not... it was called a sneak attack, and you see where that got them right... they may have slapped us, but we squashed their asses like bugs.

Yeah the Brits and their allies certainly beat up Germany, USA just sat and did nothing.

No way did we supply Russia with the hundreds of thousands of tanks, armored vehicles, and jeeps. Those aircraft were hobbyist vehicles... the Russians rebuilt their own force on their own. No US troops at Normandy at all, nor in any air blitz.

US bombers never struck down any manufactoring at all either.

Let's not forget the US did not free Siciliy or the Libya theatres. US warships did not sink the Japanese fleet and we never supplied the Allies with anything.

There's a difference between doing everything by yourself and doing nothing at all Flint.

Obviously the US had an important role, but without allies you would have lost as well.

"I am prescribing what the American Empire should do as a political realist advancing its own selfish interests. Moral questions or cosmopolitan pipe dreams aren't my concern."

that tells me a lot about your country, and i don't even know which one your from, but i can tell from your attitude that your gov blames us for your woes, and takes no blame their self, second your in a country where democracy either isn't around or hasn't been around long.

the fact is we spend a ton of money keeping you people safe, and in return we get flamed.... well you better start appreciating, cause if anyone but mit or obama wins you will be fighting your own battles from now on and we will laugh at you when your crying oh please help us....at that time remember this day idiot.

[TI] Primo, we kinda provoked their attacks.

Learning about history before talking about it has been proven to reduce the rate of foot-in-mouth syndrome.

any nazi, japan  fans ????

wed have wonderfull world   or not...  im drunk heellooo

> Your trying to shift the argument. The Dali Lama was the leader, he is retiring from it, but he still lives.

lol flint, sounds like you're trying to shift the argument. The life of the leader has some sort of legitimacy? By your logic, the 13 States should revert back to the 13 colonies when Washington died.

the old chinese empire didn't follow western terms of suzerainity.  in fact the West didn't either til the late medieval period, it's really a function of efficient transport: the Hundred Year's War was basically over the English King's claim to have inherited French provinces from Eleanor of Acquitane; the King of France was technically a subject of the Holy Roman Emperor; and the Pope pretty much claimed all of Italy for centuries.  None of that mattered to the locals and their purported rulers couldn't do anything about it.

In China they developed a more pragmatic approach: when the Emperor claimed to rule areas like Tibet, Mongolia, Vietnam and modern Tajikstan, he couldn't practically conquer those regions.  He could send an army there, with great difficulty, and that army could make life hell, and usually the local ruler who started such a war didn't last to the end of it when the Chinese left.  Local rulers decided a simpler way was to declare the emperor was overlord and then do what they liked.  The Chinese emperors accepted annual displays of tribute from provinces that didn't accept his bureaucracy, so long as they didn't play footsie with outside foriegn powers ( which most of them didn't want to do anyhow, preferring real independence).

You are not going to find a treaty of submission from Tibet to China.  It doesn't translate exactly any more than EU membership makes your country a vassal province of Brussels

> they kinda tried that in 1812

flint said he would support giving back land if dead leaders of those lands were alive. This has nothing to do with try or trying.

Whow, the old we saved your ass in WWII argument. I almost feel 14 again....

It's bad form to use their sacrifice in your arguments... But I guess a civie would care less.