NationStates Jolt Archive

1. India- Just a rebellious colony of Britian.

2. Taiwan- Obvious here. Joint colony of the Chinese and American Empire.

3. South Africa- Same as India, Colony of the British Empire

4. North Africa- Rommel captured it fair and square. Colony of Italy and German Reich.

5. Countries in Middle Africa- No civilization there, only SAVAGES, people there eat each other.

6. France- East and South France and North France is part of the German Reich, West France is the American and British Empire, and the Canadians have a small piece.

7. Iraq- It's our COUNTRY NOW!!! BWAHAHA!

8. Former States of the Soviet Union- Go back to the Soviet Union n00bs.

9. Poland- Part of the German Reich.

10- Mexico- Part of the American Empire

11. Phillpines- Part of the American Empire.

12. Israel- No Comment/Part of the American Empire.

13. Nepal- Part of the Chinese Empire.

14. Belgium- Part of the German Reich..

15. The Netherlands- Part of the German Reich.

Discuss. I might add more later.

A good imperialist are we?

You forgot Poland!

1. India- Just a rebellious colony of Britian.

2. Taiwan- Obvious here. Joint colony of the Chinese and American Empire.

3. South Africa- Same as India, Colony of the British Empire

4. North Africa- Rommel captured it fair and square. Colony of Italy and German Reich.

5. Countries in Middle Africa- No civilization there, only SAVAGES, people there eat each other.

6. France- East and South France and North France is part of the German Reich, West France is the American and British Empire, and the Canadians have a small piece.

7. Iraq- It's our COUNTRY NOW!!! BWAHAHA!

8. Former States of the Soviet Union- Go back to the Soviet Union n00bs.

9. Poland- Part of the German Reich.

10- Mexico- Part of the American Empire

11. Phillpines- Part of the American Empire.

12. Israel- No Comment/Part of the American Empire.

13. Nepal- Part of the Chinese Empire.

14. Belgium- Part of the German Reich..

15. The Netherlands- Part of the German Reich.

Discuss. I might add more later.
Isn't it funny how most of those have been, by now, given to the people who run them now? Britain isn't calling for India back, the US isn't calling for ownership of Mexico, etc.

Not only that, you claim that half of them are owned by the German Reich, but the Nazis were defeated by the Allied. Surely they would be property of the Allies now?

Aww hell...

I'm going to get some Mt-dew and popcorn for this topic.

You forgot Poland!

No I didn't.

I demand for Cuba to be returned to me.

United States of America - Just a rebellious colony of the British.

Someone was going to say it sooner or later, might as well be me.

Your understanding of history and world affairs is amusingly ignorant.

United States of America - Just a rebellious colony of the British.

Someone was going to say it sooner or later, might as well be me.

Your understanding of history and world affairs is amusingly ignorant.

The U.S.A. is an exception, because it's the U.S.A.

No I didn't.
Uh...

...Damn I don't know how to top that.

So how's the weather?

The U.S.A. is an exception, because it's the U.S.A. Why, because it's more powerful you don't want to take it back? Bad form. The true imperialist has no place for moral cowardice.

The U.S.A. is an exception, because it's the U.S.A.

Of course, because otherwise this thread and it's creator might look really, really stupid.

Why, because it's more powerful you don't want to take it back? Bad form. The true imperialist has no place for moral cowardice.

No, because it's the only one who actually WON a war against the old empire.

All of those others had other people bail them out. I refuse to recognize them as Soveriegn.

how the hell is Nepal part of China's cultural sphere/"empire"? Nepal is a predominately HINDU country. i.e Indian. are you sure you're not thinking of Tibet?

MEXICO? part of an american empire? mexico was never ruled by america! part of america was actually ruled by mexico! Mexico and all of sounth america would be part of the spanish empire.

are you sure you're not thinking of Tibet?

He's not thinking at all. He's trolling; trying to get people to post angry responses.

MEXICO? part of an american empire? mexico was never ruled by america! part of america was actually ruled by mexico! Mexico and all of sounth america would be part of the spanish empire.

Mexico was essentially conquered by the US during their war in the 1800s. Had the US been so inclined, they probably could have incorporated all of Mexico into their country.

america is just a colony of Britian. It always will be!

No, because it's the only one who actually WON a war against the old empire.

All of those others had other people bail them out. I refuse to recognize them as Soveriegn. Actually, in the case of many of the British ones, the British agreed to give them independence. Granted sovereignty by their own imperial rulers: you can't get fairer than that.

Also, ever heard of national self-determination?

how the hell is Nepal part of China's cultural sphere/"empire"? Nepal is a predominately HINDU country. i.e Indian. are you sure you're not thinking of Tibet?

Oh yeah, I forgot, yeah, Tibet.

Nepal is part of the Japanese Empire. >_<

Oh yeah, I forgot, yeah, Tibet.

Nepal is part of the Japanese Empire. >_<

...

Oh yeah, I forgot, yeah, Tibet.

Nepal is part of the Japanese Empire. >_<

When was Japan ever in Nepal? :confused: Must have missed that info when learning of WWII.

When was Japan ever in Nepal? :confused: Must have missed that info when learning of WWII.

Oh wait, that was Siam...hmm...who DO we give Nepal to now?

Give it to Britain.

Oh wait, that was Siam...hmm...who DO we give Nepal to now?

How about we give it to Nepal?

Give it to Britain.

Meh. Nepals close to India AND China, as well as Siam.

Joint colony of Japan, China, and Britain. :D

I refuse to recognize southern France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece, northern Egypt, Israel, Lebanon,Northern Libya, and Portugal. They are only rebellious states of the Roman Empire.

I refuse to recognize southern France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece, northern Egypt, Israel, Lebanon,Northern Libya, and Portugal. They are only rebellious states of the Roman Empire.

Germany kicked the ass of Rome. Nuff said.

I refuse to recognize southern France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece, northern Egypt, Israel, Lebanon,Northern Libya, and Portugal. They are only rebellious states of the Roman Empire. Don't forget Britain!

I refuse to recognize southern France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece, northern Egypt, Israel, Lebanon,Northern Libya, and Portugal. They are only rebellious states of the Roman Empire.

LOL

Hmm... This thread is mildly amusing. I'm going to assume the thread creator doesn't mean a word of it (though you never know).

It's also amusing to see someone refuse to recognise the sovereignty of the "country" North Africa, since there's no such thing. As for the others, I think they'll just go on being sovereign quite happily whether people "recognise" it or not...

I refuse to recognize southern France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece, northern Egypt, Israel, Lebanon,Northern Libya, and Portugal. They are only rebellious states of the Roman Empire.
That would also work for the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Spain, part of Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Crimea, Turkey, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, Slovenia, Croatia, FYROM, Bosnia, Albania... hope I'm not forgetting anyone.
Oh, yes: Italy.

And Britain (yes, forgot her), Georgia, Armenia, Syria, and some of Iraq (Iraq was held for a couple of years).

You forgot Australia - just a big penal colony for Britain's undesirables (they should start shifting sll the chavs there asap), and New Zealand - just a breeding ground for big buggers who can kick their arses in rugby (something needs to be done there!).
Also, Louisana is really part of France and Alaskans should definitely start learning Russian as it's teachnically still theirs. Or at least it should be.

Of course, if we went far enough back, all of Europe, North Africa, Middle East and England (bar Scotland, but let's face it - who'd want to live there anyway?) belongs to the Italians. They've just let us live there for the last 1600 years. Any time now, they'll ask for it back.

I refuse to recognize southern France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece, northern Egypt, Israel, Lebanon,Northern Libya, and Portugal. They are only rebellious states of the Roman Empire.

It would help if the rebellious states were from a nation that still existst today. Like perhaps Albania to France.

That would also work for the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Spain, part of Germany, Romania, Cyprus, the Crimea, Turkey, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, Slovenia, Croatia, FYROM, Bosnia, Albania... hope I'm not forgetting anyone.
Oh, yes: Italy.

And Britain (yes, forgot her), Georgia, Armenia, Syria, and some of Iraq (Iraq was held for a couple of years).
Quite so. I also refuse to recognize Iraq and Turkey, they too are rebellious states of the mighty Persian Empire.

Quite so. I also refuse to recognize Iraq and Turkey, they too are rebellious states of the mighty Persian Empire.
I meant to say that they were parts of the Roman Empire.

You forgot Poland!
No it wasnt! It's one of ex-USSR countries!

No it wasnt! It's one of ex-USSR countries!
It's NOT. Doh!

It's NOT. Doh!
It might have been soveriegn de jure, but it was ruled de facto pretty much by Moscow

. Poland- Part of the German Reich.

Poland was a sovereign country hundreds of years before Germany was even a nation. While Poland was strong, Germany was simply a bunch of nation states of the Holy Roman Empire. It is only in recent times that Poland has been a weak country.

No, because it's the only one who actually WON a war against the old empire.

All of those others had other people bail them out. I refuse to recognize them as Soveriegn.

D*** straight we won, but I don't think we're the only ones who won our independence through our own efforts.

~ Romandeos.

GASP!!! Taiwan is part of china
This is going to kill my mom :D

If we're going for this whole, "X isn't sovereign cos it used to be a part of the Y empire" rubbish...

I refuse to recognise any nation of the world as having Sovereign power over any land or any people, as all the nations in the world have simply claimed a bit of land - many back in hallowed antiquity - and called it their own.

As such, the world belongs to no-one, and it is the right of any human being to do whatever they will anywhere in the world, as laws are only a hypothetical idea, and nationality and Sovereignty is something that allows a group of people to call a big patch of land their own country and make up loads of hypothetical, idealogical claptrap.

*This is not my actual idea, I am just saying all these things so that the starter of this thread realises that what he has said is nonsense. And of course, it doesn't matter if he doesn't recognise the sovereignty of those countries, as he personally isn't the Secretary General of the United Nations, nor is he a representative of any of the five nations permanently on the UN Security Council, and nor is he 2/3 of the UN General Assembly. So really, it doesn't matter one jot whether he recognises them or not. :rolleyes:

Of course, if we went far enough back, all of Europe, North Africa, Middle East and England (bar Scotland, but let's face it - who'd want to live there anyway?) belongs to the Italians. They've just let us live there for the last 1600 years. Any time now, they'll ask for it back.
Actually, not the Italians. In 477, the Goths passed the imperial insigniae for the western half to the legitimate ruler of the east (he was prompt to try a comeback as a full emperor, but managed to have a more than a moment of this in Italy only - the then popes were Byzanthine subjects).
It gets complicated from here, depnding on wether you side with the Carolingian-Ottonian-Habsburg claim (the Holy Roman Empire), the "Latin" (crusader) or the Paleologue-Russian one. When the Eastern Empire fell, Ivan the Terrible was legal succesor, which intitled imperial Russia to become the "third Rome".

You know, none of this would have happened if I was just made king of the world.

You know, none of this would have happened if I was just made king of the world.

yeah cause we'd all be dead :D

No, because it's the only one who actually WON a war against the old empire.

All of those others had other people bail them out. I refuse to recognize them as Soveriegn.

Well... officially, the United States is independent from Britain because Britain was defeated by France, not because Britain was defeated by the United States- British forces at Yorktown surrendered to France, not to the revolutionaries.

Even if you remove the technical element, the U.S. did have "other people bail them out", namely the French. Therefore, by your own theory, you should not recognise the U.S. as sovereign.

No, because it's the only one who actually WON a war against the old empire.

All of those others had other people bail them out. I refuse to recognize them as Soveriegn.

Newsflash: France practically bailed us out of the Revolution.

america is just a colony of Britian. It always will be!

You mean France. Louisiana used to be pretty big. Yes, even bigger than Texas :P

i shall not recognize any of the prevalent continets as they all just merged and are therefore worthless splinters of that good old one first continent (who's amn name i forgot. pangea or someting?)

i shall not recognize any of the prevalent continets as they all just merged and are therefore worthless splinters of that good old one first continent (who's amn name i forgot. pangea or someting?)

Pangaea.

I don't recognize a dictatorship in which the dictator killed himself and the military was defeated and surrendered. So there is no "part of the German Reich," there is no German Reich to recognize.

And if you're going to recognize dead empires as sovereign, its interestingly hypocritical to claim America is in any way sovereign. You fool, it's part of the British Empire!

yeah cause we'd all be dead :D
What's wrong with that? People so picky...

The US, Canada, etc etc etc were all rebellious colonies of Britain. Britain, though, was merely a rebellious colony of Rome, along with France, Germany, Spain, North Africa, etc.

At one time, China and the rest of the far east, as well as africa, was devided among the formerly-roman nations of Europe.

Rome, of course, was nothing but a rebellious province of the Eutruscans.

Eutrusca, a player of Nationstates, has a name that sounds a lot like it should be the country that the Eutruscans called home.

Ergo, Eutrusca is the ruler of the world, which is composed of dozens of useless non-sovreign nations pretending at the greatness of their betters.

Bow before Eutrusca!

Ergo, Eutrusca is the ruler of the world, which is composed of dozens of useless non-sovreign nations pretending at the greatness of their betters.
Bow before Eutrusca!
OMG ROFL :D :D :D :D :D :D

you do realize that the german reich no longer exists right

I refuse to recognize the sovereignty of any country! You are all under control of the vast World Zionist Conspiracy! Ergo, you are all under control of the J000000000000000000000000000000000's!!!12!@@!@!11!!1!!#3$@!~1~1!

"Countries that I do not recognize as Sovereign:"

If you're not serious, this is spam. If you are serious, you're very strange. :D

"Countries that I do not recognize as Sovereign:"

If you're not serious, this is spam. If you are serious, you're very strange. :DOr this could be very serious spam.

Or this could be very serious spam.

Or it can be Kosher spam...ya never know.

This thread suffers from a myopic view of who holds - and what constitutes - power in the present era. While everyone here is arguing over the sovereignty (or non-sovereignty) of nation states which were once part of various empires, this is in fact almost a non-issue with the decline of the traditional nation state and the rise of multinational corporate power.

I hereby claim THE ENTIRE WORLD for Microsoft, IBM, Nike, McDonalds, KFC, NewsCorp, GlaxoSmithKline and Coca Cola. ;)

Rome, of course, was nothing but a rebellious province of the Eutruscans.

Eutrusca, a player of Nationstates, has a name that sounds a lot like it should be the country that the Eutruscans called home.

Ergo, Eutrusca is the ruler of the world, which is composed of dozens of useless non-sovreign nations pretending at the greatness of their betters.

Bow before Eutrusca!
ROFLMAO! Wow! Not bad for a grouchy, old, retired/disabled veteran, eh? ;)

BTW ... the rest of you should be so lucky to have me in charge!! :D

Or this could be very serious spam.
LOL! True, true. :D

Or ... very strange spam, eh? :D

No, because it's the only one who actually WON a war against the old empire.

All of those others had other people bail them out. I refuse to recognize them as Soveriegn.
You don't know much history, do you? France helped the U.S. win. Without France, the U.S. probably couldn't have won.

Edit: Damnit! I was beaten to it. After two pages of no responses to this I though that people had forgotten. Damn it!

No country is sovereign. They're all controlled through telepathy by the squid people of Garranax VII.

No country is sovereign. They're all controlled through telepathy by the squid people of Garranax VII.
Pay no attention to him. He's just ranting and raving.

D*** straight we won, but I don't think we're the only ones who won our independence through our own efforts.

~ Romandeos.
It wasn't purely through our own efforts we recieved aid from France, and the British military in the colonies never surrendered to us, they surrendered to the French, so going by the logic of this thread we're still a British colony.

It wasn't purely through our own efforts we recieved aid from France, and the British military in the colonies never surrendered to us, they surrendered to the French, so going by the logic of this thread we're still a British colony.

No, Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown, didn't he?

"Countries that I do not recognize as Sovereign:"

If you're not serious, this is spam. If you are serious, you're very strange. :D
Don't complain this thread has declared you ruler of the world.

Pay no attention to him. He's just ranting and raving.
You're part of the conspiracy, aren't you?

Who are you to judge anyone or anything as sovereign? You ideas on government and politics are mind boggling and childish and I hope some day soon you grow out of your American cowboy phase or else you may buy into the propoganda that our dear idiotic president spouts on a daily basis. Just what we would need, another narrow minded, not too bright, bully policing the world neighborhood... pathetic

No, Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown, didn't he?
Nope I'm pretty sure he surrendered to a French advisor. They didn't want to deal with the disgrace of losing to some upstarts, instead of a established EUropean power.

Please find a nice bridge or cliff and take that big leap forward. MAke sure you fall flat and even. Thank you.

You're part of the conspiracy, aren't you?
I am not a monstrous, alien, nigh-deific, cephalopod-headed entity who lies in the sunken city of R'lyeh.

Who are you to judge anyone or anything as sovereign? You ideas on government and politics are mind boggling and childish and I hope some day soon you grow out of your American cowboy phase or else you may buy into the propoganda that our dear idiotic president spouts on a daily basis. Just what we would need, another narrow minded, not too bright, bully policing the world neighborhood... pathetic

And who are you to judge whether what our president says is propaganda? Both sides spew it, get over it. Who are you to judge who's narrow minded?

And he's not being serious, by the way.

No, because it's the only one who actually WON a war against the old empire.

All of those others had other people bail them out. I refuse to recognize them as Soveriegn.

Well, "won" is a subjective analysis of the War of Independence. More truthful would be to say "The United Kingdom, recognising it was suffering from imperial overstretch, and wanting to concentrate more on the sugar islands of the Caribbean and the spice wealth of India, after a series of disastrous appointments of officers who were supposedly pursuing the war, decided to give it up as a bad lot, and withdraw". The Americans won against the British in the same way that the Vietcong won against America - with the imperialist power recognising it was an embarrassing waste of time and resources.

Not really a knock out blow ;)

And he's not being serious, by the way.
Given his post history, I wouldn't be surprised if he was being serious.

Let me guess: most of you are American?
I'm supposing this because you seem to be completely removed from what the rest of the worl is and was, completely focused on "essential" events in your local history, completely trapped in the notion that all an explanation has to be is "close enough", completely mesmerised by simple cliches that don't even manage to be up-to-date.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Nope I'm pretty sure he surrendered to a French advisor. They didn't want to deal with the disgrace of losing to some upstarts, instead of a established EUropean power.

I'm pretty sure he surrendered to Washington. (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/letters.htm)

WHats the link to my computer won't open it? You could be right about the surrender to Washington, but over all the British surrendered to the french not us colonials.

Don't complain this thread has declared you ruler of the world.
ROFLMAO! :D

I am not a monstrous, alien, nigh-deific, cephalopod-headed entity who lies in the sunken city of R'lyeh.
You're not??? :eek:

Damn! :headbang:

What dissappointment that is. [/sarcasm]

I hereby claim the greater part of Europe as well as most of Russia and whatever colony we had in Africa for Konungariket Sverige (Sweden that is for any ignorants out there).

The only reason we were ever defeated is because Karl XII decided he should go to war when his country had about 1 million inhabitants spread over god knows how big a country.

This thread makes less sense than any other thread I've read, ever.

I hereby claim the greater part of Europe as well as most of Russia and whatever colony we had in Africa for Konungariket Sverige (Sweden that is for any ignorants out there).

The only reason we were ever defeated is because Karl XII decided he should go to war when his country had about 1 million inhabitants spread over god knows how big a country.
Didn't you also have something in the West Indies?
Oh! Don't forget Delaware!

Germany can have those sections of france, but France gets Germany and Italy, for the napoleonic war.

1. India- Just a rebellious colony of Britian.
3. South Africa- Same as India, Colony of the British Empire

Okay, sounds good.

2. Taiwan- Obvious here. Joint colony of the Chinese and American Empire.

No, it's already occupied by China, just the smaller version. The U.S. decided it would be a good idea to block Mao from finishing off the Nationalists, stop Communism and all. Worked out so well, too; this world is much nicer than one in which Taiwan's been part of mainland China for several years.

4. North Africa- Rommel captured it fair and square. Colony of Italy and German Reich.

Italy and Germany forfeited their African colonies by virtue of stupidity. The western, Tunisia/Morocco area goes to France, U.K. gets Egypt, and the U.S. gets Italian Libya (because we beat the Barbary pirates there and added a part about it in our marine song).

5. Countries in Middle Africa- No civilization there, only SAVAGES, people there eat each other.

So it would go to France. I would give it to Ethiopia, however. The only reason Fascist Italy was able to beat them (well, okay, not the ONLY reason) was because Britain let them use the Suez Canal. They could have blocked it--much less effort than it would have taken to, say, stop a fleet from saving troops in Yorktown.

6. France- East and South France and North France is part of the German Reich, West France is the American and British Empire, and the Canadians have a small piece.

I don't know what you're on. This is how I see it:

6. Germany- Western Germany is divided into U.S., U.K., and French spheres. The east is a Russian sphere.

Of course... England was established by French-speaking Normans, so perhaps the restored British Empire should be divied between France, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

7. Iraq- It's our COUNTRY NOW!!! BWAHAHA!
12. Israel- No Comment/Part of the American Empire.

Give all of the Middle East back to Turkey. A nice, secular Muslim state ruling over a large area. Sound good?

8. Former States of the Soviet Union- Go back to the Soviet Union n00bs.

That pack of anti-imperialistic rebels?! Give it back to Imperial Russia.

9. Poland- Part of the German Reich.

Ha. When was the last time Germany had control of Poland without losing it by the end of the same war? For someone who only respects nations who fight for their independence, you certainly have a lot of respect for a country who's had their bratwurst handed to them in the last two world wars.

Yeah, they did fine early on, unifying into a country and everything. After that, though.

10- Mexico- Part of the American Empire

Nah. The Spaniards couldn't have beaten the Aztecs without disease on their side and a bunch of Central American peoples who wanted revenge against the Aztecs. Therefore, Mexico should be divided into a collection of small, native Central American states.

11. Phillpines- Part of the American Empire.

Didn't they fight and convince us to leave?

13. Nepal- Part of the Chinese Empire.

This has already been commented on; give it back to Britain. Their flag's all mishappen anyway.

14. Belgium- Part of the German Reich..

15. The Netherlands- Part of the German Reich.

The Dutch fought for their independence from the Spanish, so they earned it. Make Belgium part of the Netherlands again, whether any party involved likes it or not.

You also forgot some:

16. Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina- Part of the Austrian Empire (or Austro-Hungarian, if we want to give Hungary domestic autonomy). None of these 'nations' beat Austria, they required a World War filled with Entente Powers to give them their independence.

17. Madagascar- Part of the French Empire, or arguably the Lemur Confederation who united to overthrow the Vichy government in '41.

18. Congo, Angola, Mozambique, other coastal African nations- Belgium for the first, Portugal for the next two, and various for the others, I forget. Actually, since Belgium is part of the Spanish Lowlan--I mean the Netherlands now, it would be Dutch Congo. That also reminds me...

19. Indonesia, Sarawak, other Oceana's- Dutch East Indies, British, some French islands, yeah. Or, German if you go back far enough, but Germany doesn't exist here. Give it to Japan if you go a little further forward, but not too far.

20. Korea- Two rival governments cancel out each other, so the entire process is nullified, and Japan inherits it. Looks like that's also the end of China, actually. Divide it up between the Euros again.

21. Greenland and Iceland- Rightfully part of the Danish Empire. What's that? Oh. Just Iceland then. Greenland is already in its place.

22. Guyana, Surinam, and Guiana- Part of British, Dutch, and French Guiana, respectively. Oh, wait a second. Just Guyana and Surinam then. French Guiana is in its place.

23. Scotland- In accord with the Act of Union in-- what? Scotland IS still part of the U.K. Alright then. Except... well, the Scottish king James Stuart was made the king of England also, meaning that the Scottish king inherited the English throne before incorporating the two countries. Hold on a moment...

::doing the math on a calculator:: Uh-huh. Romans never conquered the Northern Celtic tribes. Nor did the Norman French invasion. The U.S. relied on France for independence. France relied on Allies for liberation. Germany given its country back. Japan given its country back. Commonwealth nations given their countries. And... uh-huh...

Right. It seems we've got this all wrong. In conclusion, THE CELTO-SCOTTISH EMPIRE RIGHTFULLY CONTROLS THE ENTIRE EARTH AND ITS MOON!

1. India- Just a rebellious colony of Britian.

2. Taiwan- Obvious here. Joint colony of the Chinese and American Empire.

3. South Africa- Same as India, Colony of the British Empire

4. North Africa- Rommel captured it fair and square. Colony of Italy and German Reich.

5. Countries in Middle Africa- No civilization there, only SAVAGES, people there eat each other.

6. France- East and South France and North France is part of the German Reich, West France is the American and British Empire, and the Canadians have a small piece.

7. Iraq- It's our COUNTRY NOW!!! BWAHAHA!

8. Former States of the Soviet Union- Go back to the Soviet Union n00bs.

9. Poland- Part of the German Reich.

10- Mexico- Part of the American Empire

11. Phillpines- Part of the American Empire.

12. Israel- No Comment/Part of the American Empire.

13. Nepal- Part of the Chinese Empire.

14. Belgium- Part of the German Reich..

15. The Netherlands- Part of the German Reich.

Discuss. I might add more later.

Serapindal, I say me and you go back in time about 100 years and take over as co-Kaisers of Germany. We would own the world right now.

Let me guess: most of you are American?
I'm supposing this because you seem to be completely removed from what the rest of the worl is and was, completely focused on "essential" events in your local history, completely trapped in the notion that all an explanation has to be is "close enough", completely mesmerised by simple cliches that don't even manage to be up-to-date.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Have you even been reading this thread? I smell an anti-American troll...

Let me guess: most of you are American?
I'm supposing this because you seem to be completely removed from what the rest of the worl is and was, completely focused on "essential" events in your local history, completely trapped in the notion that all an explanation has to be is "close enough", completely mesmerised by simple cliches that don't even manage to be up-to-date.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Well, most of the author's statements center around:

1) Initial German victories in World War II
2) Late Japanese defeats at the end of World War II (after Germany's smackdownfall)
3) Former British and French colonies granted independence at various times

Certainly looks like nonessential events in local American history to me.

They don't teach WWII in California Schools.

>_<

Well, most of the author's statements center around:

1) Initial German victories in World War II
2) Late Japanese defeats at the end of World War II (after Germany's smackdownfall)
3) Former British and French colonies granted independence at various times

Certainly looks like nonessential events in local American history to me.
No, in this category I included the references to Yorktown and France's participation in the Revolutionary War (say what you will, but in France it was a provincial victory against the English; it was an opportunistic alliance with rebels that had just decided they weren't rebelling against the Parliament, but also against the King of Britain - they also had no vision for what they were about to do with their independence, no matter what Mel Gibson may say).
The events that you mention fall in the other category: simplistic outlooks on the world, centered on misunderstood relations and events. You fail to see the complexities in all of the three periods you quote, and other posters have expanded this indifference to any subject they touched.

No, I am not Californian - if that is what you meant.

you guys are weird, none of this makes any sense, if we gave those countries to the germans then they would get it in their head again that they might be able to control the world, then we would have to deal with another blunder of an attempt to control the world and have to clean up after the germans once again, well, wait, maybe that wouldnt be such a bad thing: maybe then Bush would realize that HE isnt the supreme ruler of the world and that maybe he should stop trying. Then again, he would probably try to join with the germans and hope for a share of the pot. hey, he could look for weapons of mass distruction :gundge: :D

No, in this category I included the references to Yorktown and France's participation in the Revolutionary War (say what you will, but in France it was a provincial victory against the English; it was an opportunistic alliance with rebels that had just decided they weren't rebelling against the Parliament, but also against the King of Britain - they also had no vision for what they were about to do with their independence, no matter what Mel Gibson may say).

Yeah. It was a chance for France to bite their thumb at the British, and some argue that their effort contributed to the later French Revolution.

I mean, if we were to talk about the Chinese Boxer Rebellion or the Xian Incident, would that be still considered too provincial to matter? Or, would it just be automatically lumped into the second category?, which is...

The events that you mention fall in the other category: simplistic outlooks on the world, centered on misunderstood relations and events. You fail to see the complexities in all of the three periods you quote, and other posters have expanded this indifference to subject they touched.

No, I am not Californian - if that is what you meant.

All three periods? The initial German victories, the later Japanese defeats, AND the Commonwealth independences (both before, after, and during the other two periods)? I personally fail to see the complexities in all of these? Or is it the plural version of 'you', which we English speakers lack?

So we cannot summarize an event without detailing every single complexity? Because there are so many contributing factors to the U.S. War of Independence, we have to pretend that nothing about the United States is important?

I mean, with this mindframe, we cannot even speak of an Allied victory in World War II because of all the intricacies. I guess why there's such a misunderstanding now about whether the 'Third Reich' exists, and what territories make its empire.

Just because the Texas Independence War had so many stalemates, shots of luck, intentions from the beginning of becoming a U.S. state, and no significance to anyone in Afro-Eurasia and what all else... that still does not deny the fact that there is a former Texas embassy site in Paris.

i dont like giving crdit to france for american freedom, after all, they're not the best tacticians, just look at the battle of dien bien fu, not the smartest engagement of vietnam, not to mention they had to run away and make us step in and try to pacify the situation.

*wait, if americans had to rely on the french for their salvation in the american revolution, and the french are horrible at winning wars (look at WWII) (yes i know nepoleon, but that just shows how awsome a leader he was) then what does that say about america? :D

Am I the only one who doesnt care what nations Serapindal considers to be soveriegn?

Right. It seems we've got this all wrong. In conclusion, THE CELTO-SCOTTISH EMPIRE RIGHTFULLY CONTROLS THE ENTIRE EARTH AND ITS MOON!
feckin scots,we were that close to ruling the world.well i suppose we can share.but we'll take over eventually.hmmm ive said too much
*burns all the 'ireland takes over the world' plans*

i dont like giving crdit to france for american freedom, after all, they're not the best tacticians, just look at the battle of dien bien fu, not the smartest engagement of vietnam, not to mention they had to run away and make us step in and try to pacify the situation.

*wait, if americans had to rely on the french for their salvation in the american revolution, and the french are horrible at winning wars (look at WWII) (yes i know nepoleon, but that just shows how awsome a leader he was) then what does that say about america? :D
Precicely this kind of statement! It's absurd on all viewpoints.
To equate monarchical France with the IVth Republc just for the sake of proving something about the French people (as if a generic term could EVER work) is symptomatical for a simplistic and unilateral approach.
And you should be considering the role France played in the conflict, if it were only for the fact that the French monarchy ruined itself while doing it.

hahaha! since yopenya wasn't on that list, i'm assuming you're recognizing it's soveriengty? well, that's good, considering half the world seems not too...apparently china and india don't :( among other countries.
and i could throw in a list of all those weird half-formed country projects such as sealand, waveland, patagonia, utopia, and all them others. you didn't include them, they must be soveriegn :p
that'd be odd.
well, i think that britian and germany actually do recognize sealand, but i'm pretty shure the rest aren't recognized by anyone.

we do? where is it located?

p.s. according to your logic, nobody in here challenges the sovereignity of The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands? (oh no, this is neither a joke nor an NS nation, it actually does exist). google it if you don't believe me.

Precicely this kind of statement! It's absurd on all viewpoints.
To equate monarchical France with the IVth Republc just for the sake of proving something about the French people (as if a generic term could EVER work) is symptomatical for a simplistic and unilateral approach.
And you should be considering the role France played in the conflict, if it were only for the fact that the French monarchy ruined itself while doing it.

Im NOT trying to generalize the french people, i was trying to make a statement about the american government. most people in america badmouth the french, i was playing on a social issue that was comparing the "evil french government" with the "divine right" american government that this country holds so dear. i have nothing against the french, i think they had a lot of guts staying in a hell hole like vietnam as long as they did, although im not to fond of dien bien fu, as you could probably guess. but if it took the "evil french government" to free the "divine right" american government from its monarchial oppressors, then what does that say about the american people and its government as a whole?

So we cannot summarize an event without detailing every single complexity? Because there are so many contributing factors to the U.S. War of Independence, we have to pretend that nothing about the United States is important?
Where did I say that NOTHING is important? I was speaking to the point, and refering to previous posts. Check them out.

I mean, with this mindframe, we cannot even speak of an Allied victory in World War II because of all the intricacies. I guess why there's such a misunderstanding now about whether the 'Third Reich' exists, and what territories make its empire.
You're twisting my words. The very fact that somebody would try to find a common pattern and a (so very Amercan!) "manifest destiny" in the policies of Empires, together with the fact that you view such policies as being postulates of national character, the mingling of attitudes that have nothing in common (what Austrian imperialism is to German imperialism, for one): all of thes give history the face of a Monopoly game. It just doesn't work.

Just because the Texas Independence War had so many stalemates, shots of luck, intentions from the beginning of becoming a U.S. state, and no significance to anyone in Afro-Eurasia and what all else... that still does not deny the fact that there is a former Texas embassy site in Paris.
I don't get it. Are you for or against Texas independence?
Anyway, the Souther States had primitive diplomatic contacts with several European countries, Mexico was a one-time French Empire, California used to be claimed by Russia, the IRA used its base in New York to attack Canada... So what?

Well, I guess that means pretty much the entire continent of Asia belongs to Mongolia now...

Oh, and Europe needs to give back sovreignity to Italy...have fun with that one, especially England (or is it Britannia...).

They don't teach WWII in California Schools.

>_<
uh yeah they do. you must be from like... la or some gay place like that.

i think it's more like..you oughta pay more attention in class..or take the right classes..

Look, we all come from Africa, so let's just say that Malawi rules the world and leave it at that, eh?

I hereby claim THE ENTIRE WORLD for Microsoft, IBM, Nike, McDonalds, KFC, NewsCorp, GlaxoSmithKline and Coca Cola. ;)
Put it together and what do you get? AMERICA..

...and a little bit of Europe I guess...

Former states of SU should join it again? Bullshit! SU is part of Finland! Just one cocky province, that's all. Russia seems to think they have some kind of an independence when we removed our garrison from Moscow, but as soon as I make my coup d'etat in Helsinki and take the power, that is to change....

Pssst! No one cares about whether you recognize a country as sovereign or not...

Pssst! No one cares about whether you recognize a country as sovereign or not...Considering the countries mentioned, a psychiatrist might... :p

You're twisting my words. The very fact that somebody would try to find a common pattern and a (so very Amercan!) "manifest destiny" in the policies of Empires, together with the fact that you view such policies as being postulates of national character, the mingling of attitudes that have nothing in common (what Austrian imperialism is to German imperialism, for one): all of thes give history the face of a Monopoly game. It just doesn't work.

Okay, I was getting a little too sarcastic/hostile; for that I do apologise. There's just so much anti-American sentiment out there, you know, and I don't think that ALL of it has strong foundations.

No, not every country had "Manifest Destiny". Not every United Statesian went along with the idea either. Still, vast empires did exist, and people other than Americans saw them in simplistic terms. Cecil Rhodes was all for painting Africa with British red, for instance. All of the 'White Mans' Burden' talk from Kipling sounds a lot like 'Manifest Destiny' to me.

Actual history may look nothing like a Monopoly or Risk game (or DIPLOMACY, yeah!!), but large groups of people in history have seen it that way, and it's affected the decisions they've made, which have in turn affected the routes nations and the world as a whole have taken. That surely makes it worthy of parody, if not truth.

So yes, you have an excellent point. I just feel it extends far beyond Americans.

Also, incidentally, I think Imperial Monopoly would have India for Boardwalk. Greenland would be whatever that first, cheap property is.

http://www.dontfeedthetroll.de/images/dftt_02.gif

i dont like giving crdit to france for american freedom, after all, they're not the best tacticians, just look at the battle of dien bien fu, not the smartest engagement of vietnam, not to mention they had to run away and make us step in and try to pacify the situation.

*wait, if americans had to rely on the french for their salvation in the american revolution, and the french are horrible at winning wars (look at WWII) (yes i know nepoleon, but that just shows how awsome a leader he was) then what does that say about america? :D

Napoléon Shmapoléon. France lost the Napoleonic Wars and won World War I. (before I get condemned) I know, I know! Oversimplification.

Now let's see. If Americans relied on the French for their salvation, meaning that France helped beat England, but Germany beat France, but England and America beat Germany... we have a paradox!

I'm sure the governments and populations of these countries are all quite distraught that some loon doesnt think that they are sovereign.

I'm sure the governments and populations of these countries are all quite distraught that some loon doesnt think that they are sovereign.If that loon actually had something to say. But remember that the German government laughed at Rumsfeld when he made his "Old Europe" and "Libya, Cuba, Germany" remarks, so it probably wouldn't cause much of a ripple... ;)

If that loon actually had something to say. But remember that the German government laughed at Rumsfeld when he made his "Old Europe" and "Libya, Cuba, Germany" remarks, so it probably wouldn't cause much of a ripple... ;)

Everyone with an ounce of sense either laughs at rumsfeld or feels sick to his stomach.

Everyone with an ounce of sense either laughs at rumsfeld or feels sick to his stomach.Which raises the question as to why anyone would be more disturbed when an American with less power has anything controversial to say..? :D

Countries that I do not recognize as Sovereign:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. India- Just a rebellious colony of Britian.

2. Taiwan- Obvious here. Joint colony of the Chinese and American Empire.

3. South Africa- Same as India, Colony of the British Empire

4. North Africa- Rommel captured it fair and square. Colony of Italy and German Reich.

5. Countries in Middle Africa- No civilization there, only SAVAGES, people there eat each other.

6. France- East and South France and North France is part of the German Reich, West France is the American and British Empire, and the Canadians have a small piece.

7. Iraq- It's our COUNTRY NOW!!! BWAHAHA!

8. Former States of the Soviet Union- Go back to the Soviet Union n00bs.

9. Poland- Part of the German Reich.

10- Mexico- Part of the American Empire

11. Phillpines- Part of the American Empire.

12. Israel- No Comment/Part of the American Empire.

13. Nepal- Part of the Chinese Empire.

14. Belgium- Part of the German Reich..

15. The Netherlands- Part of the German Reich.

I must say, i find it rather amusing that you say "American Empire"!.....Here's me thinking that Americans frowned upon nations that had empires...Especially the British!

Okay, I was getting a little too sarcastic/hostile; for that I do apologise. There's just so much anti-American sentiment out there, you know, and I don't think that ALL of it has strong foundations.

No, not every country had "Manifest Destiny". Not every United Statesian went along with the idea either. Still, vast empires did exist, and people other than Americans saw them in simplistic terms. Cecil Rhodes was all for painting Africa with British red, for instance. All of the 'White Mans' Burden' talk from Kipling sounds a lot like 'Manifest Destiny' to me.

Actual history may look nothing like a Monopoly or Risk game (or DIPLOMACY, yeah!!), but large groups of people in history have seen it that way, and it's affected the decisions they've made, which have in turn affected the routes nations and the world as a whole have taken. That surely makes it worthy of parody, if not truth.

So yes, you have an excellent point. I just feel it extends far beyond Americans.

Also, incidentally, I think Imperial Monopoly would have India for Boardwalk. Greenland would be whatever that first, cheap property is.
My point was that parodising a flawed point of view with the risk of assuming that it has risen throughout the world is no improvement - I guess we agree on the premises of that.
I think the things that set policies apart - even, inside a single political constuction - are the ones that deserve looking into. Otherwise, you end up with a self-satisfactory idea of historical processes.

No, because it's the only one who actually WON a war against the old empire.

All of those others had other people bail them out. I refuse to recognize them as Soveriegn.

What about the French bailling us out? (How soon we forget)

Former states of SU should join it again? Bullshit! SU is part of Finland! Just one cocky province, that's all. Russia seems to think they have some kind of an independence when we removed our garrison from Moscow, but as soon as I make my coup d'etat in Helsinki and take the power, that is to change....

The SU got owned by Finland. 270,000 dead Russian Soldiers, and less then 22,000 Finnish with the Winter War.

The Finnish had poor guns, no tanks, nothing.

The Russians had state of the art technology, planes, tanks, everything.

Finland OWN'D teh commies.

What about the French bailling us out? (How soon we forget)

That was when France used to kick ass. They started sucking after the French Revolution.

The SU got owned by Finland. 270,000 dead Russian Soldiers, and less then 22,000 Finnish with the Winter War.

The Finnish had poor guns, no tanks, nothing.

The Russians had state of the art technology, planes, tanks, everything.

Finland OWN'D teh commies.And Finland lost the war. They did well enough that the Soviets didn't incorporate the former Grand Duchy back into the Russian empire.

That was when France used to kick ass. They started sucking after the French Revolution.France never kicked ass before the revolution. It was after one of the revolutions that it did (Napoleon).

France never kicked ass before the revolution. It was after one of the revolutions that it did (Napoleon).
I'm sure you men conquest-wise (wich is superficial). Still: ever heard of Louis XIV?

Here's countries *I* don't recognize as sovereign.

Montserrat
Saint Helena
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Falkland Islands
Svalbard
Niue
Norfolk Island
Tokelau
Holy Vatican See
Cocos Islands
Johnston Atoll
Christmas Island
Pitcairn Islands

Yeah that's right, any nation which I and my high school graduating class alone could conquer is not sovereign in my book.

Here's countries *I* don't recognize as sovereign.

Montserrat
Saint Helena
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Falkland Islands
Svalbard
Niue
Norfolk Island
Tokelau
Holy Vatican See
Cocos Islands
Johnston Atoll
Christmas Island
Pitcairn Islands

Yeah that's right, any nation which I and my high school graduating class alone could conquer is not sovereign in my book.

Can we add the Swiss please? Not because you and your high school class could conquer them, just cos i hate their guts.

Can we add the Swiss please? Not because you and your high school class could conquer them, just cos i hate their guts.

Hmm, nope. Not on my list. If me and my high school class can't conquer them, I am forced to recognize their sovereignty.

You could have your own list though.

I'm sure you men conquest-wise (wich is superficial). Still: ever heard of Louis XIV?

Actually, i have heard of Louis XIV, and i'm pretty sure that post him, the power of France's ancien regime was vastly reduced because of the time, money and manpower he spent trying - and mainly failing - to expand the boundaries of France. There's an argument that Louis XVI wasn't responsible for the revolution, but Louis XIV was.

4. North Africa- Rommel captured it fair and square. Colony of Italy and German Reich.

6. France- East and South France and North France is part of the German Reich, West France is the American and British Empire, and the Canadians have a small piece.

9. Poland- Part of the German Reich.

14. Belgium- Part of the German Reich..

15. The Netherlands- Part of the German Reich.
LOL

Dude. Watch a calendar. It's 2005. Not 1940 somthing.

Falkland Islands could lay a beat down on any high school class. Just ask Argentina.

Hmm, nope. Not on my list. If me and my high school class can't conquer them, I am forced to recognize their sovereignty.

You could have your own list though.

They let in Phil Collins. I'll not rest till Geneva is smoking rubble.

I'm sure you men conquest-wise (wich is superficial). Still: ever heard of Louis XIV?Louis XIV's foreign political goal was to push France's borders to the Rhine, which he didn't manage to do. That's why I don't consider him much of a success ;)

Hmm, nope. Not on my list. If me and my high school class can't conquer them, I am forced to recognize their sovereignty.Then you'd probably have to strike the Vatican off your list, considering they have the same military...

Nah. Falkland Islands, what are they going to do? Fire a missile at my navy I don't have? My high school class could lay a whuppin' on them. Same with the Vatican City. Just a bunch of old folks in robes, they are!

Actually, i have heard of Louis XIV, and i'm pretty sure that post him, the power of France's ancien regime was vastly reduced because of the time, money and manpower he spent trying - and mainly failing - to expand the boundaries of France. There's an argument that Louis XVI wasn't responsible for the revolution, but Louis XIV was.
Tocqueville proved consistently that France wasn't really banckrupt at the moment of revolution: it was inefficent, unable to centralize as much as Louis XIV had meant to have it.
In fact, France was in a deplorable economical state because of the Revolution. Conquests and relative prosperity did not go together at any time other than Louis' (I'm not a big fan of his, I just feel this is fact). Napoleon conquered as much because he was driven by a need to end the effectively debilitating Britsh monipolies (he went to Russia when the czar changed his mind about contributing to the Continental Blockade; I guess it was "damned if you do and damned if you don't").

Nah. Falkland Islands, what are they going to do? Fire a missile at my navy I don't have? My high school class could lay a whuppin' on them. Same with the Vatican City. Just a bunch of old folks in robes, they are!
Yeah, until they break out the Swiss Guard to open your head like a tin can.

Falkland Islands could lay a beat down on any high school class. Just ask Argentina.Argentina did remarkably well against the Falklands. It was when the British came to take em back that they got screwed.

Anyway, the Falklands aren't sovereign, whether you regard them as such or not...

Yeah, until they break out the Swiss Guard to open your head like a tin can.

There's only 100 of those guys and they use halberds. They'll gut some of the overweight and slow-running schoolmates - an unfortunate loss but such is the necessities of war - meanwhile the gun owning folks will pick them off easily with those brightly colored uniforms the SG like to wear.

And if worse comes to worse I'll get the football team in after a nice big meal of bratwurst, bran muffins and coffee. Melee infantry vs chemical weapons, we'll see how that works out!

Tocqueville proved consistently that France wasn't really banckrupt at the moment of revolution: it was inefficent, unable to centralize as much as Louis XIV had meant to have it.
In fact, France was in a deplorable economical state because of the Revolution. Conquests and relative prosperity did not go together at any time other than Louis' (I'm not a big fan of his, I just feel this is fact). Napoleon conquered as much because he was driven by a need to end the effectively debilitating Britsh monipolies (he went to Russia when the czar changed his mind about contributing to the Continental Blockade; I guess it was "damned if you do and damned if you don't").

Mm, having not read Tocqueville, and not having studied the Revolutionary period for quite some time (10 years plus), i'll pass on that argument.

However, i will say that Henri of Navarre was the only French King worth spit.

However, i will say that Henri of Navarre was the only French King worth spit.
Yes, I rather like him too.

There's only 100 of those guys and they use halberds. They'll gut some of the overweight and slow-running schoolmates - an unfortunate loss but such is the necessities of war - meanwhile the gun owning folks will pick them off easily with those brightly colored uniforms the SG like to wear.
They have halberds for the parades and for shows, but they have modern weapons for more serious stuff.

And if worse comes to worse I'll get the football team in after a nice big meal of bratwurst, bran muffins and coffee. Melee infantry vs chemical weapons, we'll see how that works out!
Now, that may work.

The problem with invading Vatican City is that you don't want one of your bullets or football players to hit something in Italy.

There's only 100 of those guys and they use halberds. They'll gut some of the overweight and slow-running schoolmates - an unfortunate loss but such is the necessities of war - meanwhile the gun owning folks will pick them off easily with those brightly colored uniforms the SG like to wear.

And if worse comes to worse I'll get the football team in after a nice big meal of bratwurst, bran muffins and coffee. Melee infantry vs chemical weapons, we'll see how that works out!You're in for a surprise then:
The Swiss Guards do serve a ceremonial role, but they are also a carefully trained security force. When the pope moves in public, the guards shed their stripes for plain clothes and join members of the Vatican police to form a cordon around the pontiff.Source (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/11/1118_vaticanswiss.html)

1. India- Just a rebellious colony of Britian.

2. Taiwan- Obvious here. Joint colony of the Chinese and American Empire.

3. South Africa- Same as India, Colony of the British Empire

4. North Africa- Rommel captured it fair and square. Colony of Italy and German Reich.

5. Countries in Middle Africa- No civilization there, only SAVAGES, people there eat each other.

6. France- East and South France and North France is part of the German Reich, West France is the American and British Empire, and the Canadians have a small piece.

7. Iraq- It's our COUNTRY NOW!!! BWAHAHA!

8. Former States of the Soviet Union- Go back to the Soviet Union n00bs.

9. Poland- Part of the German Reich.

10- Mexico- Part of the American Empire

11. Phillpines- Part of the American Empire.

12. Israel- No Comment/Part of the American Empire.

13. Nepal- Part of the Chinese Empire.

14. Belgium- Part of the German Reich..

15. The Netherlands- Part of the German Reich.

Discuss. I might add more later.

Well, I'm just glad your opinion doesn't matter.

You're in for a surprise then:
Source (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/11/1118_vaticanswiss.html)

Hmm OK, so the colorful target thing won't work out. But nationalgeographic has yet to document the horrors produced in my old school cafeteria. I'm telling you, if the administration new about it, they would have declared war on California and invaded to stop the WMD production.

Hmm OK, so the colorful target thing won't work out. But nationalgeographic has yet to document the horrors produced in my old school cafeteria. I'm telling you, if the administration new about it, they would have declared war on California and invaded to stop the WMD production.I guess your lucky that California isn't a sovereign nation and hasn't got enough oil to interest the administration ;)

the US Belongs to the Grand Duchy of Fenwick

I guess your lucky that California isn't a sovereign nation and hasn't got enough oil to interest the administration ;)

Who needs a sovereign nation to target when an abstract noun (http://www.defendamerica.mil/wot.html) will do? :)

Besides. We have the Governator. We're safe.

Well... officially, the United States is independent from Britain because Britain was defeated by France, not because Britain was defeated by the United States- British forces at Yorktown surrendered to France, not to the revolutionaries.

Even if you remove the technical element, the U.S. did have "other people bail them out", namely the French. Therefore, by your own theory, you should not recognise the U.S. as sovereign.
Finally someone said this...

Finally someone said this...
I've been saying it too...

1. India- Just a rebellious colony of Britian.

*Snip*

15. The Netherlands- Part of the German Reich.

Discuss. I might add more later.

I'm sure your 'non-recognition' keeps them ALL up at night...

I've been saying it too...
Finally someone else said it, too.
I only got half way through the posts and was wondering when someone would bring it up.

MEXICO? part of an american empire? mexico was never ruled by america! part of america was actually ruled by mexico! Mexico and all of sounth america would be part of the spanish empire.
Um, not entirely true. For a brief time period, Mexico was entirely occupied by the US, save for maybe a few southern areas and remote mountaintops. Several powerful people, like Henry Clay, wanted to keep it all. But the US had only a small military and police force at the time, and no one wanted to pay for a bigger one. So, the US was forced to withdraw.

By the way, I've got a great and real one: for reasons unknown to me, Japan refuses to recognize Andorra (that's what I heard, at least).

Um, not entirely true. For a brief time period, Mexico was entirely occupied by the US, save for maybe a few southern areas and remote mountaintops. Several powerful people, like Henry Clay, wanted to keep it all. But the US had only a small military and police force at the time, and no one wanted to pay for a bigger one. So, the US was forced to withdraw.
About half of Mexico were in favor of annexation too, and peasants didn't care who was in charge (they still don't) so that wouldn't have been really a problem.

I suspect the biggest reason was that the idea of getting about 15 million new non-white, Catholic, non-slavist citizens who would make up about 15 new states would upset the balance between North and South.

About half of Mexico were in favor of annexation too, and peasants didn't care who was in charge (they still don't) so that wouldn't have been really a problem.

I suspect the biggest reason was that the idea of getting about 15 million new non-white, Catholic, non-slavist citizens who would make up about 15 new states would upset the balance between North and South.
Yes, you may be right. That was also the reason why the US did not take over Cuba before the Civil War, despite itching to do so. Then again, the new territories could have been given territory status until their fate was decided.

Yes, you may be right. That was also the reason why the US did not take over Cuba before the Civil War, despite itching to do so. Then again, the new territories could have been given territory status until their fate was decided.
Quick thought: perhaps Cuba did not relish the idea of becoming colonial territory just after getting rid of the Spaniards.

Um, not entirely true. For a brief time period, Mexico was entirely occupied by the US, save for maybe a few southern areas and remote mountaintops. Several powerful people, like Henry Clay, wanted to keep it all. But the US had only a small military and police force at the time, and no one wanted to pay for a bigger one. So, the US was forced to withdraw.

this is true, but you are forgeting one main important thing: the main reason the US didnt keep Mexico is because they didnt want it. who would want a dry, arid, out of the way piece of land... well, one that isnt controled by muslems, rich in oil, and didnt smack down someones daddy :D

this is true, but you are forgeting one main important thing: the main reason the US didnt keep Mexico is because they didnt want it. who would want a dry, arid, out of the way piece of land... well, one that isnt controled by muslems, rich in oil, and didnt smack down someones daddy :D
And the real irony is that Mexico is not arid or dry, it's pretty close, and has an abundance of natural resources, including oil. Maybe it was the daddy thing.

Quick thought: perhaps Cuba did not relish the idea of becoming colonial territory just after getting rid of the Spaniards.
My friend, you are confusing yourself. The Spanish were always in control of Cuba until 1898. The US occupied it for a few years, but by that time, it had no real desire to keep it. That wasn't the case in the 1850's. Washington tried to buy it from the Spanish, but they clinged to Cuba, probably because it was its only big colony left in the Americas. There was no war fought then, but there were two "fillibusters". They were expeditions by private citizens to take Cuba. Both failed.

this is true, but you are forgeting one main important thing: the main reason the US didnt keep Mexico is because they didnt want it. who would want a dry, arid, out of the way piece of land... well, one that isnt controled by muslems, rich in oil, and didnt smack down someones daddy :D
Mexico isn't all arid. The Yucatan Peninsula is quite lush in vegetation. But the stupid part of the US was that it didn't annex Baja California. If it was to annex such a large chunk of Mexico anyhow, then it'd need Baja. It was a window to the Gulf of California, and would be strategic for shipping, and may have developed the SW much faster. Today, Baja is actually the site of most new liquified natural gas terminals in N. Ameriica.

Lotus Puppy always kills my topics...

What the hell, you forgot Canada! It's the 51'st state. Actually it was the first state to be ejected from the US because we don't want socialists in our country,

Here's countries *I* don't recognize as sovereign.

Montserrat
Saint Helena
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Falkland Islands
Svalbard
Niue
Norfolk Island
Tokelau
Holy Vatican See
Cocos Islands
Johnston Atoll
Christmas Island
Pitcairn Islands

Yeah that's right, any nation which I and my high school graduating class alone could conquer is not sovereign in my book.

Someone probably already responded in similar way that I am... but I don't believe the U.N. considers most of these sovereign either.

I see Holy Vatican See is on the list, though. You sure that your high school is ready to take on those pike-wielding Swiss Mercenaries? They're infamous, you know.

My friend, you are confusing yourself. The Spanish were always in control of Cuba until 1898. The US occupied it for a few years, but by that time, it had no real desire to keep it. That wasn't the case in the 1850's. Washington tried to buy it from the Spanish, but they clinged to Cuba, probably because it was its only big colony left in the Americas. There was no war fought then, but there were two "fillibusters". They were expeditions by private citizens to take Cuba. Both failed.

Oh, there was desire to keep it in 1898, just like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Filipinos. Imperial America, Mahan and all such. The problem is it would have completely ruined our justification of fighting the war to free the Cuban people.

We still got a nice base there and some sweet constitutional control, for a while.

I'm suprised this has been open for so long, since the author of it didnt even actually contribute to the debate at hand, nor did he provide anything to support his claims. Making statements out of the blue with no supporting statement, with the intent of pissing people off is trolling, which this qualifies as. Locked.