2004 Presidential Election Poll

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   Looks like your knowledge of Geography is nearly as bad as your history. But not quite as bad as your grasp on reality!

Poll Question: Who will/do you vote for/support?
Poll Choice	Votes	Poll Statistics
President George W. Bush (Republican)	15	[38.46%]
Sen. John F. Kerry (Democrat)	7	[17.95%]
Ralph Nader (Reform/Independent)	1	[2.56%]
David Cobb (Green)	1	[2.56%]
Michael Badnarik (Libertarian)	2	[5.13%]
Michael Peroutka (Constitution)	0	[0.00%]
Walt Brown (Socialist)	1	[2.56%]
Robert Fripp (King Crimson)	12	[30.77%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Reed Lover Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Reviewer page Forum Senior Member Joined: July 16 2004 Location: Sao Tome and Pr Status: Offline Points: 5187	Posted: November 13 2004 at 19:26
	Looks like your knowledge of Geography is nearly as bad as your history. But not quite as bad as your grasp on reality!


gdub411 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Reviewer page Forum Senior Member Joined: August 24 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3484	Posted: November 13 2004 at 19:36
	Well I know the Japs have to sail around Africa,but who is stopping them from that? Explain Reed because if it is anything else you are dead wrong. Seizing Gilbalter would have been a key military stroke for the axis..and Gilbalter does bottle off the Mediterrean from the Atlantic. The Baltic also leads out into the Atlantic as well..my knowledge of Geography is quite well so you had best back this silly statement up with facts there Reedy boy. Heck ., if Germany and Italy seize Alexandria then what's stopping the Japanese from sailing up the Red Sea and right into the Mediterrean...that would cut off a considerable amount of distance.

Reed Lover Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Reviewer page Forum Senior Member Joined: July 16 2004 Location: Sao Tome and Pr Status: Offline Points: 5187	Posted: November 13 2004 at 19:54
	Too far by sea for the Japs. Would take a hell of a lot of time and I dont believe the Japs had any ambitions to head for Europe. Edited by Reed Lover


gdub411 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Reviewer page Forum Senior Member Joined: August 24 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3484	Posted: November 13 2004 at 20:18
	Touche...maybe not....they probably would have been too busy scooping up the numorous number of islands to solidify their empire. Afterall they needed alot of those places for oil, steel,etc....but let's remember...no US assistance means very long war....perhaps in time they would have been pressured by the other axis powers to assist. Afterall the German and Italian navy certainly weren't taking out the Brit's navy anytime soon. They would have needed that Japanese juggarnaut of a navy to help out. Perhaps they become more imperialistic and want more. Japan did have eyes on India(England controlled at the time) and without US interference the outcome in the war against China would have been more favorable.( always a huge Japanese mistake in attacking China I thought-but then again they did seize a number of key resources there as well...sueing for peace was probably the best approach...China might have agreed to terms when they had their backs to the wall...to top that off there was Civil war going on in China at the time as well..The Ming(?), Han?, Ping?, Pong?, Ching?, Chang?, Walla walla Wing Bang?(whatever they were called) Dynasty might of welcomed peace to deal with the communist upstarts) Also the Soviet Union extended back all the way to Japan. No fighting against the US means their forces would have to be placed somewhere. How about an invasion from the lightly guarded rear of Russia?.. or perhaps Japan takes the Panama Canal and moves into the Atlantic via that route? ...but then again the canal probably never gets built without a unified United States.

James Lee Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Reviewer page Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 05 2004 Status: Offline Points: 3525	Posted: November 13 2004 at 23:14
	We're assuming that the US has dropped completely out of influence because it isn't unified...perhaps sharing the continental landmass would alter the isolationist outlook of the US, leading to more involvement in world affairs by one or all of the "States". Certainly the proximity to another powerful nation (no offense, Peter) could have motivated all the "States" to develop their technology and possibly increase international diplomatic relations. In any case, there's no reason to think that each of the divisions couldn't be a world power (though reduced in resources) in it's own right.