True enough. Washington didn't either. He set it on the path.
That said, I think that Americans attribute too little of America's success to simple geography. I too like to have control over basically an entire continent surrounded by two states that can be beaten down with a flyswatter.
C'mon man, you don't have to turn an explicitly neutral statement into an excuse to put words into mouths.
And despite the propaganda Lincoln was neither the first nor only American to make efforts to make or keep the united states one of the great contiguous polities of the world.
I meant the 'achievement' point, but yeah, I missed that part - I tend to shoot first and ask questions later.
Lincoln may not have been the first, but if he had not conquered the south, then there would have been a very powerful rival. It's paradise for us, because we would not be under the American boot, but it would have been bad for American empire.
I wished I saved it, but there was a picture of a map with captions posted on a *chan board where it shows how fucked an invasion force would be to traverse the United States. Highlights include Arizona (radioactive deserts), Louisiana (makes Vietnam look like a vacation), Florida (man-eating gators and meth heads), and Nevada ("Gentlemen, welcome to Dubai.").
Well, yeah. You had to swat away some Indians, and perhaps one or two scorpions. Compared to there being French or Germans or Russians.
That said, I like the pluralism of Europe (such as survives with the EU), even if it means that we don't have our boot on the throat of the rest of the world.
Those Indians were more than just a simple swatting, nor was the literal desolate desert just a simple scorpion.. But the fact that you dismiss the roughness of settling those areas as something so simple where jerking off over Europe in comparison shows your bias is beyond simple disagreement.
But the fact that you dismiss the roughness of settling those areas as something so simple where jerking off over Europe in comparison shows your bias is beyond simple disagreement.
Well yeah, I'm trying to be a bit contrarian. Washington was a pretty swell guy. The point wasn't "Europe is great", but that there were vastly greater barriers to continental domination (and thank God for that) than Indians and scorpions.
If it soothes you, I trash Europe to Europeans, because let's be real, it's a complete mess right now. I'm an equal opportunity trasher, but there's no real point in trashing Europe to Americans who already hate Europe, or America to Europeans who already hate America.
True enough. Washington didn't either. He set it on the path.
That said, I think that Americans attribute too little of America's success to simple geography. I too like to have control over basically an entire continent surrounded by two states that can be beaten down with a flyswatter.
The fact the union stretches from ocean to ocean is an American achievement not an accident of geography.
Balkanization was always an option and it was only avoided by great effort and sacrifice. Whether for the net good or bad.
I feel strongly that engaging with Tony is a mistake. I should’ve said nothing.
I guess you do like Lincoln.
C'mon man, you don't have to turn an explicitly neutral statement into an excuse to put words into mouths.
And despite the propaganda Lincoln was neither the first nor only American to make efforts to make or keep the united states one of the great contiguous polities of the world.
I meant the 'achievement' point, but yeah, I missed that part - I tend to shoot first and ask questions later.
Lincoln may not have been the first, but if he had not conquered the south, then there would have been a very powerful rival. It's paradise for us, because we would not be under the American boot, but it would have been bad for American empire.
The European mind cannot comprehend the American expansion.
That vast stretch of mountain followed by endless desert for 100s of miles was certainly just super easy geography for America to conquer.
I wished I saved it, but there was a picture of a map with captions posted on a *chan board where it shows how fucked an invasion force would be to traverse the United States. Highlights include Arizona (radioactive deserts), Louisiana (makes Vietnam look like a vacation), Florida (man-eating gators and meth heads), and Nevada ("Gentlemen, welcome to Dubai.").
Edit: Found it.
Well, yeah. You had to swat away some Indians, and perhaps one or two scorpions. Compared to there being French or Germans or Russians.
That said, I like the pluralism of Europe (such as survives with the EU), even if it means that we don't have our boot on the throat of the rest of the world.
Those Indians were more than just a simple swatting, nor was the literal desolate desert just a simple scorpion.. But the fact that you dismiss the roughness of settling those areas as something so simple where jerking off over Europe in comparison shows your bias is beyond simple disagreement.
Well yeah, I'm trying to be a bit contrarian. Washington was a pretty swell guy. The point wasn't "Europe is great", but that there were vastly greater barriers to continental domination (and thank God for that) than Indians and scorpions.
If it soothes you, I trash Europe to Europeans, because let's be real, it's a complete mess right now. I'm an equal opportunity trasher, but there's no real point in trashing Europe to Americans who already hate Europe, or America to Europeans who already hate America.