If the founding fathers could see their country now, what would they think? (Not just US)

[PurpleRain]

We also have the real Iron Man.

My god... its true...

Also, we gave the world ACDC and felix the cat.

That and some other stuff, i cant remember.

thats right, all your base are belong to us.

Vegemite.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Vegemite

I don't think we gave that to them, i think we kept it here.

God be damned do i love me some vegemite.

 

[S.W.]

They'd be pissed at the fact that cannabis was/is outlawed.
To qoute wikipedia:
For most of his life, Washington operated his plantations as a typical Virginia slave owner. In the 1760s, he dropped tobacco, a prestigious but unprofitable crop, and shifted to hemp[50] and wheat growing and diversified into milling flour, weaving cloth, and distilling brandy. By the time of his death, there were 317 slaves at Mount Vernon.

 

[yourkie1921]

What if the Puritans could see America now?

I think burning would be involved. Possibly smallpox.

most of this burning done by me.

 

[Copter400]

"Strange, I thought there would be more hookers by now." - Abraham Lincoln

 

[yourkie1921]

lol, if abe comes back and says this he will be my new idol.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

lol, if abe comes back and says this he will be my new idol.

Lol abe might be able to get it for free, Since he freed millions of people right?

 

[Gooble]

I reckon they'd be pretty horrified, considering that they left for new lands because of the extreme inequality in Europe, when there's now extreme inequality in today's USA.

 

[Lord Krunk]

I dunno about America, but if Sir Edmund Barton saw Australia, he would think "Aborigines with rights? What happened to my White Australia Policy?"

 

[Saskwach]

SNIP You know, it really surprises me that people are under the impression that tanks are some sort of invulnerable fighting machine. That assumption has NEVER been correct, in that in confined areas you deal with them by shooting up the supporting infantry and following the above steps, and in the open you simply have aircraft shoot their rear armour and supply chain into teeny pieces.

Indeed, the Poles stopped the Germans' armored blitzkrieg long enough for 3/4 of Warsaw to evacuate using mounted lancers. The lancers so terrified the German infantry that they refused to advance into the open; the tanks refused to advance into the open without the infantry because tanks have limited vision buttoned up, and if you stand in your hatch someone will shoot you (or in this case, put a long spear through your head.) The lancers stopped the armored advance for as long as it took to kill all the cavalry. People make fun of the Poles mounting a cavalry charge against tanks, but when WW2 began almost all the USA's cavalry was horse-mounted as well.

And as you point out, without good infantry tanks are very vulnerable within cities or any other terrain that allows the other side concealment in the approach. Our military has excellent infantry, but in favorable terrain you can always knock out tanks if you're willing to close and take the casualties. In the Battle of Stalingrad the Russians took out German tanks from overhead, underneath, beside, behind, any approach available by driving the German infantry to ground. They suffered heavy casualties, but destroyed a few hundred German tanks without much in the way of anti-tank guns or friendly tanks - mostly just massive guts and grenades, satchel charges, and Molotov cocktails.

Actually, the Poles never used cavalry to fight tanks (though obviously there would be close proximity - this is war). That myth started because a cavalry regiment was overrunning a German infantry group into the tanks, who had run out of fuel. The intention was to cut down the infantry before they could support those tanks - which could then be taken apart at leisure.
Source: The Blitzkrieg Myth, John Mosier, which also concludes that the idea of blitzkrieg was a pile of baloney and hooplah. I can't say if he's right but it sure reads like he knows his stuff.

I dunno about America, but if Sir Edmund Barton saw Australia, he would think "Aborigines with rights? What happened to my White Australia Policy?"

If Charles Kingston [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kingston] saw our country he'd sigh and mutter "still no direct democracy..."
Oh, and all the others would wonder what happened to the constitution's implied federalism.

 

[silentsentinel]

They would facepalm, probably.

 

[lanostos]

*sigh* They put in the right so the common man could protect himself from said police force and military.

people always seem to forget that the gun law is our "RESTART" button. if the government or police get out of line we have a way to overthrow them. if other countries are content with their brick throwing revolts, so be it.

My argument is that sure, having guns is awesome if you need to overthrow your government, the only problem is your rifle won't do you much when you're faced with a tank. So why bother?

Guns might not be as effective as bricks when it comes to tanks but there good for dealing with the general foot soldier. Your argument is that we either need to get bigger guns or just roll over and die.

How to deal with armoured vehicles when you are a civilian (Fondant Industries close-quarters battle handbook, 1941).

1. Lure it into a confined area, such as a city or so on.

2. Get very close to it, place an explosive on the treads (immobilised) shoot into the firing ports (killing or maiming the crew), utilise a molotov cocktail on the engine (further harming the crew, and immoblising it even more) drop a hand grenade into the hatch/firing ports and, voila! that tank is now a useless hunk of metal. (please note: I will not be held responsible for anyone being killed should the tank's magazine explode and kill everyone nearby)

3. Rinse and repeat until enemy is armourless.

4. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ATTACK IT IN THE OPEN. YOU WILL BE SLAUGHTERED.

5. Remember to create roadblocks, mines and other obstacles so that you have plenty of time to eliminate the enemy infantry.


You know, it really surprises me that people are under the impression that tanks are some sort of invulnerable fighting machine. That assumption has NEVER been correct, in that in confined areas you deal with them by shooting up the supporting infantry and following the above steps, and in the open you simply have aircraft shoot their rear armour and supply chain into teeny pieces.

No no no and NO. The maneuvers you so casually describe would never be executed by civilians.

-Do not have necessary training. Would cower in fear in front of a 66 ton giant.
-Tanks have a huge psychological impact, everyday rabble will run.
-Tanks are invulnerable to any kind of explosive a civilian could get his hands on. Abrams and leopards can even take shaped charges and are invulnerable short of an airstrike.
-Now impossible to drop a grenade in the hatch, it's firmly closed. Same for firing down ports, they're sealed.
-There is a directive in war time for tank crews who happen to have been covered by people, either adjacent tank sprays the other tank with small arms fire to kill assailiants who are exposed while on top or crew will drop a gaz canister from an underhatch.
-Tank crews aren't stupid and would not ever let themselves be lured into an enclosed space.
-Tanks can blow apart any barricade you can think of.
-civilians don't have access to aircrafts for bombing runs.
-Most importantly, tank crews aren't stupid, all the defences you talk off would need that the opposing force be a buch of blithering idiots who would wait nicely while average untrained civilians would pick em off, this ain't turning point:fall of liberty friend. (what an awful game that was)

Conclusion: civilians are defenceless against their own army, second amendment might give arms to citizens but not for use against a standing army and there is nothing wrong with that, why would we think we need to defend ourselves from our own forces, that's just paranoid.

 

[lanostos]

Oh and also, when I said founding fathers, I didn't mean only the US, I meant the founding Fathers of your country. I myself am Canadian.

 

[Splitter]

If you're talking U.S. founding fathers.
You should remember that they were the people who had religious views so extreme that they were "politely asked to leave Europe".
Then when they got to the "New World" they proceeded to burn down the place and kill most of the people and a lot of the animals living there.
So, they would probably be disappointed that there were people out there who believed in evolution and such like. Even more disappointed that there were people out there who actually didn't believe in god and the bible word for word.
They also would be surprised that anyone who wasn't white wasn't a slave.
And would probably consider you pretty mellow by there standards.

On the other hand if the founding fathers were good old boys who were just making their way in the world then they would be disappointed that everyone wasn't living on a ranch and letting them good times roll.





I'm gonna get a lot of people yelling at me now aren't I?


Edit: I was talking about the people who first came over from Europe, not necessarily the people who formed what we know as America.

 

[Ixus Illwrath]

i bet they would ask who the hell put a texan in charge

LOL, I bet more so they would wonder how did the election process become so convoluted that things like that could ever happen.

 

[Cantthinkofaname9022]

George Washington will be angry that we have political parties, and yes they would be surprised about how big we've gotten.

and the culture shock would be INTENSE

 

[Ixus Illwrath]

*sigh* They put in the right so the common man could protect himself from said police force and military.

people always seem to forget that the gun law is our "RESTART" button. if the government or police get out of line we have a way to overthrow them. if other countries are content with their brick throwing revolts, so be it.

My argument is that sure, having guns is awesome if you need to overthrow your government, the only problem is your rifle won't do you much when you're faced with a tank. So why bother?

Guns might not be as effective as bricks when it comes to tanks but there good for dealing with the general foot soldier. Your argument is that we either need to get bigger guns or just roll over and die.

How to deal with armoured vehicles when you are a civilian (Fondant Industries close-quarters battle handbook, 1941).

1. Lure it into a confined area, such as a city or so on.

2. Get very close to it, place an explosive on the treads (immobilised) shoot into the firing ports (killing or maiming the crew), utilise a molotov cocktail on the engine (further harming the crew, and immoblising it even more) drop a hand grenade into the hatch/firing ports and, voila! that tank is now a useless hunk of metal. (please note: I will not be held responsible for anyone being killed should the tank's magazine explode and kill everyone nearby)

3. Rinse and repeat until enemy is armourless.

4. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ATTACK IT IN THE OPEN. YOU WILL BE SLAUGHTERED.

5. Remember to create roadblocks, mines and other obstacles so that you have plenty of time to eliminate the enemy infantry.


You know, it really surprises me that people are under the impression that tanks are some sort of invulnerable fighting machine. That assumption has NEVER been correct, in that in confined areas you deal with them by shooting up the supporting infantry and following the above steps, and in the open you simply have aircraft shoot their rear armour and supply chain into teeny pieces.

No no no and NO. The maneuvers you so casually describe would never be executed by civilians.

-Do not have necessary training. Would cower in fear in front of a 66 ton giant.
-Tanks have a huge psychological impact, everyday rabble will run.
-Tanks are invulnerable to any kind of explosive a civilian could get his hands on. Abrams and leopards can even take shaped charges and are invulnerable short of an airstrike.
-Now impossible to drop a grenade in the hatch, it's firmly closed. Same for firing down ports, they're sealed.
-There is a directive in war time for tank crews who happen to have been covered by people, either adjacent tank sprays the other tank with small arms fire to kill assailiants who are exposed while on top or crew will drop a gaz canister from an underhatch.
-Tank crews aren't stupid and would not ever let themselves be lured into an enclosed space.
-Tanks can blow apart any barricade you can think of.
-civilians don't have access to aircrafts for bombing runs.
-Most importantly, tank crews aren't stupid, all the defences you talk off would need that the opposing force be a buch of blithering idiots who would wait nicely while average untrained civilians would pick em off, this ain't turning point:fall of liberty friend. (what an awful game that was)

Conclusion: civilians are defenceless against their own army, second amendment might give arms to citizens but not for use against a standing army and there is nothing wrong with that, why would we think we need to defend ourselves from our own forces, that's just paranoid.

Sorry I had to jump on this one as a 5 year veteran and armor crewman. Tanks aren't 'I win buttons' as they are powerless in the face of artillery and CAS. We have always relied on our planes and missles 'softening' targets. Modern armor tactics have essentially no place in the early phases of an invasion, not do they have much place in a post-invasion scenario.

Tanks merely augment a moving front, complimenting helicopter maneuvers and guarding supply lines. This is so because of their all-terrain abilities and first-strike optics for ground-to-ground warfare.

 

[lanostos]

*sigh* They put in the right so the common man could protect himself from said police force and military.

people always seem to forget that the gun law is our "RESTART" button. if the government or police get out of line we have a way to overthrow them. if other countries are content with their brick throwing revolts, so be it.

My argument is that sure, having guns is awesome if you need to overthrow your government, the only problem is your rifle won't do you much when you're faced with a tank. So why bother?

Guns might not be as effective as bricks when it comes to tanks but there good for dealing with the general foot soldier. Your argument is that we either need to get bigger guns or just roll over and die.

How to deal with armoured vehicles when you are a civilian (Fondant Industries close-quarters battle handbook, 1941).

1. Lure it into a confined area, such as a city or so on.

2. Get very close to it, place an explosive on the treads (immobilised) shoot into the firing ports (killing or maiming the crew), utilise a molotov cocktail on the engine (further harming the crew, and immoblising it even more) drop a hand grenade into the hatch/firing ports and, voila! that tank is now a useless hunk of metal. (please note: I will not be held responsible for anyone being killed should the tank's magazine explode and kill everyone nearby)

3. Rinse and repeat until enemy is armourless.

4. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ATTACK IT IN THE OPEN. YOU WILL BE SLAUGHTERED.

5. Remember to create roadblocks, mines and other obstacles so that you have plenty of time to eliminate the enemy infantry.


You know, it really surprises me that people are under the impression that tanks are some sort of invulnerable fighting machine. That assumption has NEVER been correct, in that in confined areas you deal with them by shooting up the supporting infantry and following the above steps, and in the open you simply have aircraft shoot their rear armour and supply chain into teeny pieces.

No no no and NO. The maneuvers you so casually describe would never be executed by civilians.

-Do not have necessary training. Would cower in fear in front of a 66 ton giant.
-Tanks have a huge psychological impact, everyday rabble will run.
-Tanks are invulnerable to any kind of explosive a civilian could get his hands on. Abrams and leopards can even take shaped charges and are invulnerable short of an airstrike.
-Now impossible to drop a grenade in the hatch, it's firmly closed. Same for firing down ports, they're sealed.
-There is a directive in war time for tank crews who happen to have been covered by people, either adjacent tank sprays the other tank with small arms fire to kill assailiants who are exposed while on top or crew will drop a gaz canister from an underhatch.
-Tank crews aren't stupid and would not ever let themselves be lured into an enclosed space.
-Tanks can blow apart any barricade you can think of.
-civilians don't have access to aircrafts for bombing runs.
-Most importantly, tank crews aren't stupid, all the defences you talk off would need that the opposing force be a buch of blithering idiots who would wait nicely while average untrained civilians would pick em off, this ain't turning point:fall of liberty friend. (what an awful game that was)

Conclusion: civilians are defenceless against their own army, second amendment might give arms to citizens but not for use against a standing army and there is nothing wrong with that, why would we think we need to defend ourselves from our own forces, that's just paranoid.

Sorry I had to jump on this one as a 5 year veteran and armor crewman. Tanks aren't 'I win buttons' as they are powerless in the face of artillery and CAS. We have always relied on our planes and missles 'softening' targets. Modern armor tactics have essentially no place in the early phases of an invasion, not do they have much place in a post-invasion scenario.

Tanks merely augment a moving front, complimenting helicopter maneuvers and guarding supply lines. This is so because of their all-terrain abilities and first-strike optics for ground-to-ground warfare.

Agreed, your backgroud only gives more credit to your point but with respect to it I was simply responding to the idea that civilians could do anything about them even in an urban environment. All of that regardless of the fact that there is no way that a government would actually armor against the population since there are much more economical and effective solutions.

 

[ffxfriek]

theyd feel like idiots for not saying ALL PEOPLE are created equal. and theyd b terribly ashamed at how americas becoming horrible. (due to liberals) and the world is all corupt just as it was wen they were alive.

 

[stompy]

I reckon the founding fathers of Australia (I suppose you could call them 'founding fathers') would be severely disappointed. They wanted a white Australia, not this excellent mix that has greatly contributed to our culture and economy.