>I promised myself I wouldn't post anymore. But I can't help
>it!
>
>- Honestly? Not really. I'm not sure why it would have been.
>It also depends upon how aligned Japan and Germany were.
>History isn't really my thing, but were they working together?
>If so, we would have probably gotten involved in Europe. If
>not, the USSR takes over a whole lot more of Europe and
>destabilizes that much quicker.
>
>Japan, Germany and Italy formed the 'Axis', allied against
>pretty much everyone else. USSR wouldn't have just taken over
>a good part of Europe and destabilized. Oh, and we'd have
>something called Nazi Europe to deal with eventually. I know
>history wasn't really your thing, but most people tend to
>agree that the Nazi's weren't nice fellows. And they were
>very ambitious not nice fellows.

I'm aware they were the 'Axis', but I am not sure how much they actually worked together. I've become more leery of labels recently. I mean I'm pretty sure North Korea and Iran don't work together, but some people are try to label them together.

I don't think it is clear that without US involvement in the European theater (which from what your saying wouldn't have been the issue anyway) that all of Europe would have fallen to Germany. I consider it more like that Communist Russia takes more than they did and then destabilizes like they did and things are more or less the same. It's all theoretical anyway.

>- We have satellites and such that are profitable no? Are
>human space voyages profitable? I don't think so, so they
>might not have happened... I'm not entirely sure we lose a
>whole lot.
>
>We do have satellites that are profitable, yes. Would we have
>been able to create them without NASA in the first place, so
>soon? Hell, we likely wouldn't have them now if it wasn't for
>the Nazi scientists we took in (see above answer) after their
>defeat to aid our space program.

Rockets were a known (emerging?) technology. I'm optimistic that someone would have thought to use them for something other than an explosive (or nuclear) payload.

>- I don't consider it the job of the government to take care
>of those that don't take care of themselves.
>
>I do. Making sure pretty much everyone has bread on their
>table keeps a country from total and complete chaos. There is
>a fine line between charity and being taken advantage of, but
>it's a line we often have to walk.
>
>- Were they asked?
>
>Asked? They didn't do it on their own. If someone shows zero
>initiative, someone else has to step in.
>
>- Did Eisenhower first try to get the states to work together
>on an interstate highway system?
>
>If all the states were involved, and had final authority, each
>with their own little bickering opinions, we'd still be in the
>middle of figuring out the route for I95.

They wouldn't have final authority because of the interstate commerce clause not to mention the national defense implications of that sort of infrastructure.

>There are very few things the goverment does better than the
>private sector, but the things they do fairly well should
>remain in their hands. The government isn't as good as they
>make themselves out to be, nor nearly as bad as most citizens
>make it out to be.

And since we threw out some founding father quotes earlier...

"We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."

James Madison

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

George Washington

I swear there was one about governments being the greatest enemy of the people... but I can't find it....

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves..."

James Madison (I edited out the part about the 10 commandments.)

And this one is perhaps my favorite.

"There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from anothe quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing."

Daniel Webster