William the Conqueror was NORMAN, who came from NORMANDY - A part of france

Stumason, I don't think you see my point quite on my ideas, as I do not see them as imperialism the way you do; not saying you are wrong in your opinions (based on how you are interpreting what I write), just I don't think, through reading pure words, that you can get the drift of what I am trying to say (nor can I express it that way). We'd need to be talking in person.

posted by Broadsword20068
I disagree on this "trigger-happy" business. Believe me, if the U.S. soldiers over in Iraq were trigger-happy, it would be all over the news. That one soldier shot that "unarmed" man, and what happens? No one bothers to question if the man was really unarmed (he could've been hiding a pistol or something), instead, the embedded reported transmits the scene and it is on the news worldwide just like that. Yes, a few other civilians have been shot here and there, but all in all, American troops have resisted from firing. If the U.S. troops were trigger-happy, the liberals all over would be screaming that our troops need to leave for that reason. Many do scream it for that reason, but the majority of said people really don't know what they are talking about

posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I wouldn't call it debating when the other person is ignorant of the facts on both sides of an issue...

That was talking about one case in Hatra, not all the mass graves. It said 1.3 million were estimated to have gone missing under Saddam. I guess I'll just have to go find more proof, though:

We have an idea of where they are. We have pictures of large shipments heading across the borders into Syria, and Iran.

You were losing territory long before WW2. The British were no longer the world's strongest military. You no longer had dominance over the seas. Your economy was in shambles. You could no longer afford to fight lengthy wars overseas.

Nothing in there talks about force. It merely states failure to abide by the resolution will lead to, "Consideration of additional measures."

That's opposed to Iraq

Not against tanks. Horses had their use then, but in frontline combat, they weren't effective.

Intelligence agencies have more idea of what's going on then some two-bit French official. I put a lot of stock in what the best intelligence agencies in the world are saying.

We've found "chemical factories" in Iraq. We have pictures of missile sites being rapidly torn down before the invasion. We have pictures of large shipments heading across Iraq's borders just before the invasion.

posted by Broadsword20068
But Europe's military today is pretty weak. They may individually have quality soldiers, but altogether at the moment, Europe could only raise a military about one fourth of what the United States can produce. Europe has about 100 million more people than the U.S., but their military itself doesn't have the funding or the equipment to match the United States. Individually, Europe's economies are too unstable, which is one of the reasons why their militaries have grown to such a degradated state.

posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Eastern Europe itself was an act of aggression. They should never have been satellite states. Russia had no real right to do what they did. And how about their invasion of Afghanistan? Their actions with Korea?

posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You can't build forces up in secret, but America already has the force, and Europe doesn't. We could mobilize and invade before Europe could ever react. Just like you can't build up weapons in secret, you can't produce competent militaries overnight. You can't rely on raw numbers. You can't mass-produce modern technology like you could before.

posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I am against anyone giving help to China.

posted by Disturbed Deliverer
There are only two types of people on this matter. The educated, and the ignorant.

posted by Disturbed Deliverer
And Germany does not have a military better trained than America. Their military isn't even considered the best military in Europe, even though they have the largest of them all. Germany's military possesses almost no offensive capability.

posted by Disturbed Deliverer
NOTHING stops America from returning to that level except the demand for it.

posted by Broadsword20068
Most of Europe's militaries are in a very degradated state right now; all of Europe united at this moment would only equal a quarter of the military strength of the United States currently. Europe is very indebted, and their economies are crap at the moment.

posted by Broadsword20068
If Europe's individual militaries were as powerful as people try to make out, you'd see a lot more of Europe being involved in foreign affairs, to help secure their interests abroad as well.

Not to forget that long as economy goes even 1% better and it only tells about inside EU markets, dont forget how much countrys and corporations invest to China and other countrys, that doesnt show in EU overall growth.

And cutting military just shows that theres no military threat to Germany for example, or do you think any sane would cut from military if seen some threat? You should look the figures that EU puts on non militaric activitys abroad to provide safe enviroment for its citizens to travel abroad. And i would be foolish to say EU try to match US in mere military power, instead its power is based on humanitarian areas and economy to provide those required conditions to not strive people for war.

- Well talk about stating the bleeding obvious!
That was not the point we were debating over.

....and as far as modern goes, in the case of the Char S - 35 the French had 400 of these facing 350 Panzer 3's.

- This is simply wrong. The allies had more tanks than Germany.

- ....and what? There was a British force that went to Norway were just a little too late.

- Not only is this just plain factually incorrect but so crassly ignorant of what was going on. People resisted in various large and small ways across the continent for years.

"Concessions"? The whole point about the so-called 'concessions was that almost the entire world believed Germany had been treated unduly harshly by the allies at the conclusion of WW1. Allowing Germany to recover what was in any case hers anyway was hardly much of a concession.

(and we can thank US Pres Wilson for abandoning his original '10 principles' and giving in to the French desire for a harsh vengence for all that by the way)

Churchill was seen as a dangerous war-monger - and not without some reason either.

He happened to be right (in the end) about Hitler.

It just goes to show that one can be right some of the time and wrong some of the time. 'Thinking' in total absolutes and black and whites is not much of a guide, hmmm?

- You have as free a right as anyone, who said otherwise?
However whether your comments are actually genuinely informed or ignorant and your mind is closed is an entirely different matter, I'm afraid.

- Well when it's as obvious as things are at the mo with many of you guys

Granted it didn't happen so we'll never know the detail of what would have happened but we can reasonably speculate what the likely outcomes - given the limited objectives - would have been.

Basically WW1 all over again a little further west with tanks and planes complicating the mix.

.....and as the 'order to halt' (the tanks before Dunkirk) showed the Germans weren't always that good at recognising and siezing opportunities not in the original plans.

- .....in which case I would suggest that you ideas of the capacity then for waging war are deeply unrealistic.

The Western allies fought the war they could fight. ....and won it.

- Like many you imagine Moscow the be-all and end-all of the eastern campaign. It was not.

- Yes their military was in need of complete revision - and got it despite the original 'version' being devastated - and went on to complete a crushing victory. That's what I call too big.

As for prepared? Well I was of course referring to the USSR's productive capacity. Which they moved out of Germany's range well in time and which them proceeded to arm the Russians like there was no tomorrow.

.....and whilst you are sneering at how prepared or otherwise Europe and Russia was how about the good ol USA?

- LMAO.
The Russians had contained the Germns in the north by late dec 1941 and already successfully pushed them back away from Moscow.
The summer 1942 campaign was Hitler's delusion and was never going anywhere, was shattered by jan 1943 and after Kursh in summer 1943 the Russians never moved back except for Manstein's little bit of skill at Kharkov.

- No. 'We' won, convincingly.
Germany had to stop thanks to the blockade, something that was so effective and that 'we' never had to face.

As for your imaginings over what would have happened "except for.....", or a host of "but......" and this German invincibility you seem to prefer to hold you work away, history is rather against you on the matter though.

quote: The extent of use of independent horse cavalry units by the Germans varied inversely with German fortunes. During the first 3 years of the war, when Germany was ascendant, such units were almost abandoned completely; they never exceeded one division. From 1943, new cavalry units were formed, and by early 1945 there were six cavalry divisions and two cavalry corps.

- Our 'survival' was never in doubt and your companies did do very well out of the deal for decades, not fogetting the territories you guys were able to get in payment too. Guam turned out rather handy didn't it, hmmm?

- A handful of loopy war-perv nutters who believe a successful war with Russia could have been fought is hardly much of a basis to believe this nonsense.

- You'll find (if you bother to look) that it was standard Russian doctrine to view nuclear weapons as they viewed any artillery. Russian would have gone nuclear in their attack without a qualm, it would have triggered an in- theatre response which would have provoked a strategic response which would have been countered etc etc.
Lights out and welcome to the stone-age, everyone.

Yeah right, let's put it like this. The day the US and Europe truely do sit on opposing sides threatening each other properly is the day each of our economies collapse and the value of most of the world's real estate goes down the pan.

- Er, yes they did, actually.
It was agreed at several conferences between the leaders of the allies including the USA.

- What you mean after the CIA had attempted to stir up Islamic fundamentalists in an attempt to play little power games in the hope of provoking insurrection(s) in Russia's southern Muslim states?

- Which ones? The idea of the 'west' arbitarily dividing Korea cos it didn't like the idea of one that looked to their neighbours Russia nd China?

- Arms limitations and reductions to bring about a more rational peaceful world?
Yes, I'd call that a 'good thing'.

- ....and you don't think a lot of that was about the idiotic power games being played to put one over on the other? All rooted in mistrust and deceptions?

I'd rather have started building sane relationships 40yrs ago rather than just 20, we'd be a lot further on towards a more stable world.

- LMAO. "maybe minus N & H".
That's funny.....in a sick tragic ' oh my God what are American kids like these days' kind of way.

...

- Yeah, all alone.
How dare they have alliances with countries opposed by countries backed by the US.

- You, as an American, are not going to whine about old wars of agression and attempts to sieze territory, are you? Jayzuss wept, more crass irony!

- Oh I see, so your 'vision' is one of USA v Europe?
Too funny.

Sorry but we in Europe aren't playing your stupid war-perv fascist games.
Go pretend to be threatened by someone else.

- ....and why would we want to?
The US isn't going to invade Europe. You can barely handle 20million Iraqis never mind the near 500million of us. Wise up and wake up.

The only nation(s) with the existant capacity to do it would be the USA or Russia, neither of whom are going to cos it would destroy the global economy something each benefits from mightily.

- A plane that hasn't even flown yet utilising some of the latest engine, structural and computing technology isn't "cutting edge" enough for you?!

- Yeah well you worry about what you guys are giving them (and what you have been doing via your Israeli pals) before you come bitching to us.

- So just because they disagreed with your Iraq disaster you're happy to just simply ignore all their help in Afghanistan?

- No, the US right-wing can dress it up how they like - cos they'd love it if all Americans were to come into the circle of paranoid wagons with them - but it is almost entirely about just them.
Many of us like Americans actually, we just despise the US right-wing as the gang of crazies they actually are

- Er, maybe you should be getting that the world has every right to reject the current move towards a horrible and very boring mono-culture - especially one like America's?

- Russia is nothing like the power she once was and has no intention to be - and even if the did intend that they are spending nothing like enough to attain that anyways.

Spies? So what?
Everyone spies on everybody to some degree or another. If you think that heralds a situation anything likethe cold war I suggest another med check.

Who else's air forces do you think China should be worried about then hmm? What with the massive deployments of permanentlty stationed US troops and kit in and around Japan, Korea and Taiwan?

As for who helped Iraq I notice the US doesn't like to talk about the European subsidaries of well known US firms that did, your VP might face some tricky questions if they did.

- Er, Kuwait was invaded before the US arrived, actually

- ....and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Fantasize away.

- Maybe the rest of us wouldn't have 1) been so crassly blind as to support and substantially build up a horror like Saddam in the first place or 2) leave him with the distinct impression that an invasion of Kuwait was fine by us.

Originally posted by stumason
I see Sminkey has joined the fray, hows your head mate? All this banging it against a brick wall must hurt after a while, I know mine does

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I thought it was over you severely underestimating the German tanks.

Wow. Panzer 2's were as good as those S-35's. They shouldn't be compared to the number of Panzer 3's.

And Iraq had more tanks than America during the Gulf War.

They weren't invading, and they basically backed down from the Germans.

There will always be some resistance, but it was a small minority.

This would explain maybe allowing them to rebuild their military to a point where they could at least defend themselves. This is no excuse for allowing Germany to go make land-grabs.

Wilson did more than any of the other allied leaders to try and secure peace, and America had the least reason to care.

I don't know what Churchhill was wrong on.

He's predictions came true, now didn't they?

Europe could have put a stop to Hitler early on without such major costs, and instead decided to appease him.

By ignorant and closed minded I guess you mean I don't agree with your liberalistic European bull.

How about you worry about your own leaders. Blair is supposed to be an American puppet, yet he'll be re-elected.

Chirac is a crook who has only made the situation with the French economy worse. And Schroeder is just an incompetent twit who just goes along with what Chirac says.

I think you're severely underestimating the difference modern tanks and planes would have made, as well as how much the German tactics would have effected things. The bottom line is that the concentrated tanks of Germany would have had the advantage. Germany would have had complete air superiority.

The Germans have made mistakes, but they still kicked the rest of Europe around in both of those wars.

The Western allies would have fallen on their own. I suppose you Brits were going to fend off the Germans all on your own, though, right...?

What would have Russia done after Moscow? How would they have rebuilt their military? Who would have continued to fund their production?

Their "crushing victory" was a stroke of luck and came at very dear costs which were never really necessary.

This means they were prepared? It only got to this point because of German mistakes, and in spite of what the Russians did.

America wasn't prepared, but it would have been a very long while before Germany could ever threaten us. We hadn't said we would go to war with Germany like the British and French. We didn't sit back and watch as the Germans built up on our borders like the Russians.

And the million plus men on the Western front wouldn't have tipped the scales? Look how long it took the Russians to make their way to Berlin. If the Germans had more troops, they could have launched a counter-offensive.

It still doesn't matter. The Germans should have finished the Russians off long before any Russian offensive started. They came ridiculously close to defeating Russia. It's unbelievable that someone would say their victory was impossible.

Germany was hardly done. Had they not started playing defensively, they would have gotten the job done.

The Germans would have attacked the same place, but they would have done it in a very different way. They did not plan on doing the same thing they did during WW1.

And the idea is to win at the as low of a cost as possible. That cautious attitude loses more than it wins.

This doesn't back up any of your claims at all. It doesn't talk about horses being sent to the frontlines, and it even says that they weren't used much at the beginning of the war.

Your survival was never in doubt, yet you let America station thousands on your land?

Top generals (among the best in history) no less then you, huh?

America had many of the same weapons. It doesn't mean they'd be used freely. It's about intimidating the other side.

You never know what could happen.

None of the allies ever liked Russia going around turning them into their puppets. It's part of the reason we were so desperate to end the war with Japan.

The Soviet invasion came long before any aggressive action by America. America wasn't training rebels until Soviet tanks roled into Afghanistan.

Turning down the idea of an election in Korea that would have settled everything, then backing the North's attack on the South, and even sending pilots to fight with us.

Peace shouldn't be made with things like the USSR.

If we had done that, then the Soviet Union would probably still be around today.

I guess the people of Eastern Europe and Russia don't really matter as long as the West is safe, though, right?

I'm going back to the Czars, not in the past half century. Most of America's involvement in the Middle East has been necessary because of European actions in the past, as well.

America was free to take over all of Canada and Mexico for a very long while. Our small run at a colonial power was short lived, and a lot less bloody then the European and Russian attempts.

I'm not threatened by Europe. I know we could crush Europe now, and in the future.

I'd say the EU is a very real attempt at trying to surpass America.

Keep dreaming. America has screwed around in Iraq. Can anyone honestly say that America has used its full strength in Iraq? We haven't even used a fraction.

Until things change, and they can change fast.

No, a jetliner is not cutting edge. Do you think it's anywhere near as technologically advanced as military planes?

I'm not going to ignore one problem just because another exists elsewhere.

They haven't given much more then the token effort in Afghanistan.

Well, from my own experiences with Europeans, and going to Europe, and from everyone I know, this isn't the case.

They have the right to keep their own culture.

But when someone goes to another nation talking about fighting the spread of our cutlure, and takes steps to help arm that other nation, that seems pretty aggressive to me.

I see no reason why politicians should be worried about what movies their people are watching.

I'd say that this is a sign of a lot more paranaoia then what you find from America's right wing.

They aren't spending now because they can't. Give it another decade. With a more open economy they'll be able to spend a whole lot more then what they did during the Cold War, and they will be.

I guess there's nothing at all strange about Putin's actions to you, though. I mean, he's only gone and pretty much crushed free speech and democracy in his country.

It's not like the Cold War because Russia still can't reach their old level of power, and they aren't recognized as even a growing threat anymore by most.

Most of the military in the region is just left over from the Cold War, and menat to deal with Russia.

If we wanted to wage war with China, we would have done so by now. We sure as hell had the capability.

Yea yea...more Halliburton scandel. These questions are asked plenty in America by Democrats. They've never come up with a damn thing
Until someone has evidence of actual corruption taking place, I don't want to hear it. American officials weren't taking payments from Saddam..

Yes, and nothing would have stopped them from going further. That was my point.

Was there any unrealistic about what I said? Saddam would have had control over the world's oil reserves, something that the Western world completely relies on.

He was buying Russia, and French weapons, not American.

It's nowhere near that simple. America didn't blindly support Saddam. If we didn't, we would have had Iran gaining control over even more oil resources.

This has been shown to be false as the allies did have more tanks than the Germans and many of them were fully comparable if not superior to the best of german tanks they used invading France in 1940.

- This is plain wrong. Clearly you don't know what you are talking about.

You were wrong.
My point stands, it was not numbers but tactic that won the battle of France in 1940

- Who said anything about a 'majority'? Of course the majority keep their heads down and hope to survive.

- Except that these 'land-grabs' were all about regaining historic German territory right up until Czechoslovakia in 1938.

- Wilson started out with great intentions of justice and allowed himself to be steered into a program of petty revenge which in large part brought the dsaster of WW2.

- Then I suggest a little study into the man might enlighten you, right?

- More 'ifs', 'buts' and 'maybes', hmmm?

- I could care less whether you agree with me or not, a little open-mindedness that there are other facts you are clearly unaware of and that things are not the neat linear version you seem to imagine them to be would be a better starting point though if you don't mind my saying.

- His right-wing opponents in the UK love to claim that about him, personally I find the "puppet" claim laughable and I look forward to his reelection. The Labour gov he leads is the best option by far IMO.

......and if you think France and Germany are some kind of quasi-marxist clapped out economies you are fooling yourself. They are good places to live. Wake up.

We can speculate all day long about what might have happened but my bet would be that the probable achievement of their initial objectives fairly early on would have led to relief and hesitency in the German leadership (as did happen in the actual campaign) along with a desire to secure their gains.

- They had some initial successes....... and then proceeded to lose.
Not 'just' lose either but lose so utterly that all traces of the German body politic that existed pre-WW1 and pre-WW2 were totally wiped away never to return.

Cos along with our commonwealth 'we' not only fended off the Germans with great success 'we' also managed to begin taking the war to Germany quite successfully.

- Russia would have done what she has always done and moved much further east - as they planned to do, if it had come to it, in 1941

Germany could have taken Moscow and like Napoleon found no-one there.....

........ and still the 'river of tanks and planes' produced so far out of German bomber range would have come to swallow them up

- No. Stalin began moving the factories long before the German assault. You are quite wrong

- So are you saying the USA was blind to the threat and even when it had all started kept out of it to begin with despite the shared risk of German control of the world's trade routes etc?

....and as far as the Russians were concerned they did everything they could to stave off the war as they too needed time.
Which they got and which they made great use of.

- Given the threat of invasion on the western side how would those million have been released?

Germany need tanks and aircraft - neither of which she could produce in sufficient number.
A million troops and their kit would have made little difference.

The fact remains they couldn't even hold the vast territories they did supposedly 'occupy' and they had no answer to the 'ocean' of world-beating tanks and the swarms of capable excellent combat aircraft the Russians were to unleash on them.

German was on the verge of total collapse when she cried enough. Her people were starving to death and they faced utter ruin.

Hence the disaster of post-WW1 Germany.

- Well dream on old son, the fact is we know what they originally planned.

- It says cavalry was not used to begin with but was later. Can you read? Do you understand the meaning of the term 'Cavalry'? You ought to being an American.

- .....and we developed and funded our own nuclear deterrent weaponry and the means to effectively deliver them etc etc.

- "Top Generals" so what? Some of the world's "Top Generals" have also turned out to be raving war-perv nutters of the 1st order.

Politics (and the whole business of not having actual unnecesary wars) tends, generally, not to be a General's strong point.

They may have done a good job at points in their careers but that doesn't make them the font of all knowledge at all times. Check out General 'let's nuke 'em all' MacArthur for proof.

- No it's not about having the same weapons, it's about a doctrine that sees nuclear weapons as no different from any other type of artillery. Russia if it had happened would have attacked with nuclear weapons on day one.

- "The allies" as you put it were prepared to go along with Russian plans to let them create a 'buffer zone' under their control because 'we' could see the justcie of it and also we needed their help.

.....and given the way many of those eastern European states had happily supplied men and equipment to help the German attack on Russia who can blame the Russians (or the allies for that matter) in not being exactly overly concerned about the feelings of those same eastern Europeans on the matter?

- Well if you bother to look you'll find 'Operation Cyclone' began long before the Afghan invasion.

- I hardly think the US is in a position to talk about respecting democratic mandates when it comes to Korea, right?

- LMAO! Tell that to Reagan!

- Pulling some more guesses out of thin air again are we? You have absolutely no grounds for this claim other than your own prejudices.

- ...and yet my point was all about everyone's greater safety.

- Yeah right, all everyone elses doing and nothing to do with America and the alliances she has persued. Try telling that to the Iranians, Iraqis and Israelis.

- I'll bet the Mexicans get real comfort from that.

- Jayzuss how stunningly self-centred are you people?
The EU is all about maximising Europe's potential economically for the betterment of the people of Europe.

- .....and what?
The point is you can't.
Just like in Vietnam you can't go the whole hog cos then you lose everything there anyways.

- No they can't.
Not today.
They can't 'just' quickly change as they take vast funding, a long time to build up and train and cannot be done secretly on the required scale.

I think you'll find the composite construction technology will advance Chinese tech in this field enormously, similarly as with the fly-by-wire computer tech (Jayzuss you guys threw a fit over the export of Playstation 2 to China ferchrissakes!) and giving them access to some of the latest biggest and most powerful and fuel efficient jet engines will also give them a major leg-up.

- Like I said, you utterly ignore and sneer at the help they have given you

- Hmm so there is talk about a common concern about cultural integrity - and this connects with a handfull of comments calling for the relaxation of the EU restrictions on the export of arms to China how, exactly?

Cos France hasn't exported so much as a bullet to China so far.

- The childishly pathetic 'freedom fries' BS says everything anyone might need to know on that score, don't you worry about that.

- ....and exactly why would they repeat the pointless waste once again? Just cos you guys are beyond help on that score doesn't mean everyone else is.

- Putin is doing just what you lot are up to; using the supposed threat of 'global terror' to justify repression.
In fact in his case due to the very real and frequent on-going problems with Chechnya he probably has far more cause and justification.

He may have gone slightly further than Bush but we look on in horror at Patriot Act and Patriot Act 2.
I see little real difference.

- So why not stop trying to claim they 'might be' when you think it suits you then, hmmm?

- But only fairly recently a loopy enough administration to give the matter any kind of serious consideration.

- I doubt very much anyone could come up with anything for you.

- But they didn't go any further.
You claimed they would have without the US presence.
I pointed out there was no US presence at that point and they did not go any further.

- Saddam never had any intention to take over the world's oil supplies, that is the unrealistic thing you have been saying on this. It is pure wild speculation and totally unfounded.

Why would he it would be guaranteed to bring about his removal and downfall?
As it is his mild gambling did so (bearing in mind that he fully believed he had been given the ok by the USA to invade Kuwait over his dispute with them).

- Oh for Gawd's sakes don't you even know the history of how this was all done?
It's all about the Iran Iraq war.
Reagan could hardly be seen to be supplying both sides now could he?
Illegally supplying Iran was bad enough but he could hardly have had the world see Iraq and Iran at each other's throats (in a war the west fully intended would drag on and on and weaken both Muslim countries) equipped with US arms

The only way to break the cycle is to stop 'playing the game' and stop pandering to the power and war-pervs in your country who will always tell you the answer is to put more of your people into the grinder - along with whatever jingoistic crap they think you will listen to.

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
And people, Europe only outnumbers the United States by about 100 million people;

Originally posted by NorwegianPatriot
As a European I really enjoy this topic, and to tell ya'll the truth, It made me register for the forum.

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
The current US Administration is one of the fewer sensible ones we've had. The previous one sucked up to the United Nations, degrated our military, and tried to hand over forms US sovereignty to the UN multiple times.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
The current US Administration is one of the fewer sensible ones we've had. The previous one sucked up to the United Nations, degrated our military, and tried to hand over forms US sovereignty to the UN multiple times.

I think the term is reduced it to a sensible size and improveing relations with other countries, also when does the US care about sovereignty any more?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The comment on the French tank is not I could find duplicated anywhere else.
Maybe a 88 could manage it if it was lucky but regardless you'll find the tank's qualities appreciated elsewhere and the same thing being said.
Great tank for it's day but badly used, which is what I said.

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
The U.S. cares a good deal about sovereignty these days, or else all those forms of legislation giving it away would've passed.