Replace the constitution :rolleyes:

[Imran Siddiqui]

It won't work. You can argue as well as Socrates, and David would cling to his ridiculous beliefs. Have a beer instead .

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It won't work. You can argue as well as Socrates, and David would cling to his ridiculous beliefs. Have a beer instead .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, it might actually make more sense that way .

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It does't, but it was an act of war.

Well the point was Japan could not have invaded Hawaii... you answered Pearl Harbor. That's not a satisfactory answer by any means, because PH wasn't an invasion, was it?

If you think the question was wrong, then say so, don't just say Pearl Harbor and expect it to answer it!

Japan could of invaded Hawaii if they would of sent an invasion force with the aircraft carriers. we were totally taken by suprise, many soldiers would of been shot in thier bunks if they would of invaded. They may even could of completely distroyed most of our pacific navy and the west coast would be very vulnerable.

[David Floyd]

Debatable... perhaps not official military allies... but they were our friends, asked for our help, and we delivered.

It's not debatable at all. Not only was the US not allied with the UK, but the US had war plans for fighting the UK/RN.

They would have exterminated most of the Chinese. Do you recall the rape of Nanking?

Sure, and I also know that systematic extermination of all Chinese would have been impossible. In any case, this would have taken decades.

We were perceived as one

Sure, because of our hostile acts

The US was involved from day 1... September 3rd, 1939... half of Britains food and two-thirds of the UK's raw materials were imports.

Sure, but not all came from the US. Nickel supplies came from Canada, rubber came from the Far East, oil came from the Middle East, etc.

WIth the help of American, Polish, Czech, and South African pilots. Britain had only a few hundred airmen in 1940.

This is laughable. Not only did the Brits have plenty of pilots, but they were producing new pilots much faster than Germany, as well as being able to rescue their downed airmen much easier than the Germans could rescue theirs. I'll cite plenty of sources if you need me to, but if you don't know this, then you shouldn't even be discussing the subject.

That's right, and as a good Christian, you believe we have no obligation to stop mass murder on a global scale.

There is never an obligation to force others to fight, or to take their money in order to help you to fight, no.

Sooner than the Russians.

You are unqualified to discuss the subject if you believe the Japanese would have had an atomic bomb prior to 1949.

Oops, I made a mistake. But what's to say the Germans or Japanese wouldn't have been able to do the same?

Because the Germans managed to get the vast majority of their agents caught very early in the war, and never once achieved penetration or anything close to it of the Manhatten Project.

As for the Japanese, this is even more laughable. They weren't gonna penetrate anything. The US, at one point or another, broke every single major Japanese code.

Had Hitler had more time, there's no telling what he would have been able to build.

He had to have the resources, facilities, and enough competent atomic scientists, and he had to have enough of these to get the bomb sooner than the US. This was just NOT going to happen, PERIOD.

And it's a miracle we're all still here. Personally, I don't like the idea of a 50 year long nuclear standoff with a Nazi Empire...

And I don't like the thought of a 50 year standoff with the Soviets, but what's the difference? In any case, it would have come down to a US nuclear monopoly for years, and when Germany finally built an atomic bomb, it would have turned into MAD. The isolationist US wouldn't have been fighting silly little wars like Korea or Vietnam, and certainly would have had no presence in Europe.

But this is all elementary, because I don't think the Germans could have even successfully invaded England, even if they conquered Russia.

Britain would have been starved into submission.

Again, this isn't true. The Royal Navy, with LIMITED US aid, defeated the major Uboat threat in 1942. In any case, Britain couldn't have been starved prior to the historical defeat of the Uboats (because it didn't historically happen, duh), nor for a long time after, so if you want to play that game, I'll just say that the British would have begun a massive bomber offensive against the Uboat ports on the French Atlantic coast, and, who knows, maybe even some small scale raids with the aim of destroying Uboat facilities.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sava
Help me Imran!! Help me convince Floyd that he is wrong about WW2.

DF just can't admit that isolationism doesn't work. China tried that during the age of inperialism and they were majorly F*CKED.

[David Floyd]

Help me convince Floyd that he is wrong about WW2.

Obviously you can't do it

Odin,

Japan could of invaded Hawaii if they would of sent an invasion force with the aircraft carriers.

So which one of their other invasions would they NOT have done, then? All of their amphibious assets and ground troops were being used MUCH further west against places such as the Philippines and various other islands. Not to mention a major campaign against Hawaii would have probably precluded as quick of a victory against the Dutch East Indies - and the resources there were the point of the war to begin with

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
And the document produced has nothing like a vision you'd expect from a real constitution

That's because you aren't a real country.

PS How did you people get to WWII?

[David Floyd]

Someone brought up FDR as a good president. I refuted, and so on it went.

[Sava]

Obviously you can't do it

Which means you are terribly stubborn.

[David Floyd]

No, it just means you don't know what you're talking about, by and large.

[Spiffor]

I was under the impression that Japan's plan was to cripple the US fleet so that the US would be forced to accept Japanese imperialism in Asia at the negociation table (and possibly give the Philippines and other Pacific assets).
I fail to see why the Japanese would have tried to invade the powerful, well defended and faraway US, since they were taking all the resources they needed from the coprosperity sphere.

[David Floyd]

I was under the impression that Japan's plan was to cripple the US fleet so that the US would be forced to accept Japanese imperialism in Asia at the negociation table (and possibly give the Philippines and other Pacific assets).
I fail to see why the Japanese would have tried to invade the powerful, well defended and faraway US, since they were taking all the resources they needed from the coprosperity sphere.

Bingo.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now, Odin:

Scrap it. It is vauge enogh that people twist the wording to fit thier side (the 2nd amendment for example). Things I would like in a new constitution:

It must must clearly state that seperation of church and state MUST be inforced, no "in God we trust", or "so help me God" crap should be allowed in the government, Schools must be religion free, Judeo-Christian Mythology should belong IN a mythology class, not in other classes.

NO subsidies should be allowed.

Direct presidential vote.

Campaign contributions cannot exceed $3,000 per person. Soft Money is totally banned. The max campagn $ per person is agusted every year for inflation.

Replace the original Senate with a Senate based on preportional representation, like in many European countries.

SC justices can serve no more than 10 years.

The budget MUST be approved by popular referendum in both Federal and State. Every household gets a copy of the buget 2 weeks before it is voted on.

Doesn't the vagueness work AGAINST your favor? It is vague so it can be adapted to modern times, change with the people, that sort of stuff. Would you rather make it more rigid and have a Constitutional convention ever 25 years (which would tend to paralyze things, IMO).

As for Chuch and State, do you mean to tell me that you would FINE those officials that said 'so help me God' in a speech? What ever happened to free speech? As for schools being religion-free, does this mean teachers cannot wear crosses or Stars of David as necklaces? What ever happened to freedom of religious expression? And what would happen when 90% of the class missed school for a religious holiday like Christmas? Do you go on with the 3 people there?

Does no subsides also mean no subsidies to individuals? Welfare is technically a subsidy .

Do you REALLY want to put how much money someone can give in a Constitution?! What if people decide that is too much? They can't lower the limit without Amendment? What if the people decide on direct public financing? Amendment time again?

If SC Justices serve 10 years doesn't that mean they will rule according to the current political climate and not what the law means? Doesn't this also mean that the SC becomes a greater political body and thus their decisions shoudn't be really followed because the next one 10 years down the road will reverse this decision?

Approving budgets by popular referendum is DUMB! The cost, first, would astronomical. The budget today is incredibly large and specific. Secondly, to have every American understand the budget he'd have to have training in economics or accounting (as do the Congressional aides that tell the Congressmen what is there), and even then, he might not know what the Hell he's voting for. Third, that would create massive problems if the people continuely rejected budgets. Government workers would stop getting paid after like the third one, and what would be the reason for the people actually approving one, once this happened?

[DinoDoc]

I would have expected a discussion on weird SCOTUS decisions before this, myself. :shrug: