h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Of course they DO!! But not all students receive that lesson. I am lucky since I was in HONORS classes!!!

Like, just when was the War of 1812 anyways?

And did the French ever win ANYTHING????

Did the French win anything? Hmm... Charlemagne did a VERY good job at conqering Europe, and his "Holy Roman Empire" did last for almost a thouasnd years in Germany, yet not under French rule... They did win a lot of islands around the world, so they didn't do too badly.
BTW - do they call the American War Of Independance the "American Revolution" there? It wasn't really a Revolution, as such as nothing really changed.

Oh, I get it now. You are one of them-there WISE guys! You like to start trouble, eh? Well, I'd start slamming The Brits, but on this site I'd be outnumbered! In other words, I ain't THAT blonde.


P.S. So the French got lucky once or twice, big whoop!

Are you French, per chance?

Firstly, I am not French. I'm from the Isle of Wight, which the French have many times tried to capture. Most of my ancestors were murdered, raped or pillaged by the French, but you still must admit that they once did reasonably.

As for the American War of Independance not changing anything, I don't think it did. America merely won it's independance, which it would have got anyway. Between 1920 and the 1950s, Britain more or less decided to give it's Empire away as they weren't fashionable anymore. Starting with Ireland in 1921 where people voted to become independant (except in Northern Ireland, where the vast majority voted to remain British but the 10% who voted against were remarkably unhappy about it. 3/4s of Ireland voted to be independant, and they now are.) Then the rest of teh world followed. Canada, Australia, New Zealand all gained independance before hand, India, Pakistan, several African countries, Malta, many islands - all given independance. In fact, there has been considerable Devolution of power towards both Wales and Scotland recently, and it's less than 5 years since Hong Kong was given to China.

The only cases of countries not being given away or gaining independance are the Faulklands in 1982, when Argentina decided to declare war on Britain over them, which wasn't a nice thing for Argentina to do anyway, and the locals didn't want to be Argentinian, and Northern Ireland - which is awkward as only around 1% of the population want to be independant, yet they're determined to kill off the remaining 99% to get their way.

All America had to do would be to wait about 150 more years, and they'd be independant anyway - all those dead wasted for nothing, except of course to give Britain a great victory against France. The only real difference would be that firework manufacturers would be a lot poorer around June/July.

Hey, I can't argue with anything you said. You could be right. I wish to point out that my anscestors did not arrive here until the early 1910's and 1020's, so "my people" had nothing to do with the wars that you mention. My pedigree is Swedish and German. My grandparents all were born and raised in Europe, my dad was born in Europe.

Even IF America would have been "given" it's independence eventually, it's still better that they earned it when they did. WE probably would not have pospered under the thumb of the British monarchy. I think that's what the fight was about anyways! If the war had not happened, America might be an insignificant blob on the map just like some of the recently freed countries that you mentioned. People as well as countries must be free to prosper. And FYI, shooting off fireworks is illegal in a lot of places unless you have a professional permit!

I was joking about you being French!

Are you saying that Australia, Canada and New Zealand haven't prospered? And "prosper" is a very unusual term as many feel that America is rich, but apart from being very money-obsessed, there isn't much there.
But there's little point in speculating about the what could have happened. I believe that in a number of cases some places were better off in British hands, for example Hong Kong, which had a very healthy economy, but now hasn't. The main areas are in Africa which, along with France, Britain should not have interfered in the first place, but when they pulled out, both France and Britain left countries independant, but without any form of democratic structure. Now the countries are independant, but for the average "housewife", being independant means little if she knows that there's a good chance she's going to be shot by warring factions when she goes out to do her shopping. Being alive is far more useful than being murdered, but independantly murdered, and in the last years of the Empire Britain more or less encouraged home rule anyway. Until recently, the situation in South Africa would have been better off under British Rule as far as most black civil rights protesters were concerned, yet luckily the situation has improved and South Africa is able to be independant intelligently, while other countries aren't ready. And sadly, France and Britain both made big mistakes in both getting and losing other parts of the world.

And no-one in America seems to remember that Britain was under the thumb of the British Monarchy too - very selective memory. Strange, really, that the country which had a war of independance over taxes now has one of teh highest tax rates... Why don't you declare way on yourself to get rid of the taxes again?

Overall, though, you're a good arguer - you don't seem that "dumb blonde" to me.

Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have prospered, but the USA is has prospered more! I am well aware of how most of the rest of the world views "us" as greedy, rude, imperialistic, etc. That's a LONG debate if you feel that way to. Also, I don't agree with every decision that my goverment makes or has made, just as you probably don't agree with your government all the time. I think you would agree that it's not fair to label all Americans abc or all Englishmen as xyc. Notice I am deliberately leaving out the stereotypes so as not to start that LONG debate! My point is not everyone here is "money-obsessed", and I and a lot of others think there IS a lot here or there wouldn't have people migrating here in droves. It's not perfect, but there is a lot here. By the way, I have considered moving to Canada if I could find comparable wages and standard of living. I am not blindly loyal to this or to any other country, but this is generally one of the better places to live or I wouldn't be here!

True independence is the African and other countries that you mention can't be achieved until ALL people have equal rights. I HATE how women are treated in some of those countries. I hate it that the US went to war to save the "democracy" of Kuwait when women have never had the right to vote there, and only rich well-connected men could vote. What the hell kind of democracy is that?!?!? We went to war for oil, period. I disagreed with that, but I was in the minority as you probably know. And now we Americans are getting screwed with high oil prices ... some thanks from the Arab oil countries for saving their "democracy" from Saddam Hussein.

You have a point that the British people are under the thumb of the monarchy ... I have heard that a sizable portion of the population wants to do away with the monarchy, or a least get rid of some of the royal perks. I can't believe that The Queen doesn't pay taxes!?!?! That is so rude!! Anwyay, your point is noted.

I am not so sure that our taxes are higher than yours or Canada. I know income tax is higher. And we have no national sales tax like y'all do (or at least Canada does I KNOW). We have a national income tax, and most states impose an income tax, though mine (Texas) doesn't. Sales taxes are imposed by the states and it varies from ZERO to about 8.25%. I think y'all have higher taxes than we do to support things like nationalized health care and the like.

Thanks for the compliment that I am a good arguer. At least I THINK it's a compliment?!?!

But I really AM a blonde!!

I won't go into the debate about how America has prospered, yet has the highest crime rate in the world (outside of countries where crime has been legalised), but you definately have a point about stereotypes. No-one conforms to one 100%, and I know that not everyone in America is money-obsessed - but it's just that's what the "American dream" is supposed to be.

I definately feel that Britain should have done a lot more for many African countries, and you're right that democratic rights for women and men, and children's rights aren't what they should be. I feel that in many cases that the country would have been better off if it gained it's independance more slowly and when it was able to - but on the other hand the argument that the way Britain, the US etc are run is neccasarily the best way is a strong one. You definately have to try and avoid the arrogant view that you know what the best way is, but even so it's not too hard to spot the worst.

As for the Queen not paying taxes - that's wrong, she does. True, she's only been paying taxes for the last fifteenish years, but she still pays them. I'm not really in favour of abolishing the Queen, I'm just amused how the American view of history is so one-sided as far as the monarchy goes, and that every British man, woman and child was oppresing every American. Remember, men didn't get the vote in the UK until 1887, and the women until a few years later in 1921. (They would have got the vote in 1907, but the suffragete movement got in the way and did a wonderful job of convincing everyone in favour of giving women the vote not to).

What is National Sales Tax? Do you mean VAT? And okay, there is a tax system in the UK for health care etc, but I feel that that's a much better system as it means that people like me who can't afford to pay for any operations and would probably die get to live without spending eternity in debt. And no nasty insurance guys - and face it, medical insurance is really a tax in disguise.

And you are a good arguer, and it is a compliment. I like you. You've a good mind on your shoulders, and you definately make good points.

I won't go into the debate about how America has prospered, yet has the highest crime rate in the world (outside of countries where crime has been legalised), but you definately have a point about stereotypes. No-one conforms to one 100%, and I know that not everyone in America is money-obsessed - but it's just that's what the "American dream" is supposed to be.

I definately feel that Britain should have done a lot more for many African countries, and you're right that democratic rights for women and men, and children's rights aren't what they should be. I feel that in many cases that the country would have been better off if it gained it's independance more slowly and when it was able to - but on the other hand the argument that the way Britain, the US etc are run is neccasarily the best way is a strong one. You definately have to try and avoid the arrogant view that you know what the best way is, but even so it's not too hard to spot the worst.

As for the Queen not paying taxes - that's wrong, she does. True, she's only been paying taxes for the last fifteenish years, but she still pays them. I'm not really in favour of abolishing the Queen, I'm just amused how the American view of history is so one-sided as far as the monarchy goes, and that every British man, woman and child was oppresing every American. Remember, men didn't get the vote in the UK until 1887, and the women until a few years later in 1921. (They would have got the vote in 1907, but the suffragete movement got in the way and did a wonderful job of convincing everyone in favour of giving women the vote not to).

What is National Sales Tax? Do you mean VAT? And okay, there is a tax system in the UK for health care etc, but I feel that that's a much better system as it means that people like me who can't afford to pay for any operations and would probably die get to live without spending eternity in debt. And no nasty insurance guys - and face it, medical insurance is really a tax in disguise.

And you are a good arguer, and it is a compliment. I like you. You've a good mind on your shoulders, and you definately make good points.

I think American history would have been much different, and world history even more different, if the American Revolution hadn't occurred.

1) The American Revolution was the birth of modern democracy. All other democratic systems in the world have used ours as a model.

2) The US would probably not extend "from sea to shining sea," as Jefferson would have been unable to purchase the Louisiana Territory (Napoleon sold it for funds to fight the Brits, among others), and Mexico would have gained enough influence over their lands in the west to make them more defensible and populous. Any treaty taking them away would have been problematic at best.

3) No one would have enforced the Monroe Doctrine, which means European powers would have meddled more in the affairs of Latin America.

4) The American Revolution inspired the ones in France, thus keeping them busy killing each other for a few periods in history, and gaining everyone else a respite. So the Revolution probably saved the continent a pair of wars.

5) Without a presence in the Pacific Ocean, the Americans, nor anyone else, would have had the power to stop Japan in WWII.

As for causes of the Revolution, mostly it was a distaste for the fact that they had no say in their own self-government. However, when they peacefully protested, Britain responded with harsh acts that only made the situation worse... which led to less peaceful protests, and everything escalated from there. When the Stamp Act was originally passed, it was because the crown needed money topay for the administration of the colonies. The colonials said "Hey, why not let us administer it, and we'll collect the taxes in a way that we can agree on, and we can do it cheaper and more efficiently." If the crown would have allowed self-suficiency early on, the whole thing would have been avoided. Several escalations later, and out came the Townshend Acts, among which was an exhorbitant tea tax (thus inspiring the Boston Tea Party, and probably explaining why the national beverage of obsession here is coffee), and the Quartering Act. This one can have been inspired by nothing else than malice, and was definitely not designed to win friends. The English decided they needed soldiers to protect their tax collectors and put down protests, and they decided they didn't want to pay to build barracks. So they passed this thing where colonists were forced to open their homes to these soldiers, who promptly ate them out of house and home, slept with their daughters (not necessarily willingly), and treated their hosts like swine. The hosts were forced to sleep in the barn, while the soldiers cavorted and destroyed their belongings inside. That, coupled with the Boston Massacre, showed that the British government was at that time incapable of compromise, and revolt was the only reasonable alternative.

That government learned some painful lessons about how to administer colonies from that episode, and did better with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, so they never had pressing reasons to rebel. Only in those colonies where the English were tresspassers did they continue to have problems (like India), but even in some of those, they still did well (like Hong Kong).

And as for stereotypes, any attempt to stereotype America is doomed. Too many microcultures exist here to even begin. Most outsiders see us as white, affluent, whiney, stupid yuppie types, but that's just because those are the kinds of people who can afford to travel to your country, or at least the ones that attract attention there. The unassuming travelers pass unnoticed. I was always pretty good at this... no one knew I was a stranger until I spoke, and they noticed my accent. And even then, they had to inquire as to my origin.

Whoa! You must be REALLY worked up! You posted this twice!

I disagree with your assertion that (most) Americans feel that we have been oppressed by ALL of England. To be truthful, and you may not care for this either but it's the truth, our history classes don't focus on the British people very much. Mainly it's the government and/or the monarchy that's singled out. And I stand corrected about The Queen paying taxes. Perhaps I had old information. But in the early 90's her castle burned and some expensive property was destroyed, I thought there was debate that the British taxpayers would be stuck with that bill if the Queen hadn't backed down for publicity reasons. I don't know, I don't live or die by the Queen's cash flow.

yes, there is a lot of crime in some of our large cities, unfortunatly. But again, it's not fair to smack a label on the entire country of 260 million people because there are some bad apples. Yes, there is too much crime, and that's part of the reason that I wnated to move to Toronto. I am originally from NYC, so I feel qualified to speak about large city (US) crime. NYC has been cleaned up a LOT since I left, it's no longer on the "top 10 most dangerous cities" list! Per capita, it is not that bad anymore.
But I don't see what crime has to do with prosperity. Very poor countries have lots of crime too. Somalia, Columbia, parts of Mexico ... all of those countries I would never visit due to crime. I don't see the connection.

Health care? That's ANOTHER debate. Ironically, I spent 4 hours in the Emergency Room last night getting tests. There no other place in the world where I would feel safer getting sick or injured that in the US ... well, large cities in the US like NYC and Dallas. Small towns and rural areas often lack specialists which is ANOTHER problem. I truly believe that we have the most advanced health care system in the world. Most of the arguments against, and the one that you have voiced is the issue of ACCESS to it. It is illegal here for a hospital to deny someone health care because they don't have insurance and/or they cannot afford to pay. In theory, everyone has access. In THEORY. Personally I do think something needs to be done to get everyone insured. What happens is there are lots of unisured people and poor people who clog up the Emergency Rooms with routine health care needs, like colds and simple illnesses, because they don't have insurance to go to a doctor's office. As I said, a hospital cannot (legally) turn anyone away. Emergency Rooms are not meant for routine care, so something must be done. What? Well, thinking about that issue hurts my little blonde head, and I am not a politician so I really don't want to think about it too much. Hillary Clinton tried to push for a type of nationalized health care, but the health care lobby was so powerful that they successfully scared everyone against it. I don't know that Mrs. Clinton's idea was "good", but I did think it "good" that the issue was on the table, for a little while anyway. It's like collectively "we" feel guilty enough to say, well, don't kick the poor out of the emergency rooms because that would be cruel, but on the other hand it would be easier and cheaper to give them some way to visit regular doctors during normal business hours. That would be better for everyone. There is some sort of Medicaid program, I think that's the name of it, but most private doctors won't take that goverment insurance because they are notorious for lowballing the fees and they are slow to pay. California has their own insurance, and it is notorious for being loaded with fraud and abuse. yes, there are problems with the business side of our health care system, but from the medical science side of it, I would not trade it for any other.

Reading this reminded me about one trend that I have noticed about Americans - GENERALLY speaking. I do admit that GENERALLY speaking, most Americans know far less about other countries, then the rest of the world knows about us. Hell, even George W. Bush (son of the former President George H. Bush) who is running for President now, couldn't name the Prime Minsister of India. That gave the late night talk show comedians a LOT of material! You seem to know a lot more about American history than most Americans do.

I said that, now I re-read the last part of your post and I notice "And as for stereotypes, any attempt to stereotype America is doomed. Too many microcultures exist here to even begin." Are you British or American!?! I thought you were English, but that line makes me think you are American. Well, you know more then the average American about American history regardless of which side of the Atlantic you reside. I guess you could say that I am "inquiring as to your origin"?!?!

Blondie: aren't we involved in a hockey bet of some sort? OF COURSE I'm American! I'm of the Southern California variety. I just know a lot of history because, well, I like history.

As far as other nations knowing more about us than we know of them... first of all, that's an exaggeration. An American started a dialogue on H2G2 for international opinions on the Elian Gonzalez debacle, and nobody really knew anything about it, other than the boy's name. Didn't stop them from having opinions, though. But there is a valid point there, and I'll tell you why it is. If you pick up a newspaper in another country, the front pages are covered with national and international news. It's all side by side, rather than grouped like it is in the US, with a few international articles stuck behind the national and local news. Our media sink their teeth into one overplayed melodrama per six months, whereas theirs maintain a balanced view, and return to an old story only when there is something new to say about it.

Because they actually get real news, people in the rest of the world pay attention. I cannot stand to watch the news here, because it's all sensationalism and crap. So when the new leader of India takes office, they hear about it, a little about his views, his goals, etc. We only hear about him if he's been charged with cannibalism or animal sodomy.

"So when the new leader of India takes office, they hear about it, a little about his views, his goals, etc. We only hear about him if he's been charged with cannibalism or animal sodomy."

Not necessarily. We wouldn't even hear about THAT if Bill Clinton gets another friendly intern!!!

BTW - do they call it the American Revolution all the time in the US? I'd never heard it called that before - always called the American War of Independance over here - which I think is more descriptive.
But you're right that history would be very different if it hadn't happened. You listed a number of points, and I'll write about them:

1.) America - birth of modern democracy? Debatable - certainly it had a great influence on the systems of countries such as France and Germany, and it also created the Seperation of Powers principle. But to say ALL other countries have used it as a model is just wrong - many have, probably over half, but not all. Britain itself hasn't been affected and still has no written constitution, and the American model is still based on the UK to an effect, and it is in the UK that the Rule of Law developed - ie, that no-one is above the law. And you must remember that the UK wrote the Constitutions for all the countries that were once part of it's Empire.

2.) America would not expand from sea to sea, true, but would that be a bad thing? Britain was content with the amount of America it had, provided no-one else got a larger share, and in any case was concentrating on Africa. After the war, America expanded, and conquered the rest of the continent - and not without opposition, as Custer's deserved death shows. Britain conquered the world, and has since given Africa and Ireland etc back to who they took it from. Americans conquered America and the world is still waiting for America to return the lands it conquered to whom they rightfully belong. You cannot say that America should be independant from Britain and then say that those insultingly called "Indians" or "Native Americans" should not be independant of America. It is a fact that more "Native Americans" fought on the British side during the war of Independance than on the American. As for Texas being Mexican, would that really have been such a bad thing? Remember, history is always written by the victors.

3.) True.
4.) Not true - the French Revolution did in fact lead to war on the continent in the 1790s, and from 1804-1819, culminating in Waterloo.
5.) Debatable - Japan was overstretched in any case, and a lot of their success was based on their capture of Singapore early on, which all historians agree was a fluke. Japan should not have conquered Singapore, yet they did. The whole war for Japan turned around that battle. Whether or not Australia and China would have beaten Japan eventually is unknown, chances are they would have done as Japan did not have the resources to fight a continued war and hold on to all their gains - and remember, China had a lot more soldiers, and after Britain, Russia, France and Canada had conquered Germany they would be free to fight Japan. And in the end it was the Atomic Bomb which caused Japan's surrender, and the bomb itself was designed by an Anglo-American team, with mainly British scientists, yet American resources. Without America, Britian probably would still have been able to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

As for the rest of what you have said - true - there were a lot of flaws in the system. But King George III was mad - nowadays if someone is mad and commit an offence, it is a defence and they are allowed to be taken care of and helped to get better. To call King George evil and to have portrayed him in the manner in which the Americans have throughout the last 200 years is uncivilised. He was mad - and so he was the main victim.
As for the soldiers having advantages over the colonies - a lot of what you say happened - just like most of what you've described happened in Vietnam with the Americans as the guilty, and most of it happens in places like New York where Americans attack Americans each day. History is always written by the victors, that is how it is. You cannot say that there wasn't a single case in which a British soldier living with a colonist helped or did good, yet instead you imply that every British soldier "promptly ate them out of house and home, slept with their daughters (not necessarily willingly), and treated their hosts like swine. The hosts were forced to sleep in the barn, while the soldiers cavorted and destroyed their belongings inside." That's unrealistic, and untrue.
Yes, atrocities were committed, but more attrocities happen in New York alone each year than Britain committed before the War of Independance.

Now you've done pissed me off...

"Americans conquered America and the world is still waiting for America to return the lands it conquered to whom they rightfully belong." - Have the English given thought to returning Scotland? Wales? Cornwall? Have the New Zealanders decided to return to England and leave the place to the Maoris? Australia to the Aborigines? Hmmm... perhaps you should get off your f*****g high horse then. Furthermore, the Philipines have been returned. Native Americans have been given autonomy and their own land, although obviously not as much as they lost. And there is an open dialogue for returning Hawaii to the natives... however, I can see that it is doomed to failure, because native Hawaiians are a minority amongst a host of minorities on the islands, and the other minorities are content to be US citizens.

"Britain was content with the amount of America it had" - Bulls**t. Why did they then turn to Africa and Asia? Why did Canada stretch across the continent? Why did the US and UK dance dangerously close to a third war over a territory dispute in the 1840's over what is now Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia?

"It is a fact that more "Native Americans" fought on the British side during the war of Independance than on the American." - Fact. Actually, the British were very good at getting the natives involved in their wars on the American continent... dating back to the French and Indian War (the North American front of the Seven Years' War). Both the French and the English got the Indians to fight for them, in exchange for treaty concessions (in their defense, at least the French had intent to honor theirs). And while these maurading hosts raged across the colonies, burning farms, butchering children, etc., the fighting men who could be defending their homes were instead being conscripted by English lords to storm French forts. This was the root of the bad blood between colonists and natives, as well as the beginning of bad blood between colonists and imperialists.

"after Britain, Russia, France and Canada had conquered Germany they would be free to fight Japan." - How good of a job were they doing against Germany on their own? Getting their butts kicked. Monty is the British national hero for WWII, but the plain truth is that he was getting chewed to bits by Rommel all over Africa. It was the arrival of American Sherman tanks (a good match for the Panzers, and far superior to the weak British Bradleys) and the American generals who knew how to utilize them that tipped the balance in Africa, which allowed the invasion of Italy, which set up the invasion of Normandy. After Eisenhower assumed overall command of the European theater, he consulted with Monty just to make him happy, but it was an American show from that point on. France was no more, and the Russians were getting their butts kicked as bad as the Brits. It was the arrival of the Normandy invasion that forced Germany to shift forces to the western front that finally gave Russia the respite they needed to regroup and regain some ground... on the strength of an army of starving 12 year-old boys.

"And in the end it was the Atomic Bomb which caused Japan's surrender, and the bomb itself was designed by an Anglo-American team, with mainly British scientists, yet American resources." - Are you making this up, or do they actually teach this s**t in British schools? At any rate, I sincerely doubt you know any history at all, as your comments show. The team that developed the fission bomb were quite American, I assure you... expatriate Germans (of Jewish descent) and Italians, yes, but full citizens of the United States. Let's run down some of the famous names involved with the project... Enrico Fermi... sound English? Leo Szilard... no? How about Walt Zinn?

"Yes, atrocities were committed, but more attrocities happen in New York alone each year than Britain committed before the War of Independance." - See, this is the kind of ignorant s**t that really pisses me off. I mean, what is your POINT? Are you saying it was okay for the British soldiers to do this stuff to a band of future muggers? Here I was shedding some light on a historical debate, and I get this kind of garbage as a response. This is pathetic. Before you invite another esoteric conversation, I advise you do your homework. And if you want to spread the same kind of racist bulls**t that I saw on this site when I first got here, well, bring it on. We Americans learned racism from England, as you were some excellent teachers.

Bluebottle, I think you did what I did and that is to assume that you were still conversing with me. We had been chatting, and from your slang and your political positions I assumed you were British. Then GargleBlaster jumped in, but I didn't notice that it wasn't you, and I got confused becuase of the sudden pro-American sentiments and that's why I asked what nationality you were. Now it looks like you think you are responding to me, but it was really Gargle Blaster who wrote everything you are responding to here. I didn't write that bit about the British soldiers raping women. So please don't take shots at NYC to retaliate. Gargle Blaster is from California ... there's plenty 'o big cities out there that you can use as a negative example for your arguements! Go for it.

Okay, that's sorted out now. You two guys can duke it out from here!

p.s. The American Revolution and the War of Independence are interchangeable terms here ... at least as far as I know.

That's why I watch the world news on our local PBS station, rather than local - or even national - news. They tend to know more about what's going on and are not as, well, North American-centric, if I may be allowed to coin a phrase. I do get a kick out of Headline News every once in a while, too, truth be told. More because of the lack of information than the information, but whatever gives one pleasure... (And see, it all ties back into canabalism somehow. Everything does. )

Thanks for the clarrification Blondie - I did assume it was still you, sorry Gargleblaster!
I wondered why the atmosphere here suddenly changed! Still, there's nothing wrong with being pro-American as long as you remember that not everyone in the world is. Everyone is entitled to their own views.
And remember, Gargleblaster, my friend, that even if, say, I completely disagree with Communist China, it doesn't mean that if I saw someone from China I'd hate him. It's just world views.

Gargle Blaster - I hope you're not going to get too emotional about this, let's see if we can keep this a friendly discussion, okay? At the end of the day, there is no right or wrong, just views, and shouting at each other will only re-inforce the views we have and no-one will learn or enjoy the experience.

Firstly, I'd like to say that it is impossible for anyone to know everything about world history, and the world today. There just is so much of it. Do you know how house roofs were made in Carthage? Can you name all the kings of Persia? I definately can't, and I don't expect you to be able to either. Occasionally, we are both going to get things wrong or find out things that we did not know - that is the whole point of this discussion, to Learn, Concede, and eventually to agree. It's not a slugging match, and there are no winners or losers.

You wrote "Have the English given thought to returning Scotland? Wales?... the Philipines have been returned.
Native Americans have been given autonomy and their own land, although obviously not as much as they lost. And there is
an open dialogue for returning Hawaii to the natives" - that shows both of our ignorance. I did not know about the plan to return Hawaii nor the Philipines, and having learnt, I am impressed. I would also like to say that I agree totally with America's involvement in Israel, and think that that was the right thing to do. You, though, by saying "Have the English given thought to returning Scotland? Wales?" show that you were not aware of the Devolution of power to the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments, so the answer to the question "have the English given thought to returning Scotland? Wales?" is "yes, and have done so" - as for Cornwall, it is English, so you're kinda debating in a circle there. Your point about New Zealand, though, is a good one, and is conceded. Both Britain and America are guilty in that area, and so have an equal amount of shame.

"Britain was content with the amount of America it had" - Yes, they were. You asked "Why did they then turn to Africa and Asia?" and the answer was, they were content with the amount of America they had, but not content with the amount of Africa and Asia. Britain's chief concern was a secure trade route to India, and America was secondary. That is why India was among the last of the Empire to be surrendered. "Why did Canada stretch across the continent?" good question, but it was more about not letting France have it than gaining it for themselves. Just because Britain was content it doesn't mean it wanted France to gain more land and more power than it. "Why did the US and UK dance dangerously close to a third war over a territory dispute in
the 1840's over what is now Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia?" a very good point, but I feel that it was more about saving face than about the land itself. You can feel free to disagree, but my opinion (and yours is equally valid) is that Britain was more concerned with Africa and India, as afterall they were easier to conquer and keep hold of, yet they weren't willing to back down on what they had already gained.

""It is a fact that more "Native Americans" fought on the British side during the war of Independance than on the American." -
Fact. Actually, the British were very good at getting the natives involved in their wars on the American continent... dating back to
the French and Indian War." true, and yes, they were mis-used. But so, sadly, are all soldiers. Take The Great War - British soldiers slaughtered by the thousand by Generals sending them against machine guns and walking over minefields - it was the same. And they were told that the war would be fun, and over by Christmas. It's propaganda. It happens in every war, for fighters of all nationalities. That's why war is so terrible - people die, and those in charge do all they can to make sure it's not them. The beaches of Normandy are another example of British, Canadian, American etc troops being sent against a wall of fire - the first to land being the first to die. Every war is full of murders, none of which is justified, but sadly, that is the way wars are.

"How good of a job were they doing against Germany on their own?" - both Germany and Britain had fought to a stand-still. Germany's airforce had been severely weakened, and it's Navy, despite a small number of brilliantly designed battleships, still was inferior in size to Britain's. It's blockade of British ports by submarines was weakened also, and again resources were being stretched. But it is true that Britain's tanks, such as the Churchill and the Crocodile, were weaker. Both Britain and France, France more so, had concentrated on tanks as infantry support - fast and maneuverable, but not well armed. It is true that the tanks were not strong enough to match the King Tigers or Hunting Panthers, but then, the Sherman wasn't either - although superior, true, to the Bradley.
You're view on Russia, though, is definately wrong. Russia had ground to lose, and that is why it employed it's Scorched Earth policy. Germany's industrial towns were being badly destroyed by Bomber Harris's campaign, especially Dresden, and so were unable to keep up with the needs. Russia's factories, though, were untouched on the other side of the country, and were able to mass produce the T 34s - the most advanced tank of the war - without any impediment. Russia had a continent to fall back on, it had space and did not need to fight for each mile.

"And in the end it was the Atomic Bomb which caused Japan's surrender, and the bomb itself was designed by an
Anglo-American team, with mainly British scientists, yet American resources." - Are you making this up, or do they
actually teach this... in British schools?
Even if you disagree, please do not swear, it's not nice. But you are right - I got confused. I had read an article which I thought had been talking about the atomic bomb, but was, in fact, saying that the atomic power station was an anglo-american team. Okay, I am sorry - I admit I was confused and mistaken. It happens as I am not an expert, and I confess I do not know everything. Nor do you. We are both human, and so if we make mistakes, then it just means that are mistaken, as all humans will inevitably commit. If you make a mistake, I will not hold it against you.

"Are you saying it was okay for the British soldiers to do this stuff to a band of future muggers?" No. I am not. I am just saying that:
a.) You should not stereotype all British soldiers as being evil - they were not. Everyone is human, and yes, you have bad people, yet not everyone is. There are American, British, name country at all, criminals, yet there are also people who are heroes from each country. It is inevitable that there is going to be crimes committed whenever you get a group of people together - that's because we are all human. That does not make it right - it is not. Do you think I am proud of Britain's involvement in the Slave Trade? Of course not - it was wrong, and so it was realised, which is why Britain eventually decided to abolish it. Every country has committed atrocities, as every country has humans in. But that does not mean that anyone has the right to blame it on the innocent.

1.) I refuse to let Radical Feminists say that because I am male I personally am responsible for women not being able to vote in the 1600s. I was not alive then.
2.) I refuse to let anyone stereotype Germans and Austrians. Do you know how insulting that is? Even a film such as "Indiana Jones" shows all the Germans as evil, greedy murderers. Most people in Germany now weren't alive when the war was on, yet still they are portrayed as evil. That's wrong, as they are innocent of any crime. Similarly, I am not responsible for the attrocities caused during the American War of Independance, so please do not take it out on me. I confess that if I had been in charge then, I would have been more humane and done what I could to come to a reasonable, fair and just decision, but I was not. I regret it, as it would have saved a lot of lives on Both sides, but I was not. Therefore what happened is not my fault, so please do not accuse me of it.

I still consider you to be a friend, Gargle Blaster, and I apologise if I offended you. I did not mean to. I am not against any individual American, and consider many to be my friends, I merely feel that America is not as superior as it often portrays itself to be. And you are entitled to agree and disagree as you see fit, but my opinion of the country has nothing to do with how I consider those who live inside it.

<BB<

Now if you could get Bill Clinton charged with those it really would make the news over here