempts to convey information.

Errr what? Any reason behind that statement?

[edit] Whatsoever? at all?

[The Dark]

Futheremore, the bizarre idea that somehow, Britian would have managed to resist Nazi Germany without support from the United States never fails to amaze me. Yes, one small, battered island was going to hold out for decades, drive forward, and sweep millions of Nazi soldiers off the entire continent.

A few points:

1) The Germans lacked a heavy long-range bomber, and thus could not defeat RAF.

This is the only point of yours I would argue. During the Battle of Britain, the RAF was under two weeks from destruction until the accidental bombing of London, the retaliatory bombing of Berlin, and the shift in bombing strategy to cities rather than airbases. If Goering had not been pressured into switching tactics, the RAF Fighter Command would have been non-existent by the end of 1940. I still agree that Operation Seelowe would have failed without the construction of troop transports, but the UK would have been unable to project power either, since ships could not safely move around Europe without air cover. It would have become Germany versus Russia, with a garrison of Luftwaffe fighters and bombers in northern France demolishing British airfields whenever they reopened. In this case, specialized Panzers for cold climates would likely have appeared, much as the /trop variants appeared in Africa, and Russia would have had a much more difficult fight on their hands.

[Tatterdemalion]

Originally posted by Coyote:
Let's remember that British newspapers are not the same as American newspapers-- what for the UK is a respectable journal would be a tabloid rag here in the States, sold at Wal-Mart checkout lines. US newspapers are expected to report the news although a bias does admittedly reside in the overall slant; but British editors are expected to take strong personal opinions in things and present their opinions with tidbits of fact. UK papers are more like political rally-rags than sincere attempts to convey information.

No, here in UK that wouod be considered a tabloid rag, the problem is that a lot of tabloids seem to be under the strange impression that they're somehow respectable. Well okay, half of them have the decency not to take themselves seriously, (I mean, can ANYONE say with a straight face that the Sun is bought for something other than entertainment.) there's just the occaisional rank excuse for a newspaper like the daily mail to worry about. (Incedentily, I'm sorry if I offended any Mail readers here but I just have no respect whatsoever for your paper.)

Anyway to cut a long story short, yes, many British 'newspapers' are crap, but no, not everyone actually takes them seriously. (Anyone offended may now commence calling me a middle-class idiot.)[/quote][/b]

[phongn]

Futheremore, the bizarre idea that somehow, Britian would have managed to resist Nazi Germany without support from the United States never fails to amaze me. Yes, one small, battered island was going to hold out for decades, drive forward, and sweep millions of Nazi soldiers off the entire continent.

A few points:

1) The Germans lacked a heavy long-range bomber, and thus could not defeat RAF.

This is the only point of yours I would argue. During the Battle of Britain, the RAF was under two weeks from destruction until the accidental bombing of London, the retaliatory bombing of Berlin, and the shift in bombing strategy to cities rather than airbases.

No. The 11th FG would have been forced to retreat, but there are other fighter groups (e.g. the 12th FG).

I still agree that Operation Seelowe would have failed without the construction of troop transports, but the UK would have been unable to project power either, since ships could not safely move around Europe without air cover.

The destruction of the RAF 11th FG has little to do with the safety of the RN, except perhaps in the immediate vicinity of the British Isles. They had to rely on fighter support from elsewhere (such as from the carrier force).

It would have become Germany versus Russia, with a garrison of Luftwaffe fighters and bombers in northern France demolishing British airfields whenever they reopened.

And how are they going to find this out? Around the clock recon of England? I think not.

In this case, specialized Panzers for cold climates would likely have appeared, much as the /trop variants appeared in Africa, and Russia would have had a much more difficult fight on their hands.

Would they? Hitler still thought that he'd have a quick fight on his hands and the defeat of the 11th FG does nothing to change this.

[Oddity]

Futheremore, the bizarre idea that somehow, Britian would have managed to resist Nazi Germany without support from the United States never fails to amaze me. Yes, one small, battered island was going to hold out for decades, drive forward, and sweep millions of Nazi soldiers off the entire continent.

A few points:

1) The Germans lacked a heavy long-range bomber, and thus could not defeat RAF.

This is the only point of yours I would argue. During the Battle of Britain, the RAF was under two weeks from destruction until the accidental bombing of London, the retaliatory bombing of Berlin, and the shift in bombing strategy to cities rather than airbases. If Goering had not been pressured into switching tactics, the RAF Fighter Command would have been non-existent by the end of 1940. I still agree that Operation Seelowe would have failed without the construction of troop transports, but the UK would have been unable to project power either, since ships could not safely move around Europe without air cover. It would have become Germany versus Russia, with a garrison of Luftwaffe fighters and bombers in northern France demolishing British airfields whenever they reopened. In this case, specialized Panzers for cold climates would likely have appeared, much as the /trop variants appeared in Africa, and Russia would have had a much more difficult fight on their hands.

Well, yes, but the RAF could still have relocated their fighters to airfields in northern England. There they would have been outside of range of German bombers, while the RAF would still be able to bomb any invasion force.

Also, remember that the German fighters were so low on fuel when they reached England, that they could only fight for around twenty minutes before they had to return. And unless I am totally mistaken the Germans usually lost more fighters than they destroyed.

[Crazy_Vasey]

The Sunday Herald? I've never heard of it! Ahh after a little look it appears to be a Scottish paper, no wonder I've never heard of it.

[FBHthelizardmage]

me niether.....

why would america need to set up an overt rule over the world? You already control it.