164 replies to this topic

[taikara]

Triton, on Jul 10 2005, 01:23 AM, said:

If the Americans were much more supportive of the war, America could have focused its full attention to Vietnam and would have had the manpower and home front support to win.

I won't contradict the fact that many Americans didn't support the Vietnam "conflict" (it's not actually considered a full fledged war in the books), at least not after a while when it became obvious it wouldn't be an easy victory.

However... a draft was imposed during Vietnam, and the conflict dragged on for 29 years. How much more focused can you possibly get?

Our soldiers were getting their butts kicked out there, our standard military training wasn't nearly prepared enough for the guerilla tactics or the conditions involved in Vietnam. Most soldiers didn't even know what the hell they were doing out there, and many of them simply went insane from the torture of just being there.

Have you ever actually talked to a Vietnam vet? It's quite the experience.

[PrejudiceSucks]

Yeah, umm... Triton - What?

Vietnam was not dumped in your lap, you chose to get involved with it. You were probably just paying the French back for, essentially, saving your arses in your War of Independence.

Also, maybe, say, 150 years ago we would get taught that the americans were given their freedom. Now we learn that it was a pointless war.

The problem with the american army is that they have enormous pride after their efforts in WW2. Fine, they fought well, I grant you, especially in Crete, one of the bitterest warzones, but one that many forget.

But then this pride caused them to get the wrong end of the stick and think that the world loves them. We don't, it's sad to say, but american arrogance, many would call it that, is their downfall.

I am sure that there are nice people in America, but all you ever hear on the TV is Americans who want to destroy Islam and basically think that the 'morals' that Dubya has let them keep are great. No, they aren't.

What are the 'morals' that he has shown the Americans?

"And the moral of the story is - invade Muslim countries with oil/potential for pipelines (they're building them in Afghanistan) and be damned with the consequences."

You'll be lucky if Iraq only drags on for 29 years, I tell you. Some countries, like that one, could only be ruled basically by fear. There are about 10 different ethnic groups, all of which hate each other.

Seriously, he could have called nerve-gassing the Kurds an 'attack on terror', they have been an absolute pain in the arse in that region pretty much forever, especially since they were given money and arms by the Americans in return for their obidience.

You can't get involved with situations like that, nobody can. Now America is trying to force piece in Isreal and Palestine. Their thoughts are reasonably noble, but the whole of that region has been fighting for about, say, 6000 years. It's even mentioned in the Old Testament, if you're into that. Isreal has to be very aggressive, because they've claimed a large piece of land on religious grounds. I don't really see why they can claim it on the grounds that it's their 'Promised land'.

If so, I'm an atheist, can I inherite Russia now? No, that would just be stupid. Nobody would agree to that.

As soon as the Isrealis turn their backs, they will probably get attacked by Libya, Syria and a few others who don't like their presence and have basically taken no *crapola* for the whole time they've been in that region.

If you ask me, the only way to solve the problem is to burn the Gaza Strip and salt the earth, so that they don't have to fight over the only good land in 1000 miles, due to it not being any good anymore.

@ Tai

Invading the USA would not be hard, you may think that your populace is hardened, but if you compare them to, say, those of Syria or even Ireland then they are wimps. They now have very little support in the world. Australia and the UK are their only supporters and I tell you now that about 95% of the UK particuarly dislikes the USA, mainly because of their stupid choice in leader (again).

To be honest, if the USA steps one foot out of line then pretty much the whole of Europe, a fair proportion of Africa, some of South America, Korea for starters in Asia, maybe Japan too (I doubt China will get involved but you're absolutely screwed if they do, same goes for India), a lot of the middle east and maybe Australia are going to get you. Not even American pride can get out of that. About a billion pissed off soldiers versus your populace, a large proportion in the South, of which are unable to hold a gun or run away?

A massacre.

And I have seen an excellent series called The Men Who Stared At Goats, about something called the First Earth Battalion, who were US soldiers who thought that they could turn themselves into Psychic Warrior-Monks. There is some great footage of people having planks smashed on their backs, only to turn around and knock people out in one blow to the head.

Their problem was that they took it too far. One of them claimed that he could survive a jeep rolling over him. He did, several times, until a new private drove the jeep and didn't realise that he had to slow down a bit when he went over this captain and he killed him.

They then went on to say that it was claimed that this captian was killed when his Huey helecopter was shot down in Vietnam.

He himself saw him get crushed by a jeep.

The guy they were interviewing was an ex-Lieutenant-Colonel, who was possibly the strangest person I could imagine seeing, especially on TV. As he said, when the interviewer asked him why he looked nothing like his imagination of a Lieutenant-Colonel in the US Army, he said "because you've seen far too many movies who know nothing about us, especially the ones like me who were in Vietnam".

[taikara]

PrejudiceSucks, on Jul 10 2005, 09:56 AM, said:

Invading the USA would not be hard, you may think that your populace is hardened, but if you compare them to, say, those of Syria or even Ireland then they are wimps. They now have very little support in the world. Australia and the UK are their only supporters and I tell you now that about 95% of the UK particuarly dislikes the USA, mainly because of their stupid choice in leader (again).

...

I'll agree with that. But there's one flaw that I can see. Culturally, Europe is still way too diverse to get along, that's why you have the issues in Ireland and Syria. Historically (in general), Europeans can't agree on anything, that's why so many wars have originated there.

If you really think a lot of hardened individuals with political issues in their own countries are going to want to be transplanted into a fight with the US, I think you have another thing coming.

Americans, historically, have been peacekeepers. Generally speaking, conflicts consistently don't start with America, they end with America's involvement. You are absolutely right that pride is our downfall, and that is what has led us to the point we are at now, and the point we were at in the Vietnam Conflict. However, we don't have a problem with a unified America, we've been unified since the beginning - thus the name "The United States of America."

Sure, the rest of the world may absolutely hate us, but the rest of the world also has their own issues. A war with the US would be ridiculously costly, and what is the point of attacking us? We're a democracy, not a dictatorship, and the evil leader we currently have will be gone in 3 years. I think you completely ignored my point that it would make any nation(s) that undertook such a thing no more moral than George W. Bush himself.

Not to mention that if the EU does actually come into being (as a world power), it still doesn't give you the strategical upperhand to attack us, it just makes Europe slightly more defensible.

What is far more likely to occur is that the EU will impost economic sanctions against the US as political ballast. That's how civilized first world countries resolve disputes, long before an invasion will ever be considered.

Quote

To be honest, if the USA steps one foot out of line then pretty much the whole of Europe, a fair proportion of Africa, some of South America, Korea for starters in Asia, maybe Japan too (I doubt China will get involved but you're absolutely screwed if they do, same goes for India), a lot of the middle east and maybe Australia are going to get you. Not even American pride can get out of that. About a billion pissed off soldiers versus your populace, a large proportion in the South, of which are unable to hold a gun or run away?

A massacre.

I really have to wonder, if when you write this, you are pleased by the idea of the rest of the world's military massacring the more defenseless of our citizens in the course of an attempted invasion of the US.

I have to say, it doesn't speak well of you if you are.

[DeathDude]

With the whole idea of invading the U.S and that it would merely be something very easy, it wouldn't happen it just wouldn't make sense, why would you do it, like Tai has mentioned not like it's a dictatorship or anything, and even if they step out of line, is something like the EU really willing to go to war over something like this. Look at it this way, let's say the EU does attack the states, how about supplying troops and such with supplies, you've got a freakin ocean dividing the two continents, it wouldn't be easy to be able to fight a prolonged war or anything.

Oh and you say what about Canada helping, well I seriously doubt that Canada would get involved in such a war against the states, number 1 it wouldn't be smart, since we're neighbours with the states and they could just bomb the crap out of us. As for South America, they've got their own problems most of the conteninent and I seriously doubt they would get involved in such an effort.

It just wouldn't work when it boils down to it, the U.S has a large population, and some of the best military techonolgy as well, heck stuff we don't even know about, would the world really risk lives to take down one country, the answer is more than likely no.

[Microprose Veteran]

Like I said, instead of pointlessly discussing invading America,

let's go watch "Red Dawn" instead. That movie makes about as much sense as this discussion.

[PrejudiceSucks]

I don't imagine that killing everyone in the USA would be a good idea, no way. I just think that there are some people there that need to be removed, especially those with a great amount of power and a small amount of intelligence.

Why would I want to kill everyone in the USA?

[taikara]

I just wondered, because you seemed unusually enthusiastic about the idea of an invasion of America. That warmongering type of attitude is typically associated with Americans, hehe. But after your last post, I suppose you were mostly enthusiastic about supporting your arguments.

Also - don't believe everything you see in the media regarding American support of the president's ideals. If you recall, George W. Bush only won this last election by a slight majority.

The media here, and apparently in Europe as well, is notorious for slightly skewing facts in order to boost ratings and influence popular public opinion.

[Microprose Veteran]

The major commercial media networks, as well as in the States as in Europe, are in the same hands. Like Rupert Murdoch.

Non-commercial (independent) news is PBS in America I think and several in Europe. The BBC is a prime example.

[DeathDude]

Yup similar situation up here in Canada, practically all the newspapers, well the major ones anyways, are owned by the company canwest, so occasionly you'll get the article in a paper that's the same across every paper so just gotta be careful and judgemental when your reading and watching in the media nowadays anyway.

[Flop]

An invasion of USA would surely fail. Proof:



(I'm not sure if this movie deals with terrorists only, since I've not actually seen it. If it does, see Red Dawn, which Microprose Veteran is also referring too)

Anyway, kidding aside, why haven't anyone mentioned nuclear weapons yet? I seriously doubt any nation would ever attack another nation, which has nuclear weapons. Much less a nation which is capable of deploying both long distance nuclear attacks, and also has a bunch of nuclear submarines sailing around, just waiting to fire those missiles.

And why would Europe attack USA? Because we don't like Bush? Wars are never declared solely on the basis of notions of morality and justice, and European countries are, in fact, exploiting the world too (maybe not as much as USA, but that's most likely because USA is more capable of doing it, at the moment). Okay, so USA has pretty much proved that a lot of money can be made (privately) from waging war, but it seems to me that if Europe was to go to war, just to make money from that war, we would probably a (much!) weaker country.

Triton, on Jul 9 2005, 02:06 AM, said:

I'm sure that with the coming European economic golden age Europe will have more than enough manpower and industry to construct a military comparable to that of America.

Europe already has both the manpower and the industry to create such a military. But I agree with MPV, the next superpower will most likely be China (so sayeth the wise men).

Triton, on Jul 9 2005, 05:07 AM, said:

DakaSha, on Jul 9 2005, 01:30 AM, said:

Triton your basicaly saying that we suck because we are becoming STRONGER than the US. Thats just plain messed up man. your just going to have to accept the fact that all great nations fall at some time ot another...

Just because nations fall doesn't mean USA has to this century.  What are you, an anarchist?

Well, I'm a pinko commie bastard, and I believe that USA will indeed loose its status as sole superpower this century (remember, there are 95 years to go), but I don't know if it will "fall", as in cease to exist.

Triton, on Jul 9 2005, 05:07 AM, said:

Britain's drugging of China alone was far worse than all of the atrocities Americans have done to the Native Americans and the Japanese-Americans.

Really? You think so? I don't, but that doesn't mean that I don't consider Britains  opium business in China an atrocity. This is a bit hard to debate, though, since it is, to a large extent, a matter of opinion, but most (if not all) countries have committed (or do commit) atrocities, so it's a bit difficult to be nationalistic about it.

On the topic of the Vietnam war:

It's my understanding that the Vietnam war started in 1965, after the tonkin bay incident (which was AFAIK later proven to be just an excuse for USA to attack North Vietnam), although there was already a civil war going on at the time (I think), which USA was quite heavily, if not directly, involved in. As you may be able to tell, I don't know too much about this, so I may be wrong.

However, I do know that the war ended with USA pulling out, and North and South Vietnam uniting into one communist nation. I'd say that it's pretty clear that USA lost and Vietnam won (although the country and the population was obviously severely damaged).

taikara, on Jul 10 2005, 08:25 PM, said:

The media here, and apparently in Europe as well, is notorious for slightly skewing facts in order to boost ratings and influence popular public opinion.

True, true, but all media does this to a certain extent. Noone is capable of being completely, one hundred percent objective, and as far as I can see very few newspapers, tv stations, etc even try to be completely objective.

The worst by far I've seen, though, is Fox News. I've never, ever seen anything like it. It's like the twilight zone, and I've begun to watch O'reilly daily now, for the amusement (and the feeling of self righteous indignation he gives me ).

IMO source criticism is the first thing that should be taught in school. Unfortunately many people don't even seem to grasp the concept.

In closing I'd like to say two things:

1) I'm against the EU, too, as I'm against any union of countries that seek to get richer on the expense of others. Now, a European Socialist Union, that's something I'd like to see.

2) I'm sorry to digging up so many topics that were already left, but I did feel that I had something to add to them. Also, I'm sorry for making such a long post, which will no doubt be a boring read, but I couldn't help it. I'm also sorry for bringing socialism into it, but at least that part of my post isn't off topic (I think).

[Triton]

PrejudiceSucks, on Jul 10 2005, 09:56 AM, said:

Yeah, umm... Triton - What?

Vietnam was not dumped in your lap, you chose to get involved with it. You were probably just paying the French back for, essentially, saving your arses in your War of Independence.

America paid it back 10-fold in WWII.  If America didn't rescue France, France would have been enslaved.  If France didn't help America, the colonists just would have been pressed harder and harder.

PrejudiceSucks said:

Also, maybe, say, 150 years ago we would get taught that the americans were given their freedom. Now we learn that it was a pointless war.

You watch the news too much.  Come visit America and see what we're REALLY like.  Oh, wait.  You can't do that because then you just might find out that we're much different from what you see on TV.

PrejudiceSucks said:

The problem with the american army is that they have enormous pride after their efforts in WW2. Fine, they fought well, I grant you, especially in Crete, one of the bitterest warzones, but one that many forget.

But then this pride caused them to get the wrong end of the stick and think that the world loves them. We don't, it's sad to say, but american arrogance, many would call it that, is their downfall.

So if Britain won the war without America's help, they wouldn't have been half as proud?

PrejudiceSucks said:

I am sure that there are nice people in America, but all you ever hear on the TV is Americans who want to destroy Islam and basically think that the 'morals' that Dubya has let them keep are great. No, they aren't.

What are the 'morals' that he has shown the Americans?

"And the moral of the story is - invade Muslim countries with oil/potential for pipelines (they're building them in Afghanistan) and be damned with the consequences."

I've yet to meet an American who thinks about Islam in such a way.  

The social morals Bush would like Americans to follow (ie death with dignity, absitnence instead of protection, marriage instead of concubinism, adoption instead of abortion, etc) are all well and good, but too many people watched "Sex in the City" to agree with him.

PrejudiceSucks said:

You'll be lucky if Iraq only drags on for 29 years, I tell you. Some countries, like that one, could only be ruled basically by fear. There are about 10 different ethnic groups, all of which hate each other.

The duration of the current war in Iraq depends on the leader.  Both Kerry and the Libertarian Party have expressed ideas to end the war much sooner.  The Libertarians propose to recude the number of American troops in Iraq each month for 12 months, when all the soldiers would be out.  This would be followed by extensive relief aid, reparations forgiveness, and other assistance as deemed necessary.  Unfortunately, the Libertarians have very little power because they aren't servicing the corporations (in more ways than one) like the Democrats and Republicans.

PrejudiceSucks said:

Seriously, he could have called nerve-gassing the Kurds an 'attack on terror', they have been an absolute pain in the arse in that region pretty much forever, especially since they were given money and arms by the Americans in return for their obidience.

Actually, America gave Saddam the gas with which he gassed the Kurds. *Flame removed by Beef*

PrejudiceSucks said:

You can't get involved with situations like that, nobody can. Now America is trying to force piece in Isreal and Palestine. Their thoughts are reasonably noble, but the whole of that region has been fighting for about, say, 6000 years. It's even mentioned in the Old Testament, if you're into that. Isreal has to be very aggressive, because they've claimed a large piece of land on religious grounds. I don't really see why they can claim it on the grounds that it's their 'Promised land'.

America seeks a united middle east where Palestinians and Israellites live together in peace.  At least, that's what the government tells us they want.

Prejudice Sucks said:

If so, I'm an atheist, can I inherite Russia now? No, that would just be stupid. Nobody would agree to that.

You inherited America.  Why do you want Russia?

PrejudiceSucks said:

If you ask me, the only way to solve the problem is to burn the Gaza Strip and salt the earth, so that they don't have to fight over the only good land in 1000 miles, due to it not being any good anymore.

*Flame removed by Beef*Remember that Jerusalem is a sacred city to people of three religions.

Prejudice Sucks said:

Invading the USA would not be hard, you may think that your populace is hardened, but if you compare them to, say, those of Syria or even Ireland then they are wimps. They now have very little support in the world. Australia and the UK are their only supporters and I tell you now that about 95% of the UK particuarly dislikes the USA, mainly because of their stupid choice in leader (again).

To be honest, if the USA steps one foot out of line then pretty much the whole of Europe, a fair proportion of Africa, some of South America, Korea for starters in Asia, maybe Japan too (I doubt China will get involved but you're absolutely screwed if they do, same goes for India), a lot of the middle east and maybe Australia are going to get you. Not even American pride can get out of that. About a billion pissed off soldiers versus your populace, a large proportion in the South, of which are unable to hold a gun or run away?

A massacre.

And you say Americans are war-mongers?  All hail king hypocrite.  I've said elsewhere that there is no need for any country to invade America simply because of how the government works.

PrejudiceSucks said:

And I have seen an excellent series called The Men Who Stared At Goats, about something called the First Earth Battalion, who were US soldiers who thought that they could turn themselves into Psychic Warrior-Monks. There is some great footage of people having planks smashed on their backs, only to turn around and knock people out in one blow to the head.

Their problem was that they took it too far. One of them claimed that he could survive a jeep rolling over him. He did, several times, until a new private drove the jeep and didn't realise that he had to slow down a bit when he went over this captain and he killed him.

They then went on to say that it was claimed that this captian was killed when his Huey helecopter was shot down in Vietnam.

He himself saw him get crushed by a jeep.

The guy they were interviewing was an ex-Lieutenant-Colonel, who was possibly the strangest person I could imagine seeing, especially on TV. As he said, when the interviewer asked him why he looked nothing like his imagination of a Lieutenant-Colonel in the US Army, he said "because you've seen far too many movies who know nothing about us, especially the ones like me who were in Vietnam".

You watch too many movies and take them all too seriously.

Death Dude said:

With the whole idea of invading the U.S and that it would merely be something very easy, it wouldn't happen it just wouldn't make sense, why would you do it, like Tai has mentioned not like it's a dictatorship or anything, and even if they step out of line, is something like the EU really willing to go to war over something like this. Look at it this way, let's say the EU does attack the states, how about supplying troops and such with supplies, you've got a freakin ocean dividing the two continents, it wouldn't be easy to be able to fight a prolonged war or anything.

The Navy can attack any point on the Earth's surface within two hours with more firepower than ever used in history.  I'm sure potential invaders will think twice before threatening to invade, lest their homelands be incinerated.  Besides, considering how much the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are monitored (as are the rest of the world), I'm sure the Navy will interdict any assault by sea before they have a chance to land or (at the very least) initiate air assaults.

PrejudiceSucks said:

Why would I want to kill everyone in the USA?

That's right.  You need slave labor.

Taikara said:

Also - don't believe everything you see in the media regarding American support of the president's ideals. If you recall, George W. Bush only won this last election by a slight majority.

Also consider that Kerry wouldn't have been a much better choice anyway, and the other parties don't have the corporate support that the Democratic and Republican parties have simply because they don't believe in working in the best interests of the corporations.  Heck, I'd join the Libertarian Party right now if I could afford to part with the yearly dues.

Microprose Veteran said:

Non-commercial (independent) news is PBS in America I think and several in Europe. The BBC is a prime example.

We also have NPR, but they spend a lot of time trying to get listeners to pledge money to keep them running.

Flop said:

Well, I'm a pinko commie bastard, and I believe that USA will indeed loose its status as sole superpower this century (remember, there are 95 years to go), but I don't know if it will "fall", as in cease to exist.

Why should a good thing be allowed to end?

Edited by BeefontheBone, 11 July 2005 - 07:46 PM.

[BeefontheBone]

Quote

The social morals Bush would like Americans to follow (ie death with dignity, absitnence instead of protection, marriage instead of concubinism, adoption instead of abortion, etc) are all well and good, but too many people watched "Sex in the City" to agree with him.

Ah, so that's where I get my morals and values from. And there was me thinking that taking the life of another human against their will was wrong, but that helping them to die (euthanasia/assisted suicide) was an entirely different matter (how's that for "dying with dignity"? - Bush sure doesn't see it that way), that there's nothing whatsoever wrong with sex, that it's everyone's right to decide whether or not they have sex and children, and when, that there's no harm in (safe, consenting) sex before marriage and that banning abortion will lead to MORE children needing to be adopted, but now it turns out it's all down to a TV show. That's probably why I'm a bit fem, too I suppose - too much Will & Grace? Too many Queer Eyes for the Straight Guy? A life of abstinence, moral indignance and evangelism in the deep South is surely the only answer. Goodbye forever, folks - computer games are evil!

[Doubler]

Quote

Why can't America and Europe unite and form a new supercountry devoted to keeping the peace and helping the third world countries flourish?

Because Europe and America are way too different in cultures and attitudes.
(Sorry for the late reply)

Quote

So if Britain won the war without America's help, they wouldn't have been half as proud?

You recognise that America didn't win the war by itself. Why would Americans be more proud of the victory achieved?
Just curious.

Quote

America seeks a united middle east where Palestinians and Israellites live together in peace.

And eventually form the "Federation of Middle-East Country's", which you can worry about
Sorry for this.

Quote

Why should a good thing be allowed to end?

Because it isn't good at all. Or because it is in a dangerous decline. Perhaps because it could be better.

[Flop]

Triton, on Jul 11 2005, 05:01 AM, said:

Why should a good thing be allowed to end?

IMO it's not good, but that doesn't really matter. The real question is what can anyone do to avoid that end. Nothing, really, I think.

[Triton]

BeefontheBone, on Jul 11 2005, 08:31 AM, said:

Quote

The social morals Bush would like Americans to follow (ie death with dignity, absitnence instead of protection, marriage instead of concubinism, adoption instead of abortion, etc) are all well and good, but too many people watched "Sex in the City" to agree with him.

Ah, so that's where I get my morals and values from. And there was me thinking that taking the life of another human against their will was wrong, but that helping them to die (euthanasia/assisted suicide) was an entirely different matter (how's that for "dying with dignity"? - Bush sure doesn't see it that way), that there's nothing whatsoever wrong with sex, that it's everyone's right to decide whether or not they have sex and children, and when, that there's no harm in (safe, consenting) sex before marriage and that banning abortion will lead to MORE children needing to be adopted, but now it turns out it's all down to a TV show. That's probably why I'm a bit fem, too I suppose - too much Will & Grace? Too many Queer Eyes for the Straight Guy? A life of abstinence, moral indignance and evangelism in the deep South is surely the only answer. Goodbye forever, folks - computer games are evil!

I recommend you look at this without considering religion.  Are some of the things people do really all that practical?  Just because certain things are popular doesn't mean they are good in the long run.  50 years ago, when Americans had higher moral standards, divorce was rare and scandalous, and children grew up in good homes.  Then along came the free sex movement and the feminist movement, and as a result, 1 in 2 American marriages end in divorce, and Europe is being taken down with it.  The children suffer because of the bad decisions of their parents.  I grew up with many kids whose parents divorced; most of the time it wasn't easy, and they grew up tired of life and unmotivated to improve themselves.  Most of them, if they went to college, didn't get very far.

There is nothing wrong with video games--that myth was perpetuated by the Protestants.

And for suicide, if people are allowed to choose when they die when they are seniors, then what's the point of trying to stop anyone else from killing themselves?  Suffering is meant to be part of the human existance; we live to suffer and reproduce.  Dying with dignity as Bush sees it is dying with all flags flying, while suicide is no different from surrender.  The illnesses and problems seniors face WANT them to die, not live, so why let them win easily?

Doubler said:

You recognise that America didn't win the war by itself. Why would Americans be more proud of the victory achieved? blink.gif
Just curious.

Because the other countries couldn't have won without us.  If it wasn't for FDR manipulating the Japanese and allowing them to bomb Pearl Harbor, Hitler would have conquered Britain, killed all of the Jews in Europe, and mustered enough manpower to launch another campaign against Russia--in the Spring.  And even if Britain and Russia did manage to hold him off, he wasn't very far from developing atomic weapons.

Doubler said:

Because it isn't good at all. Or because it is in a dangerous decline. Perhaps because it could be better.

The only way the government will improve is if the corporations kept their greedy and selfish noses out of the government.  You'd be complaining about the Brits' government right now if there was enough corporate interest there.  Until then, America could be a LOT worse; hey, we could even be fascists!