OT:US don't qualify for EU membership, don't spank children, WW2 history.

[Thermodyne]

All is not well in the kingdom. The king is a drooling invalid who has been known to foul himself in public. His favorite son would appear to have been fathered by Saddam [sic], and at the moment seems to have the most influential position in the family.

When the king dies, his brothers and adult sons will choose a new king. And you can bet that there will be outside influence brought to bear upon this process. The US has someone in mind, and would probably take what ever steps are needed to put him on the throne.

It should also be noted that the royal family is well on the way to insolvency. Stipends now far out run income.

[General Woundwort]

UE, I'm guessing this came from Stratfor, right?

It gets even better. Turns out the Ambassador's wife (Saudi Amb to US) is a real Wahhabist firebrand...

The problem is at the center of power, in the person of prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, minister of the interior and the real ruler of the country; he's the uncle of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

Yet notwithstanding continuing revelations about Saudi funding of terror, Bandar remains untouchable in Washington, along with his wife, Princess Haifa. Although her convoluted financial links to Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, the two lead hijackers among the 15 Saudis out of the 19 9/11 terrorists, attracted widespread attention late Last year, she somehow fell through the cracks when the congressional report on the terror conspiracy was recently released. The sojourn of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar in San Diego was reexamined, but Princess Haifa's Islamic covering billowed out, masking her from renewed publicity.

This is appropriate, if immoral, because Princess Haifa has much more to hide than her propensity for charity to terrorists. To certain defenders of the Saudi monarchy, any discussion of Princess Haifa is an unspeakable insult. James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, which once paraded itself as a legitimate and moderate advocacy group for those loyal to American institutions and concerned for peace, has become especially strident on this issue. Recently, he loudly decried how "the donations made by Saudi Princess Haifa to 'needy Saudi women' [have] been transformed into a scandal."

But no magic was necessary to "transform" Princess Haifa into a paragon of Wahhabi obscurantism and anti-Western hatred. It is well-known among Saudis residing in this country that the princess compels the wives of Saudi diplomats in Washington to attend "lectures" intended to reinforce their Wahhabi bigotry and contempt for the West, the better to "protect" them from temptation during their time as our guests. It is similarly notorious that the religious-affairs section of the Saudi embassy, a black hole of Wahhabi hatemongering, enjoys a separate status, with immense financial resources and extraordinary powers, which it abuses to foster Wahhabism in America through, among other channels, Saudi-controlled "Islamic academies" — i.e., locally accredited primary and secondary schools. Prince Bandar's closest associates within the diplomatic staff are troglodytic Wahhabis who don't speak English and have no interest in the affairs or sensibility of Americans.

Full Disclosure - quote is from Send Bandar Home: The U.S. can change the face of Saudi Arabia, by Stephen Schwartz

EDIT - correct spelling of "Wahhabist"

[ August 28, 2003, 13:01: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

[Unknown_Enemy]

UE, I'm guessing this came from Stratfor, right?

Indeed. I forgot to show my sources. That have been taken care of. As said in the article, the Saudia leadership are in a completely impossible situation. They cannot topple radical islam without toppling their primary power base, but if they don't do so, they destroy their alliance with USA, which is their second power base.

I am really glad I do not live in that part of the world. Their future will probably not be a peaceful one, even if NO ONE can allow chaos to spread in that country. Too much oil there.

[jimbob]

Top Canadian Contribution to WW2 -
Monetary, Millions of US dollars = 20,104
Max Military Size at Peak = 780,000
Naval Vessels #'s = 32
Total Tonnage = 23,811

Top US Contribution to WW2 -
Monetary, Millions of US dollars = 288,000
Max Military Size at Peak = 12,364,000
Naval Vessels #'s = 19,034
Total Tonnage = 5,457,000

Okay, this is true (well, as far as I believe you, which I have no reason not to ), and well said. Even if one considers contributions of each nation on a per capita basis (which I think we should do, if only to be fair to the arguement, especially as the US had nearly 12 x more population with whom to contribute), the USA definitely put up a larger contribution. Now your arguement, as far as I've interpreted it (which may be erronious on my part) is:

had the US remained a member of the Commonwealth (ie subordinate to the Imperial master, Britian) it would not have been as helpful in the battle against Germany

I'm not yet convinced of two things:

1) that the USA would not/could not have attained a high population, and subsequently high industrial base, if it had remained a British Colony. Granted, Canada did not become a world power, but it had a different immigration policy (and damn cold weather to boot ) that hindered the degree of immigration as compared to the United States. I do not know my American history well enough to comment on the royal proclaimations visa vie the expansion of the colonies beyond the original borders, but I think it is interesting to note that the Canadian colony(s) were allowed to expand beyond their original boundaries at a later date (which yes, one could argue, was allowed by the Crown as an attempt to check American expansion into the west. Though I may be mistaken, I don't think the Crown was still calling the shots by this time, as Canada had developed a very independent legislative lower-house fairly early in it's history. This would argue that membership in the Commonwealth would not have been a long term hindrance to the American colonies expansion). So, while Texas may have managed to remain independent of the United States of America, I don't easily accept that renunciation of the British colonial system would have cost the USA the west. It could be noted at this time that, had the USA not rebelled against the British yoke, slavery would have been banished at an earlier date. This may have reduced the construction of the American industrial giant, but that too is another arguement...

2) that the USA would have contributed less had it jumped in earlier. Many have commented that the USA best contributed to the war by staying uninvolved in the early years, building up it's military, and then jumping in for a decisive ending action. However, had the US remained a British colony, and then evolved an independance as some other countries had (ie Canada, Australia) it would have joined in the battle from the very beginning. This may well have had a more profound effect, as this would have allowed a more concerted effort from many nations, rather than allowing for the complete exhaustion of individual countries before others joined in. Even had the US not remained a non-beligerant state, and supplied the UK with it's 1000 or so dry-docked destroyers, the battle of Britian could have turned out quite differently. This earlier involvement may well have cost the USA more, but it would have left the other combatants (ie the UK) in better shape post-WWII. Had Britian not been so damaged by it's drawn-out, nearly solo battle with the German forces, it would have been far more effective in the subsequent cold war against the USSR.

Hey, nothings perfect in historical recreationism, but I think that the USA could still have played an important role in the outcome of WWI and WWII, regardless of the revolution several hundred years prior to these conflicts.

[Cyrien]

That is possible though even if the Proclomation hadn't held and expansion was later allowed there would have still been conflict over the Lousiana territories which where in French control who at that time and for a great deal of time afterward until the rise of Germany as a power were not close friends at all and far closer to being enemies than anything else in regards to the UK. Also the French could not really afford the Lousiana areas, neither could the Spanish and even if the English had been inclined there is no way that the French would sell to them. So the Lousiana purchase area remains rather underdeveloped, in keeping with Spanish/Mexican ideas and culture most of the west remains mostly subsistence farming and wild indian lands.

Thus expansion of the US is cutoff by the French territories, which would also block any access to Spanish and later Mexican Territorial claims. This at the very least cuts off the western coast from US claims. Assuming US production capacity for the rest of it is still developed you lack the developed Western field of operations against the Japanese. This frees them from worries there and allows them to focus on aiding there German ally against the USSR.

In the case best case scenario... Hitler betrays the Japanese as he did the Soviets. Worst case... most of the world would then speak German or Japanese, or I would hope you have many many years of occupations and eventual overthrows of occupying forces. Either way nothing is the same.

Also worth noting is that if the US remained a colony then there is no reason for it to have its own large navy that is just under the total strength of the British navy. At best you probably have a British navy only a little larger than it would otherwise have been. It is worth noting that combined British and US naval might were barely enough to defeat Germany and Japan naval might in the first place. British and US Naval might being the first and second best but spread thinly and Japan and Germany being third and fourth largest but concentrated in small areas.

As for population. Most of the US population was gained through imigration through the promise of endless lands to expand to in the West (no longer the case) the land of Freedom and Religious Choice (most likely, no longer the case as many colonies before hand had their own religions established as did England) and lets not forget the several gold rushes in the west and the massive influx of people that those caused, no longer in the US.

No doubt the US would have been industrialized and had some impact.

My arguement isn't that it wouldn't. My arguement is that looking at the most probably things it probably wouldn't have been enough to stop what they were up against.

You make a case for it being better off in the outset with all of them working together, but it is unlikely that they could have coordinated fast enough to make a difference in the initial stages and with Japan now an unchecked power in the Pacific everything is different.

Quite simply the possibilities are staggering and I get a slight headache just thinking about them. Suffice to say it could possibly work out either way. No way to know without going through it.

But knowing what I know and seeing the way things worked out I tend to think that the changes would not have been for the better in terms of cost of life and outcome.

Imagine having to fight two seperate wars first against the Germans then against the Japanese after the Japanese had time to solidify their pacific position unopposed without need for naval surprise attacks or major fleet actions or losses and cementing their control over the oil and steel supplies they wanted to gain. With the added possibility of putting the Soviets on a two front war that they likely could not have won.

Another question? Who then finances the Panama canal? Is there even one? Does that make easy transit between the Atlantic and Pacific impossible?

Endless questions and no way to answer them.

Ah well... Time for sleep.

[Atrocities]

I think it would have been very interesting to live during those times. Think about it, the whole mass of the great unexplored territories. What a wonderment that must have been. I know what I would have been doing. I often wonder what it must have been like to have all of what is now the U.S. to roam, no borders, no taxes, no cops, just you, your people, and the great unknown. Of course there are those who believed this qoute, forget who said it or where it came from; "How dare the indians be on our land before we ever even knew it exsisted!"

In time all that is a national treasure, IE parks, will be comericallized and you will have to pay big bucks to go to them. They will become a business run by corperation and only SUV
driving, cell phone additic, therapy going, spoiled rotten, self absorb, ultra yuppies will be allowed in.

[Phoenix-D]

More likely they'll be paved over, unfortunatly. It doesn't help that the various legislatures are too often run by idiots.

Want a good example? I'm in school in Arizona. If I graduated and moved to Oklahoma right now, I could be classified as a terrorist almost immediately. Why? Because in their 'wisdom', they've decided to pass a law that states anyone who causes more than $500 worth of economic damage for political reasons is a terrorist..even if the political reasons are just, say, pointing out that a factory is polluting far more than the law allows.