Maple Leaf Patches/Pins

[P. McGee]

In an earlier post, you seemed to casually imply that America could invade or otherwise attack Europe to set them straight (unless you meant something else by "come over there"). What I'm wondering is whether you really believe that a unilateral American invasion of Europe would succeed, or were just making a joke.

Edited August 16, 2010 by P. McGee

[bush_cheney2004]

In an earlier post, you seemed to casually imply that America could invade or otherwise attack Europe to set them straight (unless you meant something else by "come over there"). What I'm wondering is whether you really believe that a unilateral American invasion of Europe would succeed, or were just making a joke.

The earlier reference was clear....the Americans have already invaded Europe twice because of circumstances not of America's making (but certainly related to your previous empire's "Commonwealth").

Technically, no nation in Europe today could stop an American invasion by itself.

[P. McGee]

The earlier reference was clear....the Americans have already invaded Europe twice because of circumstances not of America's making (but certainly related to your previous empire's "Commonwealth").

Technically, no nation in Europe today could stop an American invasion by itself.

OK, so you're just saying that America could single-handedly occupy any one country in today's Europe, at least if the neighboring countries stayed out of it for some reason. But why would the other countries do that? It seems like this would likely turn into a bigger problem for America than you may have first implied.

[GostHacked]

I must have missed the part where America "came over there" and forced the Russians to abandon Communism. Are you certain they didn't just come to the decision themselves? Either way, a military invasion of Russia then or now would be a very stupid move, even for the country with the most expensive military in the world.

The USSR was getting beat by Germany on one side and Japan on the other. The US had little direct conflict with the Soviets During WWII.

It's also important to note that the US did not get involved in WWII until Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese.

So to claim the US invaded Europe is false. They had invaded countries within Europe because Europe was pretty divided for WWII.

We can also note that the USSR were allied to the UK and US during WWII.

[bush_cheney2004]

OK, so you're just saying that America could single-handedly occupy any one country in today's Europe, at least if the neighboring countries stayed out of it for some reason. But why would the other countries do that? It seems like this would likely turn into a bigger problem for America than you may have first implied.

I was just responding to your implication that the United States could not "invade" Europe, when it most certainly can. The USA still has a significant military presence in Europe (about 80,000), mostly in Germany, Italy, and UK.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's also important to note that the US did not get involved in WWII until Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese.

This is not true, as the US supported Allied efforts in several ways prior to any declaration of war (e.g. sinking of USS Reuben James (DD-245)).

[GostHacked]

This is not true, as the US supported Allied efforts in several ways prior to any declaration of war (e.g. sinking of USS Reuben James (DD-245)).

The US may have supported allied efforts, but the US did not officially declare war on anyone until the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed.

[P. McGee]

I was just responding to your implication that the United States could not "invade" Europe, when it most certainly can. The USA still has a significant military presence in Europe (about 80,000), mostly in Germany, Italy, and UK.

Let me clarify, I'm not suggesting an invasion would be impossible, only that it would be an incredibly stupid move and would spell disaster for all involved. It's not too hard to find examples of American invasions of seemingly weaker enemies that didn't go as smoothly as one might assume.

[bush_cheney2004]

Let me clarify, I'm not suggesting an invasion would be impossible, only that it would be an incredibly stupid move and would spell disaster for all involved. It's not too hard to find examples of American invasions of seemingly weaker enemies that didn't go as smoothly as one might assume.

"Disaster" or lack of "smoothness" is often not the principal worry for such American exploits. They are called Expeditionary Forces for a reason. Few nations have the means and will to advertise intent beforehand, cross the world's largest oceans, and project force in support of foreign policy goals.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US may have supported allied efforts, but the US did not officially declare war on anyone until the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed.

Correct, but the US most certainly became "involved" in WWII before the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan. Germany and Italy declared war on the United States, which prompted a return of the "favor" on 11 Dec 1941.

[GostHacked]

Correct, but the US most certainly became "involved" in WWII before the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan. Germany and Italy declared war on the United States, which prompted a return of the "favor" on 11 Dec 1941.

Yes they were 'involved' ?!? (why quotes were they or were they not involved) but the official declaration for war came the day after. Us on Japan. then on the 11th Germany and Italy declared war on the US.

Note how you said I was wrong before but then end up agreeing with me.

[P. McGee]

"Disaster" or lack of "smoothness" is often not the principal worry for such American exploits.

No argument there. This would just be on a much larger scale than previous stupid moves.

[wyly]

I was chatting with someone about a trip to Europe when the issue of wearing a maple leaf pin came up. It is somewhat true (but also largely urban legend) that lots of Americans will put a Canadian flag on their backpack while traveling in Europe. Some do it, I admit, but I think the practice is not as prevalent as you'd believe. I know a few Canadians who would never fly the maple leaf at home who have made a point of wearing their Canadian-ness while overseas.

As an American, I find few things more offensive whether done by an American trying to hide his nationality, or by a Canadian who does it solely to show the world she doesn't have the communicable Yanks Disease. :angry:

I'd like to get the opinions of Canadians about this. Do you wear a Canadian flag pin when traveling? If so, why?

didn't feel the need to wear anything that identified me as a Canadian on my euro vacation...if you wanted to be treated well in Europe, behave as you expect a guest in your home to behave...smile, be friendly, be humble, be modest, speak quietly, be polite, don't belittle your hosts, and do try use the local language...