In the past there is that but in the future there will be notihing

@Cow:

I consider AA50 to be old.  I am not sure why we making comparisons to two older boards, revised and aa50.

I am talking about global, 1942, and 1941. Have you seen the allies in those boards? They are boring.

Good thing I haven’t taken the bait and bought those games  :evil:

At the age i thought you were thinking of non-specific things to opportunity~ 
But in that I grasp we’re of consequence here I desire altogether jubilant :)

I absolutely love the look. Sudden, streetwise, complicated, if a insignificant taste insolent(nothing wrong with that), something I would rub off last .

WW1 for sure, battles of Paschendale or Gallipoli (coming from a biased ANZAC point of view there)

This isn’t impressive at all. Spain had little where to go but up. They’re still Portugal’s black-sheep cousin (and Portugal was a 3rd world country 19 years ago). It’s not like he took a “great nation” and made it “greater”. After all, twice 2 pennies is only 4 pennies.

And the same could have been said about Canada when you speak of it’s economic growth. :wink:

Radical, maybe, Mexican, never! 8)

@TG:

Yeah, those “hard” deadlines for one. cough cough

OK, I was saying a “US-style” “hard” deadline, rather than the “UN-style” “you’ve got 15 days…ok 60 days…ok 1 year…ok 12 years” “hard” deadline. Ya got me :roll: …

Re: “survival of the fittest” I meant DasEwokSS’s suggestion that its ok for powerful nations to swallow weaker ones because that’s somehow the natural order of things. May work for Ewoks, not for humans. I assume he was being tongue-in-cheek…

Ozone27

Mr. Ghoul, I think the Japanese started in China as far back as 1933. You are right as to why the US cut off her fuel supplies. You’re right that didn’t give the Japanese the right to attack in the minds of the US and according to their law. And that is probably the right position legally. However, how would the US react if her oil supply was threatened. Ahhhhh yes, if radical Islam swept across all the oil in the middle east and the world decided to shut of the oil to the US. How would the US react.

The only difference is the degree to which their arguments are valid. Both Japan in 1940 and the US in the last 5 years of done some bad stuff, broken internation law etc. Of course the rape of Nanking is orders of magnitude worse then anything the US has done since perhaps the Indian wars, even then it was spread out over centuries not weeks.

I believe the US had and has laws on her books not to sell weapons to countries at war that don’t involve the US. The US was not at war during WWII until Dec 8, 1941. Therefore it was illegal for the US to supply ANY weapons or war materials to any country at war during the period preceding Dec, 8 1941. The US doesn’t like syria selling weapons to Iraq now, why should they expect war time Germany to like the US selling weapons to England.

In fact, Germany had a legal right to stop and sink any ships entering the british home waters found to be carring war materials. But I digress on this law and history lesson.

BB