Maybe he's copying what David Cameron did at putting it to the legislative body to make the final decision. It then removes any implications on him if the war goes terribly.
As I said in another debate, Obama's main concern now is probably his legacy and this war could make it or break it. Britain has just pulled out after Parliament voted against military action which had removed America's closest ally from the conflict, which could have reduced the legitimacy of the justification for war and made the American public very reluctant to go to war.
Additionally according to a recent poll only 9% of US citizens believe they should attack Syria.
"However, the United States of America is the only country on this planet that matters."
Fuck you.
"Screw the rest of the world's opinion's; you know, until our natural resources run out, in about twenty years... And then, um..... Hey world, we were young and going through a phase, um.. You forgave England for all the empire building. Give a brother nation a break."
At least when we went Empire building we actually built things, your Americans just destroy them.
"I've met two millionaires in my lifetime (that I can remember). One was white and the other is Cuban. Both live in America."
This is just a personal experience of yours and cannot be used to support any legitimate argument.
"Statistically, Asians take up the higher percentage of upper class in America."
Link to statistics?
"That is in regards to their heritage. They have a diverse background. Have you seen Uganda or Liberia? I wouldn't be suprised if they're 100% black."
Would you regard the French of Germans as different races? Because I'm sure they would, the same applies to the many African tribes with clearly different languages, cultures and heritages.
"I was reffering to racial diversity. Blacks, whites, hispanic, asian, etc,."
As I said previously, apart from the evidence I've provided there is no standardised way of measure diversity, so you cannot possibly prove that the U.S is the most diverse country.
"It seems to me like these countries became more diverse after Britain left. "
Many of the previous colonies actually became less diverse after British withdrawal. Uganda, under Idi Amin, had all Asians banished and commited actions of ethnic cleansing; South Africa had the Apartheid era; India is currently one of the least racially tolerant countries on the planet, even the USA and Canada had immigration policies in which no-one of Chinese descent could enter the country and all those who were in it lost their citizenship.
"Sure, they may have a bit of British blood in them now, but I don't think Britain is responsible for the diversity."
One of the reasons I believe these countries became so diverse was because many companies in the British Empire would encourage immigration between colonies. The British government were also very relaxed on religious views and allowed religious diversity.
However, if Obama is disliked at the moment a successful war could seriously boost his popularity and even leave him with a good legacy. I have a feeling that is all he needs to care about at the moment, since he cannot get re-elected he just wants to make sure he's remembered in a good light.
I find it amusing how much the American media is focused on this Miley Cyrus rubbish. Here in the UK, the BBC is practically doing live updates on the Syria issue, I wouldn't even have known of the "Miley Cyrus Meltdown" if it wasn't for the internet.
"Nope. The USA are too powerful. If any other country defied the UN and went to war anyway then they'd be heavily sanctioned and potential risk being the subject of military action themselves. But of course the USA can do whatever they want."
This will be the first time in recent years in which the U.S will have entered a military conflict without British military support, the UK is a member of the UN Security council and their absence may greatly reduce American influence there.
Also, in the recent discovery of the American NSA having infiltrated the United Nations, the UN may not go too easy on the USA this time around.
t's just another piece of propaganda, which I would recommend you ignore. It doesn't matter how much it agrees with your personal beliefs, the article just spouts random hate messages without backing it up with any sources or evidence.
"That's evidence that America wasn't the mixing pot."
And the fact that your upper classes are currently dominated by white people is evidence that America still isn't a mixing pot.
"You guys have the KKK too."
Not to the same extent you had and I would still like to stress that I've never claimed the UK to be the mixing pot of the world. I'm just disputing your claim that the USA is.
"It was a rhetorical statement. We have the largest racial diversity."
That's a laughable claim with no evidence to support it other than your own opinion.
According to Wikipedia, the most ethnically diverse nation on the planet is Uganda, followed by Liberia and Madagascar. The United States doesn't even appear in the top 50.
I'm sure you'll be surprised by this as was I, considering that Uganda has a history of acts of ethnic cleansing, specifically under Idi Amin. However, within the country itself there are several different tribes, each with their own cultures, languages and traditions which leads to the high rate of ethnic diversity.
Diversity not only includes race but also language and religion. For Language, Uganda is first again, and for Religion South Africa is highest. The closest the USA ever gets to the top is coming 2nd in religious diversity, though I'm sure that's due to your colossal amount of different denominations of Christianity.
However, an interesting point is that diversity is strongest in nations which had previously been under the sphere of influence of the British Empire, while Great Britain itself may not be the mixing pot of the world, the top ten of each list are dominated by previous British colonies. It could be argued that the reason why America has such a high rate of diversity (even though they have attempted to reduce it) is primarily due its past as a British territory,
"Proportionally, we aren't that different either. Whites are still the majority."
The reason we have a proportionally higher white presence in Government is due to the fact that we have a proportionally higher white population, the was the point I was trying to make. This does not excuse the fact that the US government is dominated by whites regardless of how little this may represent the racial diversity of the population.
"A state, not a country."
A state the size of a country, a state so powerful that if it were to become independent it would rank as one of the largest economies on the planet.
"Slavery in America started with the British. They were the first to settle in America and they had slaves shipped over with them."
It doesn't matter who started the slave trade in America, what matters is that it is clear evidence that the USA is not the melting pot of the world.
"Who started the slave trade? Not the United States!"
Who continued it several decades after the British had abolished it? Who, even after abolishing the slave trade, still had organisation such as the KKK committing actions of deep racial hatred and segregated their population according to the colour of their skin?
The United States, the same United States that you have the audacity to claim as the "mixing pot of the world".
"I hate to sound too repetitive, but we ARE the modern "mixing pot of the world". How can you deny that? Name a country who has a more diverse population than us."
I'm sure there are several, but I'm afraid that there is no standardised way of measuring diversity, and thus we cannot rank nations accurately.
"No, but you act like America isn't."
My original point was that America isn't.
"Your white population in 2011 was around 50 million. Our white population in 2010 was over 230 million. Unless the British population has significantly increased in two years and white births in America have slowed way down over the past three years, then I'm afraid you are wrong."
I meant in proportion to population, sorry if I hadn't made this clear.
"Which makes sense, does it not? Would you like an American to rule your country?"
Well, you're clearly happy that an Austrian is allowed to govern a state in your country.
He should have stayed in office and been impeached, put on trial and exposed for the tyrannical acts he committed. But instead he hopped out and got a Presidential pardon from his previous Vice President.
Clearly this is another example of the ridiculous amount of power Presidents get to abuse for their own personal gain.
"You can't stand us because of our past? Give me a break! Do you not realize the role Britain played in the slave trade?"
It's not your past I can't stand, it's the fact that with such a past you can possibly claim that your nation is the "mixing pot of the world". Yes, Britain took part in the slave trade (though to a lesser extent) but we certainly down claim the be the only country on the planet to have encouraged racial diversity throughout our existence.
"How can you disagree that America is the mixing pot of the world? Britain certainly isn't."
Did I ever claim Britain as the mixing pot of the world?
And even though my country may not be the "mixing pot of the world" it still doesn't make the USA, a nation which has openly been against accepting people of other races in the past, any more of a melting pot.
" Like you said, sure we have a black president... but has Britain ever had a black Prime Minister?"
Even though our Government may have more white people in it than yours, it is of a lesser concern as our country has more white people in it than yours.
"We actually have multiple prominent political figures who are black and many who are hispanic. "
Yes, you have some prominent black politicians, it doesn't change the statistics.
"Hell, we even had an Austrian governor!"
Who is not allowed to be President because he wasn't born in the USA.
"A lot of Brit's can't stand American pride... especially since we originally came from Britain, but what they fail to realize is that America is the mixing pot of the world"
See this is the part of American "pride" I can't stand. Mixing pot of the world? When your nation's history is full of slavery, segregation and racial abuse? What about the current growing population of Hispanic Americans who find themselves at the bottom of the economic pile due to more racial discrimination.
Sure, you have a black President, but 87% of Your congress is white, and I'm sure the billionaires in your highest earning 1% aren't a rainbow of colours either.
It depends how you measure the difference. When it comes to culture the U.S has a habit of portray America as an 'idea' and claiming that it stands for freedom, liberty, equality (etc). But if you look at the state of their nation, currently and throughout history, it quite often shows the exact opposite of what they apparently all believe in, this is my sole issue with the USA and the cause of my dislike of it.
But overall, the UK and US are similar in many aspects, I suppose that's why we have a "special relationship", and both nations are so diverse that where differences exist they are often within small minorities of the the populations.
Percussion instruments require a minimal amount of musical talent to play, compare to the piano which actually needs a lot of skill and practice to master.
Also, the piano was developed from the model of a harpsichord which was a string instrument.
If they were conspiring against America they could easily have done it within their own borders. They could also be conspiring against any other country on the planet but I doubt you'll find over 180 different intelligence organisations infiltrating the UN.
I'm satirising the original description, the verses quoted have been taken completely out of context and do not acknowledge the several guidelines proposed to husbands and the fact that they should care and take responsibility for their wives.
As you said the Bible also states opposite points of view, but that seems oblivious to the debate creator who seems to have nothing better to do with their time but make outrageous claims to provoke Christians into debate.
“The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance"-Adolph Hitler
After the war several other German generals expressed similar sentiments.
One of the main reasons Britain didn't react to this individual action was that German politicians claimed it as a defensive manoeuvre against the Franco-Soviet Pact. The British Government were proposing plans in 1936 to let the Germans militarise the Rhineland in exchange for giving up all territorial claims in Europe.
When Germany first militarised the Rhineland, their army was significantly weaker than both French and British Forces, to the extent that if the French had reacted the Germany army had orders to retreat at once.
One of them main reasons Britain and France didn't respond with military action was because they were under the impression that German forces were much larger than they actually were, as Hitler's many military rallies gave the illusion of a large army.
I just looked it up on Wikipedia and I'm sure it states that the French were defeated.
When debating this we must consider that we're looking on the matter with hindsight.
At the time, the financially and militarily weak Germany was seen as a minor threat compared to the colossal communist state that was Russia. Britain especially was worried about increasing Marxist and Socialist influences within Western Europe, allowing Germany to grow more powerful would create a "buffer zone" between Western Europe and the USSR, many people actually approved Hitler coming to power because he was so anti-communist.
Another reason for letting Germany grow was due to trade, before the First World War, Germany was Britain's second largest trading partner. The financially weak post-war British Empire needed to regain economic power quickly, allowing Germany to regain industrial strength supported that cause, especially since Britain had to repay war loans to the U.S.
Also, Hitler just got lucky. The timing of his initial expansion into the Rhineland coincided with French elections, thus none of the French political candidates wanted to declare war even though it was all turned out to be just a big bluff.
The League of Nations, which was proposed by the U.S president, was militarily weak because the U.S and U.S.S.R never joined, leaving the British and French Empires, whom had just suffered heavily losses, to try manage things and nullifying the military action sanction that the League of Nations had. The U.S also undermined the League of Nations' trading sanctions, when a trade embargo of oil was issued against Italy to halt their expansion in Africa, America continued to sell them oil. With both military and trading sanctions made redundant, the League of Nations was only left with verbal sanctions, which were just laughed off by the offending nations.
Another incident which occurred at Versailles was the creation of many small Eastern European States, one of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points, bearing in mind that Wilson was the first American President to go to Europe. These smaller nations were very weak and conflicts also immediately arose after the war because of the division of different races between these states. These small nations were easy pickings when in came around to Nazi and Communist expansion.
But even if we hadn't had appeasement and the Second World War as we know it did not occur, who's to say that it couldn't have happened inevitably?
Churchill had wanted an immediate march on Russia as soon as WWII ended to halt the spread of communism, but this was prevented due to the heavy losses from WWII.
If the atomic bombs hadn't been used in WWII would they have been used in the Cold War?
Just because appeasement failed to prevent World War II doesn't mean no appeasement could have prevented an even greater war at a later date.
"In WWI the war was at a stand still, we just broke that stand still. In WWII, it was not very clear who was going to win the war until 1943, until then, most leaders we would have to come to some sort of agreement with the Axis."
After joining in 1917 (halfway through the war), the United States only partook in handful of battles, and weren't vital to their success either. Even before you joined the war we were already recapturing territories.
"The UK had a total of 450,900 deaths. The US had a total of 418,500. Now as I also remember,"
Now, if we look at those deaths in proportion to population, the UK had a significantly higher contribution and thus a significantly higher loss. Britain also suffered attempts at direct invasion and had lost a lot of infrastructure and industry to the war. As I said, you Americans cannot possibly compare your loss to ours.
"it was the US that bailed the UK out and supplied them with weaponry."
Which we've only just finished paying for, we were the ones who suffered the major cost of the war, you Americans saw to that.
"Because the British Empire totally won both world wars all by themselves."
I didn't say we won all our wars by ourselves, you Americans just like to hop aboard the our side when you realise that we're winning.
Anyway, my point was that America has yet to win a war by itself.
"I'd say conquering 1/4th of the world and creatign the most powerful military over 500 years and then being reduced to a nation the size of Michigan with a few islands that are essentially just resorts for fat tourists counts as losing something..."
Well some countries had to bear the cost of fighting 2 World Wars, but then again you Americans wouldn't understand that...
How on Earth could the USA have survived on its own if Britain had fallen?
If Britain had fallen, Germany would have been able to concentrate all their forces on their Russian invasion, allowing them to successfully invade before the winter had occurred, ultimately giving them Western Russia, the Balkans and several other eastern European nations. Japan would probably gain East Russia and a few more countries over there. After the British and French had fallen Italy would probably have gone to sweep up most of the colonies and territories in North Africa and the Middle East, obtain vital resources such as oil.
Now let's suppose that these 3 empires decided not to invade North America at this point (though they had good reason to), USA would still have a huge problem in that they have hardly any trading partners and that they've lent out huge sums of money to the French and British which they now wont get back, the reason America got out of the Great Depression was because they were able to develop their industry and the government could hire lots of unemployed people when they joined the Second World War, if Britain had fallen the USA would still be in a depression.
Overall, even if the US weren't crushed through military invasion, they would still be destroyed economically.
A few arguments ago you said "If the UK fell, the US wouldn't have fallen.".
Now it appears that you're arguing 'If the UK fell, but gave the majority of their resources, colonies and armaments, while joining the French in actively fighting against the Nazis, the US wouldn't have fallen."
Which I suppose I can agree with.
Blacks as a race in America have had a uniquely difficult time, they were victims of slavery, the KKK and several decades of racism after that. I cannot possibly see how you can claim that their victimisation throughout history based solely on their colour is comparable to that of the white race.
If you're currently profiting from them, then yes. However it does depend on the authority administering the punishment, if you learned that your ancestors had made all their money from the arms industry and that is why you're currently a billionaire, then I suppose it is only fair that you try to reduce your wealth by significant amounts, like set up a charity or something.
I think if you read it again, you'll notice that it says Asian, woman President. i think he was just saying that America needs an Asian and a woman as President before diversity can truly be achieved.
i understand that in read the argument quickly you could have misread it, I think it would be fair to blame it on the fact that Nox failed to put a comma after "asian", a grammatical error.
Well, I hope your country doesn't mind pissing off the European Union with this little espionage fiasco of yours.
"Canada would have had no choice. Germany would have made them a target since Canada would still be at war with them, Mexico is iffy, but that's why I said maybe."
I still fail to see how you can claim that the USA and Canada could have defeated the Japanese and German forces "with ease".
"Yes, you can cross the Atlantic with boats. But, Germany didn't have a super large navy compared to Japan, and I don't think they had aircraft carriers either. America would be able to just bomb them to oblivion. No German air support, no invasion."
They seemed to pass by your naval escorts with their U-boats quite easily.
"No German air support, no invasion."
Why would Germany not have any air support?
"If the Axis had waited, they still wouldn't have been able to. Germany wouldn't have recruited a large amount of soldiers in their occupied territories because having a whole bunch of ticked and angry soldiers would not make a good army"
I think you'll find that Hitler and the Nazi's had a way of persuading people to fight for their cause even if they didn't believe in it.
"They could field an army of maybe several million. Plus Japan's couple million, against a several million manned army and 200 million plus armed citizenry. Pretty good odds for America."
You're literally making up statistics on the spot and using these fantasy facts to support your argument.
If the British Empire had fallen then there would be a huge amount of resources at the Axis' disposal, Ports in East Asia, Middle East with all its oil (etc.)
"Yeah since those two questions you've asked now have been answered already"
You still haven't answer my 2 recent questions.
"I won't be repeating myself except in the sense that those questions are bad and you should feel bad. Again"
So you say that you won't repeat yourself, and then you repeat yourself...
"Both did. Eisenhower with Montgomery and Morgan. It was a British plan, used with American experience in landings in the Pacific, Africa, and Italy. Duel credit is due."
America failed miserably on D-Day, their generals launched the amphibious tanks too early (in a clear defiance of British orders) causing the majority of them to sink. Then the American airstrike missed the German defences on the beach by 3 miles.
If you compare casualties,
the American 'Omaha Beach' lost 3,000 soldiers; whereas the British/French 'Sword Beach' lost under 700 soldiers; the Canadian 'Juno Beach' lost under 400, British 'Gold Beach' lost 400 soldiers and the British/American 'Utah Beach' lost only 200 soldiers (though there were fewer German defences there).
"I know America didn't win every battle, but the British forces suffered many defeats that prevented them from taking over the entire colony. Saratoga, Washington's Christmas attack, the Carolina campaign, and Yorktown were won with American troops in the lead. Spain really didn't do much. They just annoyed Britain."
If you're saying that Spain "annoyed" Britain, then you might as well just say that the American colonies were 'annoying' Britain. You cannot deny that if the American rebels didn't have support from other nations that they couldn't have won the war.
"The same applies for the War of 1812. Though the Candadian invasion was botched up, most of the land battles were claimed by the Americans. Even though the war never produced any physical effect in land or power for America, it was a victory more for America because it united the country more than the past, made the British take notice of American naval power, and showed that any European encroachment in the Americas was a threat (later creating the Monroe Doctrine). It didn't benefit the British in any way and hurt their naval pride, but the Canadians won't stop reminding us that they think they won, even though their invasion also failed."
Britain immediately stopped caring about the War of 1812, because they then went on to defeat Napoleon at Trafalgar.
"Your navy may have been able to stop a NAVAL invasion, but not necessarily an air one. "
We did stop an air invasion...
"Granted, invading Russia was an error on Germany's part because it focused attention away from Britain. If Germany never invaded Russia, they would have eventually come knocking on the Queen's door. "
The invasion of Russia is not the variable we are discussing, its whether WWII could have been won without American support. Of course, if Hitler hadn't hated communism, hadn't invaded Russia and decided to invade Great Britain (a country he admired) then maybe he would have succeeded. Likewise, if France or Britain had decided to attack Germany when they aggressively militarised the Rhineland, WWII would never have happened.
"They would have been able to take Britain over by air if they really committed the resources to it. "
As I said previously, Battle of Britain.
"Plus, Goering was being a hard-ass and not thinking like a soldier."
Neither was Hitler.
" But because of Russia and Germany dragging America into the war (and Goering's stupidity), Britain still speaks the Queen's English."
What? How can you claim that Britain could only have been lost to Germany if Hitler hadn't decided to invade Russia, and then claim that Britain's success in repelling invasion was down to America (who only joined after Britain had defeated Germany in the Battle of Britain).
"If the UK fell, the US wouldn't have fallen. Canada, the US, and maybe Mexico, would have united their forces to defend North America. "
Sorry, you're suggesting that British Canada and Nazi-influenced Mexico would have immediately sided with the USA if Britain had fallen in WWII?
"Japan and Germany would have never been able to get troops across the Atlantic and even if they somehow did,"
Boats?
"the North American military plus the hundreds of millions of armed citizenry would have beat back any invasion with ease."
That's only if Germany and Japan had attacked instantly, if they had waited a few months and built up their resources then that USA would be facing a war with the whole of Europe and East Asia, not including the British colonies,
"First in the Revolution, we did beat Britain in the battles, and the French gave us Naval support! "
Actually, the French gave you everything, money, arms, uniforms, ammunition, etc. The Spanish and Dutch gave you naval support.
" Then during the War of 1812. Scared the British navy, and slaughtered them on the Great Lakes and New Orleans."
We were busy fighting Napoleon, then when we did bother to fight you were burned down your capital. Also, the main reason you declared war was to try conquer Canada (which you couldn't do) I fail to see how you can conclude it as an American victory.
"I'm not saying they didn't bore the brunt of the war, they did, but I really do think that without support from the US, Britain would have succumbed to Germany. We gave them money, planes (and pilots), tanks, ships, and arms. Without that Britain would be speaking German. Britain may have had a more powerful navy, but you guys were spread thin across your empire, and the Germans would have concentrated it more locally. And even if the navy prevented a landing, Germany would have taken to the air and either bombed the navy or just airlifted the army over the channel."
Which war are you talking about, in WWI, American assistance wasn't vital to winning the war and you only joined in when we started to win. In WWII, even when you weren't supporting us the Germans still failed to invade Britain in the Battle of Britain.
Also, you're just randomly speculating. Nazi Germany had very little military power which was also spread thin across the whole of Europe. Thanks to British secret operations, we managed to trick the Nazis into thinking we were attacking in random places, and we also had the gigantic USSR on our side, who successfully defeated the Nazi's on their own front.
"Actually, there WERE white slaves as well as black slaves.
In addition, a large number of europeans came over to the US as Indentured Servants, agreeing to work unpaid for a certain period of time in exchange for passage. Many of these ended up essentially becoming de facto slaves as their 'sponsors' levied additional charges upon them. There wasn't really any legal framework for them to seek help with either.
Know your history!"
Those "slaves" were not made slaves solely because of the colour of their skin.
"Sorry to dispute you so many times but it really pisses me off that Europeans (mainly) for the most part out of all other countries look down upon americans as the scum of the earth, is it really wrong that we wanted to break away from tyranny and oppression?"
What tyranny and oppression?
"Because we didn't want to live under a monarchy?"
Who's "we"? The 1/3 minority of American colonists who actually wanted to rebel?
"Yeah your nation is better than what America currently has become, but at Americas zenith you have to admit our ideology was and is the best, even though most of our country is brainwashed, it is not their faults, it is the leaders of the world who are ruining everyone, America just happens to be a backbone of the world economy"
This is the most idiotic, nationalist rubbish that I've seen for a long while, please explain how America is apparently the "backbone" of world economy? Or how you're ideology of freedom, equality and democracy actually means your country has freedom, equality or democracy?
