But the simple power of the British navy is not the same thing as an all-out amphibious attack to conquer the USA. That was way beyond the capacity of England, specially at the time when they were still struggling to beat Napoleon.

and anyway, a British navy attack wouldn't have to be dealth with an army, but with a navy. the only way to effectively mount a navy capable of rivalring the British's was by direct government effort, not by located armies and citizen taking up arms in defense of themselves.

Which is why I was saying that the only real danger by land for your land was Mexico, and that was settled somewhat unilaterally. So you never had any need to preserve the security of your citizens against a foreign potential invader the way France, Germany or Russia had. So you never delopped a culture of having to trust your government for protection, as the worst you had to face was the Indians, and it's not like they were a real threat to your country.

I think the Civil War was quite a threat...

 

Amen to that. But then again, it was internal. No foreign.

hum.. isn't that poetic? The Americans' greatest ennemies were themselves.

Apart from the odd Mongolian invasion all of Europe's wars were also internal.

Maybe the poetic part is that the Americans somehow managed to have only one major war among themselves in over 200 years while Europe cannot go even two decades without a war and no century without getting the entire planet into a fight.

 

Yhea.. But, I don't know if you know, but Europe isn't 1 nation.

While the USA are.

No points

Bingo. Leauki you nailed it. One doesn't need military experience to discuss military related topics IMO, but one also should not reduce a complex topic to something so vague, at best, even in a casual topic of taxes.

Good of you and Doc to pick up on the "Risk" analogy. I loved that game as a kid, but haven't played it in over 30 years. As, I recall, I even modify it to rely less on luck and more on strategy. That was one thing that always bothered me about it. A poor played game could be won through sheer luck.

The American nation is made up of individuals from every European nation plus non-European nations plus local Indians (those that joined the settlers).

Americans are a nation because they want to be. That state of affairs was not forced on them, they made it happen.

Somehow the Americans managed to do, apparently without you noticing, what in Europe we consider the most difficult task of all: they united, despite national differences.

Americans formed a new nation.

That was their solution to Europe's problem of constant wars.

I don't see why we should dismiss the solution just because you want to make the point that Americans didn't have the same problems as Europeans.

If children in one playground play together in peace while children on another playground fight, the argument "but in the first playground the children agreed not to fight" doesn't sound like a good argument for why the second group is so dumb.

You are comparing apples and orange

Europe is a land where the people have been entrenched in their respective territory for thousands of years. They've had different culture, language, tradition. They've warred against each other, had developped independant states from one another.

The USA is a land where the people came over less than 500 years ago. The initial people who arrived have progressively imposed their culture on their newcomers, with variable level of success, but still has established a strong paradigm of unity on the people. I will repeat what I said in another thread: France and Germany, even close together than Florida and the Maine are, are more different from one another than these 2 states will ever be, or ever has.

I really doubt the leaders of New Hamshire ever got afraid that the leaders of New Jersey would invade them. You always had an overseeing authority to deal with common elements between the states, and have acted united since day 1.

Don't you know what you are talking about? Guy, help me a little here. Arguing that the Americans are better because they have achieved a single nation while the European haven't?

It's like saying my matches are better than yours because they light up gasoline, while yours cannot light up water.

Europe is a nation when Europeans want to brag about some supposed advantage (like economics or something) and it's not a nation when Europeans don't like the implications (no European-wide welfare, healthcare, internal wars, etc.).

I am comparing apples that want to be oranges and apples that have become oranges.

 

My point exactly.

And except for the Civil War, Americans were always able to trust each other, despite being Italians and Germans and Irish and English and French and Polish and so on.

Yes, Americans are better because they achieved a single nation if you want to put it that way. Europeans are still trying. We have the European Union. It's considered the project of a millenium. But few European proponents of the European Union would readily admit that the Americans have already done it.

 

 

There is a game probably more to your liking (but it does require at least 3, and best more, players).  it is called Diplomacy.  It is set up initially like Risk, but you get to create alliances (and break them), plus your armies/navies are directly related to the supply points you hold (unlike risk where you can have unlimited armies/navies).  A good game can go for weeks!

I have not played that in over 30 years.  I no longer have the board. but I still have the pieces (lost the board in a flood).  Great game!

 

"European" is a civilisation, with a common history and base culture that'd encompass also Canada, USA and Australia. Pretty much like the Arab civilisation, the Persian civilisation, the Indian civilisation, etc...

The only thing differenciating Europe from India is geographical features much more pronounced in Europe, which allowed for much more concentrated cultural difference where in India, it's a huge melting pot of micro-cultures intertwined and none actually imposing a single order. So, barring the evident religious clash between the Pakistani and India, there is no actual defined "nation" forming India the way the "nations" form Europe.

The Parisis managed to impose their ways on what is now known as France, and thus became a nation. The Prussians managed to unite Germany. If the whole of Europe had been as generic as India (geography-wise) and did not had the Alps, the Pyrenes, the Channel, we'd have become much like them, with no massive cultural difference from one another.

What is the USA? It's just the most proeminent nation of our civilisation, one that has been created by feeding on Europe's demographic and economic problems of the time and turned it into a good thing. People came from over the Atlantic and integrated into a big single culture, that has been more unified to each other than any European nation ever has been, because of technological development allowed it.

It's a very nice game, if you don't mind losing your friends...

To repeat what Winger said?  "Our forefathers have been kicked out of every decent country in the world"?

I do not think Leauki is arguing Americans are better (in many respects Canada is a kissing cousin to America, except it never assimilated Quebec, while Louisiana was assimilated), except at nation building.  Let's take a look at 3 countries - basically all in the same boat.

Canada never had a civil war, but perhaps that would have been better.  They have had a problem since France was kicked out of the new world, and that is Quebec.  hardly a model for the Europeans to follow as they want something that can unify them, not have them remain as they are today.  Canada is very similar to where Europe will be in 20 years, but that is not the end of their Journey.

Mexico is like Canada and the US in many respects.  But in one, they are woefully behind.  Like Europe, they are saddled with Classes - real classes, not made up ones for political purposes.  And that has stymied their development into a first world country (they have all the gifts of the US, except a constitution that says all men are equal and the belief in that doctrine).  Mexico is where Europe does not and cannot go.  So where is Europe going to look for hope in maintaining its position as a world power (as that has dwindled with the ascendancy of the Asian countries)?

America.  Yea, America has a lot of problems, many worse than other places.  But it is a work in progress, and Europe figures they can either adapt or die (actually just become irrelevant, which is as bad as death to the ego).

To get back to the natural borders, 3 countries with almost identical natural assets.  Yet one is at the top of the heap, and the other 2 are not.  back in the 18th century the populations of Canada and America were not that different.  But America grew through immigration (lots and lots of it).  Why?

being a native born citizen, I cannot really answer other than with opinion.  But I do listen to friends who were not born here, but chose to make a life here.  Hope.  America offers hope.  is there racism?  yes, but not on every street corner.  if it bleeds, it leads makes great headlines, but does not really tell you the story of every day life in the US.  Millions of minorities will go years, and some even a life time, and never worry about being called a name, beat up, shot, stabbed, or in any way discriminated against.  You will never hear those stories.  They do not bleed.  And so they go quietly about their lives, assimilating, and living free.  They want to be American, because it means more to them than an accident of birth.  it represents an ideal.  An ideal that has not been duplicated elsewhere.

So yes, in that respect, America is better, and Europe knows it.  it is what Europe wants to be, and may be someday.  As you say, they have 1000 years of history to over come.  But America was not born from the garden of Eden.  The bloodiest war of all time for one nation (as a percent of the population) was the American Civil War.  Perhaps we just did it all at once, as Leauki says, instead of inflicting it by a thousand cuts, as Europe did.

So you have played it? (the game, not life).

As long as you can leave your feelings on the board, it is fun!

I take issue to that.

American isn't "better", it's "different". Europe will never be unified. It tries to, when it happens to fit the interest of its most powerful members (France & Germany). But it might very well fracture in the future.

America is a single nation. Europe is a multitude of nations, each of them composed of their own sub-cultures (France has more than 40, I won't even try to guess Germany's). The same way America is a nation composed of a multitude of sub-cultures (a lot more than France has).

Your average Nicois is relatively as different/similar from the Parisien as your average Texan is from a guy in Seattle. They share the same overarching culture, history, president.

Your average Nicois, however, shares very little with a guy in Rome or Frankfurt or Lisboa. Maybe moreso than the average american, but the different is tremedous, and that is the fact that you people can't see to wrap your head around.

Yhea.

But still. This game really reveals how much your friends can be lying manipulator and backstabbers, and skilled a it too.

But you are right, it's a great game, as the outcome is determined in the mind of the players, rather than the dice.

I know of it Doc, but never have played (that was Henry Kissinger's favorite game if I recall correctly). I have a 3' x 3' x 3' box in my attic filled with Avalon Hill and other, mostly war games (Squad Leader, etc.), all acquired from the early 70's to mid 80's. It was always too hard to find interested opponents, as well as time constraints.

Speaking of war game, I remember reading something extremely interesting about a naval wargame simulation that was in operation in the 80s..

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=6

It was the "Traveller Trillion Credit Tournament". A programmer created a computer that would design the "perfect fleet", and the computer came off with as many mini-gunboats as possible that could be scuttled at will. Everybody said it was cheating, as no commander would ever do this to engage a real fight.

http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm

General Ripper of the Marine managed to cripple the U.S. navy in 2002 using the exact same tactic playing as Iran, using Iran's current fleet capacity

Sometimes, a simple game can give much insight into real warfare.

It didn't work so well for Libya in 1986. Iran is of course more capable today than Libya was, but so are we. You can assume that Iran knows US strategy better than General Ripper, but I'll go with the US's naval experience personally. Iran's air force will be destroyed or grounded rapidly. AWACS hundreds of miles away will tell our forces if they so much launch a row boat. With air superiority, Navy and Air force planes will pick off larger ships and subs. The Iranians might get a lucky shot in if they act quickly, while they have assets.

Once again you have made a mistake. Risk is a lesser version of Diplomacy, It was made that way because Risk is the child's version of diplomacy. I play Risk almost daily. The computer version is nice especially when you can get a few people to play with the computer generals.

America is unique in the fact that they have eliminated discrimination almost from the start of the nation. Yes, there were a few bumps in the road but in less than 100 years they fixed most of the problems brought over from Europe. My great grandfather was a slave, my grandfather was one of the first black millionaires. In ONE GENERATION you can go from slave to free to rich. My grandfather made his money in the liberal state of North Carolina in the 1890's and moved to New York a wealthy man after 1926. So even with the Jim Crow laws, and segregation if a person wants to make it here they can. To do the same in Europe would be difficult even today. That is the difference between America and the rest of the world. We don't respect wealth to the exclusion of everyone else, or disrespect the poor to the point of keeping them in their place. All have a seat at the national table. The only obstacle to wealth and prosperity in America is the Federal Government. More to the point the politicians that wish to make money in politics rather than earning it honestly. They are the reason we have 47% not paying taxes.

Yes, but General Ripper only went up against one battle group and had to sacrifice almost the entire navy to win. If we go to war we will have more boats, planes and most important ground troops to play with. Operation Desert Strom we used three battle groups against no real navy, what do you think we will send against a country that has a navy?

I take issue to that.

As a Jew I think I have the privilege of reminding you that there were several wars that took a larger percentage of our nation's population than the Civil War did of the American nation.

(Of course, Europe's and the Arab world's attitude towards minorities and especially Jews is part of the major problems those cultures have.)




How is different not better or worse? Everything is on a scale.

If Europe will be unified after the Americans showed us how it works, the Americans will be merely better at it.

But if Europe will never be unified the Americans will have been infinitely better at the task.

And I agree, it might well fracture. But somehow I don't think the US will fracture (again, much).




Exactly.

When in doubt, assume I am talking about the subject discussed.

When Michael Malone came to Germany and his rabid anti-Americanism didn't excite the left-wing masses, I knew that Europe is better at being rational left-wing than America.

(Plus, we have better cheese and chocolate.)

Ask yourself a simple question.  Do you strive to be different?  Or do you strive to be better?  You may strive to be a different better, but almost without exception, most people strive to be better.  So I stand by my contention, in that context, America is better.  And I disagree that Europe can never achieve it.  I think they can.  But having the capability to, and actually doing it are 2 very different things.

America was not always a single nation.  Nor is it comprised of a single nationality.  As for the sub cultures of Europe, so what?  That is the basis of why America is not England II.  American English is not British english (we borrow a lot more).  Sub cultures mean that my wife cooks a great tamale, but my neighbor makes a great Kimchee.  But we are still Americans.

All very true.  But those are just factors that will play into the "how", not stop it from happening.  It can be done.  America showed the world that it is possible.  Will it?  That is for them to decide.

 

There is another game that is actually more revealing.  It is called - Lie, Cheat and Steal.  A game of Political Power.  It is fun, but almost invariably, women always win! (It is also a lot shorter than diplomacy).

Now the above is not a condemnation of women, just my observation of having played the game over many years.