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.
but that there were vastly greater barriers to continental domination
Not really. I think the harsh form of Nature in the Americas is vastly more of a barrier to conquest than anything Europe had. Hannibal brought elephants over your mountains, whereas beasts of burden literally bred for it regularly could not make the trip through. The mountains will bury you in snow or steep cliffs, and you beat them just to find endless dry deserts of death.
You are focusing on the living elements, when the literal terrain was the greatest obstacle of all, and one that Europe did not have to nearly a comparable extent. Especially not combined.
And then you add the Indians on top of it, and its just cruel.
Most Europeans were born with their continent already settled, and countries were formed by men drawing maps. America had modern (relatively) men have to undertake possible suicide missions just to claim 100 mile stretches of it for the country.
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.
Not really. I think the harsh form of Nature in the Americas is vastly more of a barrier to conquest than anything Europe had. Hannibal brought elephants over your mountains, whereas beasts of burden literally bred for it regularly could not make the trip through. The mountains will bury you in snow or steep cliffs, and you beat them just to find endless dry deserts of death.
You are focusing on the living elements, when the literal terrain was the greatest obstacle of all, and one that Europe did not have to nearly a comparable extent. Especially not combined.
And then you add the Indians on top of it, and its just cruel.
Most Europeans were born with their continent already settled, and countries were formed by men drawing maps. America had modern (relatively) men have to undertake possible suicide missions just to claim 100 mile stretches of it for the country.