Is North Korea really a problem?

[The Silver Thong]

Name one thing the west has done to stop terror, oh wait nothing. Hmmm in retrospect they supplied Issis oh and Hilary Clinton sold 20 percent of the U.S. plutoniom to Russia. Lets not bring up Bengazie

[Golden Duck]

Ummm.... the IRA don't seem to be a problem anymore 

[The Silver Thong]

25 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Ummm.... the IRA don't seem to be a problem anymore 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-is-the-new-ira-why-has-the-terror-threat-been-raised-from-northern-ireland-to-the-uk-a7024276.html

[Space Commander Travis]

9 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

The Japanese at that point had 65 divisions in the Japanese islands, 10,000 planes ready for kamikaze attacks, 28 million citizens trained for combat, 4 battle ships, 5 aircraft carriers, 2 cruisers, 23 destroyers, 46 submarines, 400 midget submarines, 120 manned torpedoes, and over 2,400 suicide boats.  Despite how much you try to pretend it isn't the case they also had the fuel to use the 10,000 planes as kamikaze attacks and to use the smaller ships close to shore.  The larger ships, the battleships, aircraft carriers, and cruisers, were mostly damaged so they planned on keeping them in harbor or beaching them and using them as weapon platforms.  Before you try to claim those numbers came from allied estimates or are some form of propaganda, those figures came from the Japanese themselves and their defense plans of the home islands.

Oh please! They had hardly any experienced personnel, and most importantly of all hardly any fuel at all. Simply quoting numbers is completely irrelevant. And the whole point is that they'd have had no need at all to come anywhere near the Japanese home islands at all since they could have simply starved them into submission through the submarine and air blockade. There was no possible way Japan could have been a continuing threat to anywhere else to make it so urgent that it had to be invaded.

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

Did you even read that site completely, let alone doing any research before posting, cause it seems like one again you rushed to make a post which you thought proves your point but doesn't.

First I suppose it would be best to start off with the obvious.  The list shows that two of the five carriers I mentioned, the Hosho and Ryuho, had nothing done to them.  But that still leaves three of the five carriers and showing what best can be described as intellectual dishonesty it's very convenient how when you copied and pasted that table from the site how the color coding used on the original site doesn't transfer over and you make absolutely no mention of it what so ever.  You fail to mention how text in red font are ships that have been sunk while ships that have only been damaged are in a blue font.  Of the ships that were damaged and not sunk there is the carrier Junyo and interestingly the battleship Ise.  

If you would of done actual research, which it seems to be you are completely incapable of for whatever reason, some things should of struck you on that site like how it is clearly a homemade site with no sourcing what so ever and that is has quite a few inaccuracies.  The first inaccuracy that is important to point out is that the list has a total of 31 ships, 2 battleships and 29 carriers, while Japan had 30 carriers that it used throughout the second world war.  Of the two battleships it does list the Japanese did attempt to convert them into aircraft carriers after the battle of midway but that plan for a total conversion was scrapped and instead they attempted to make a half carrier half battleship hybrid of which the conversion was undone about a year later for the Ise but I believe ,but not completely sure, the Hyuga remained a hybrid ship but carried so few planes it functioned as a battleship.  The carrier the creator of the list forgot to add was the carrier Kaiyo which was the carrier that was abandoned on August 10, 1945 after severe listing form damage sustained the previous day which is also the day after the second atomic bomb was dropped.  While fine for that site for this thread having the Katsuragi listed as not service is misleading.  The issue is that while the Katsuragi did not fight in any battles it was still a functional ship that was stationed in Kure harbor at the end of the war.

Basically you attempted to use what is at best a site with questionable accuracy, of which there is more flaws then what I mentioned, but has three of the carriers I mentioned, two if you want to put the Katsuragi in a seperate category all of its own, being unharmed, one being damaged along with one battleship being damaged that I had listed, and completely missing a carrier.  Not exactly the strongest evidence for your case.

So all that just proves the opposite of what you want it to prove, that Japan was still such a powerful force that they had no choice but to either invade or drop the Bombs. 

[Yamato]

6 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

I said some of those nine ships were sunk in shallow water, specifically the battleships Ise and Haruna were sunk in shallow water in their harbor.  The battleship Hyuga was purposefully ran aground.  The aircraft carriers Ryuho and Kaiyo were the only two sunk in shallow water with the Kaiyo I believe being sunk in shallow water August 9, 1945.

As for weapon platform, most people would consider a heavily armored ship, with functional cannons and anti aircraft weapons, that is still being manned as a threat even if it has been grounded or sank in shallow water, especially if this is in a harbor and able to actively defend the harbor.

While the Japanese fleet was severely damaged it still had 400 midget submarines, over 40 regular submarines, I believe 23 destroyers, and 2 cruisers.  You still completely ignore the 10,000 kamikaze planes and 65 divisions being backed up by a 28 million man civilian fighting force.

I never said it was the only impact that mattered but unlike you I accept that it was finally what pushed Japan to acceptable surrender terms instead of believing it serves no real purpose like you believe.

So you think some or all conditions such as no foreign occupation of Japan, no foreign over sight of disarmament, Japan handling the prosecution of Japanese war criminals, Japan being allowed to hold land it conquered in mainland Asia, and Japan returning colonial holdings on the condition they are granted independence by the European countries as acceptable.

Also I never ran from the thread but I do tend to get busy with life and have to take breaks from UM at times.  Given that the thread had moved on and your tirades were pathetic and uninformed at best I considered it best to leave them but I am more then willing to go back to them in the appropriate thread to continue to show how little you actually comprehend.

Lastly if anyone needs to repair credibility it would be you after your never ending uninformed post in just about every thread you post in.  While I'm not always correct I atleast do actual research and attempt to post informational post instead of constant rants and tirades.

Sorry but I don't think any serious historian who's written about the subject is under your strange delusion that the Japanese navy wasn't destroyed before the atomic bombings.  They had essentially no battleships, no aircraft carriers, no pilots, no fuel, and no capability to project any offensive action ever again.   In the Pacific war, imperial offensive actions were over and done with by 1942.   They had no hope of fighting a war of attrition with the US and it was a war of mounting loss within months after the war began that would never reverse and only accelerate.

10,000 kamikaze planes is ridiculous, that you even believe that is hilarious.   An imaginative and conjectural estimate, what must also be presumptuous that Japan would use all remaining aircraft in the suicide role, which hypothetically would be a sad tactical reality by that point even under such conjecture.   They were out of every resource imaginable including pilots.   If they ever had 10,000 serviceable aircraft even at their high water mark, even when they had fuel to fly them, that would be a dubious guess at best.

Their army saw defeat every time it was up against a meaningful force.  Japan was a defeated military power in 1945 by more than a consensus of historians on the subject including top US military command in the theater.  The only distance between the war and the war's end in Japan was the bureaucratic decision to make terms.

It's remaining destroyers would have been destroyed quickly and easily at the first sign of exposing themselves.  Ditto their submarines.  And near the end of the war they were being destroyed at record rates.  To use these remnants as your argument that the nukes had to be dropped is ridiculous.  

Acknowledging that the atomic bombs pushed Japan to surrender and believing the A-bomb religion that they were necessary for Japan to surrender are two very different things.   A supposition we agree on doesn't make your belief realistic when tactically, they had no ability to project their power.

[Yamato]

4 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Did you even read that site completely, let alone doing any research before posting, cause it seems like one again you rushed to make a post which you thought proves your point but doesn't.

First I suppose it would be best to start off with the obvious.  The list shows that two of the five carriers I mentioned, the Hosho and Ryuho, had nothing done to them.  But that still leaves three of the five carriers and showing what best can be described as intellectual dishonesty it's very convenient how when you copied and pasted that table from the site how the color coding used on the original site doesn't transfer over and you make absolutely no mention of it what so ever.  You fail to mention how text in red font are ships that have been sunk while ships that have only been damaged are in a blue font.  Of the ships that were damaged and not sunk there is the carrier Junyo and interestingly the battleship Ise.  

If you would of done actual research, which it seems to be you are completely incapable of for whatever reason, some things should of struck you on that site like how it is clearly a homemade site with no sourcing what so ever and that is has quite a few inaccuracies.  The first inaccuracy that is important to point out is that the list has a total of 31 ships, 2 battleships and 29 carriers, while Japan had 30 carriers that it used throughout the second world war.  Of the two battleships it does list the Japanese did attempt to convert them into aircraft carriers after the battle of midway but that plan for a total conversion was scrapped and instead they attempted to make a half carrier half battleship hybrid of which the conversion was undone about a year later for the Ise but I believe ,but not completely sure, the Hyuga remained a hybrid ship but carried so few planes it functioned as a battleship.  The carrier the creator of the list forgot to add was the carrier Kaiyo which was the carrier that was abandoned on August 10, 1945 after severe listing form damage sustained the previous day which is also the day after the second atomic bomb was dropped.  While fine for that site for this thread having the Katsuragi listed as not service is misleading.  The issue is that while the Katsuragi did not fight in any battles it was still a functional ship that was stationed in Kure harbor at the end of the war.

Basically you attempted to use what is at best a site with questionable accuracy, of which there is more flaws then what I mentioned, but has three of the carriers I mentioned, two if you want to put the Katsuragi in a seperate category all of its own, being unharmed, one being damaged along with one battleship being damaged that I had listed, and completely missing a carrier.  Not exactly the strongest evidence for your case.

That site is accurate and what it shows is how devastated the Japanese navy was.  You've done your best to spin your way out of it but you can't do that.

It's apparent you didn't know that these ships were destroyed and you're still fantasizing that they weren't for some reason.  If that's the kind of argument it takes for you to believe the atomic bombs were necessary you've convinced yourself.  

I could peel apart all these little fake factoids you're asserting that you think make the case for your atomic belief but it's so petty already it feels like trying to reason with someone that unicorns don't exist.

A functional ship!  -->  Dysfunctional history.

[Bama13]

15 hours ago, Yamato said:

The Japanese military was a ghost by that point.  It couldn't even stage a coup. 

"Revisionist" well yeah, the propaganda got revised by real historians.  Gawd, read some books on the subject already...

I have read about WWII since I was around 8 years old. Know plenty, thanks. In fact it is apparent to anyone with knowledge of the end of WWII that I know more than you or Thong. 

As to why exactly the Japanese surrendered I suggest you read the surrendered statement issued by the Emperor.

You should take your own advice as you need it more than I.

[internetperson]

16 hours ago, Yamato said:

Do you have any clue how many of their cities were completely destroyed before the atomic bombs?   How in sam hell could you believe that doesn't provide the same motive to surrender the atomic bombs did?

I know this wasn't directed at me but it's interesting and haven't thought of it before, anyway:

To the first question, no. No clue whatsoever. Regarding the second, because even though firebombings were more devastating in Tokyo that took 279 planes and Hiroshima only took 1.

[Merc14]

8 hours ago, The Silver Thong said:

No, I don't understand that you live in America as well, how the hell would I know that?   And who cares anyways, Yammie lives in America and hates everything about the country that protects his drug addled ****.

SAID BY mERC, AND LOOK TO YOUR LEFT, NO YOUR OTHER LEFT.

You mean where it says Calgary, Alberta Canada? Is that in America now?

Quote

For the slow of reading Canada in my very province of Alberta located in North America. Funny how some yanks like Merci don`t get it. According to Merc North America is just the U.S. 

Normally when Americans and Canadians discuss their two countries, both of which are located in N. America, they say Canada and America. I have NEVER met a Canadian that referred to Canada as America and i grew up in Buffalo so was constantly crossing the border.   To assume that what you mean when YOU say America to an American includes Canada, is an absurdity and I have never met a Canadian that got upset about the distinction....except you.  We'll discuss this stupidity below.

Quote

 WOW and you don`t get it that the U.S. is the only nation that has ever used nukes on civilians....

Common knowledge and explained above.  What is your point?  

I haven't failed to notice that, once again, you have avoided, this time by using the above absurd change of direction, to answer my question re. the morality of killing 200K Japanese with a nuclear weapon or 10M Japanese and 1M Americans via an invasion.  I have numbers for a total blockade and they are worse for the Japanese and only slightly better for the Americans if you want?  Same question for both scenarios and I am not going to stop asking this question, especially since you brought it up, until you ate least acknowledge it .

Quote

 Is Canada not part of North America, get a grip man

Stop being a child and answer my question.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Merc14

[Merc14]

8 hours ago, The Silver Thong said:

We know the total of kills according to you and we know you support WMD`s the satire you post has to be laughed at.

 Answer my question.

[Merc14]

8 hours ago, The Silver Thong said:

Name one thing the west has done to stop terror, oh wait nothing.

Seriously?  You missed that whole Afghanistan thing?  How about all the terrorists killed in terror friendly countries?  You aren't a very well informed guy are you.

Quote

Hmmm in retrospect they supplied Issis oh and Hilary Clinton sold 20 percent of the U.S. plutoniom to Russia. Lets not bring up Bengazie

We did supply ISIS when Libya fell but not sure how Putin getting 20% of the US uranium (you get plutonium FROM uranium)  helps supply terrorists?    I do agree that was a bad deal and very suspicious of the entire transaction, hopefully tey FBI is investigating.

.

[DarkHunter]

9 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Oh please! They had hardly any experienced personnel, and most importantly of all hardly any fuel at all. Simply quoting numbers is completely irrelevant. And the whole point is that they'd have had no need at all to come anywhere near the Japanese home islands at all since they could have simply starved them into submission through the submarine and air blockade. There was no possible way Japan could have been a continuing threat to anywhere else to make it so urgent that it had to be invaded.

That is simply not a true statement and any level of actual research would show it.

Japanese oil inventories in thousands of barrels

Fiscal Year	Crude Petroleum			Refined Products			Starting Inventories			Consumption
	Imports	Production	Total	Imports	Production	Total	Crude	Refined	Total
1941	3,130	1,941	5,071	5,242	15,997	21,239	20,857	28,036	48,893	36,974
1942	8,146	1,690	9,836	2.378	16,674	19,052	12,346	25,883	38,229	41,790
1943	9,848	1,814	11,662	4,652	16,167	20,819	6,839	18,488	25,327	43,992
1944	1,641	1,585	3,226	3,334	9,615	12,949	2,354	11,462	13,816	25,045
1945 (first half)	0	809	809	0	1,933	1,933	195	4,751	4,946	~6,576

From http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/O/i/Oil.htm

As can clearly be seen the Japanese home islands were able to produce 2,742,000 barrels of oil in 1945 in the Japanese home islands on top of the 4,751,000 barrels of oil they had at the start of 1945 for a total of 7,493,000 barrels of oil.  While that is significantly less then what they were producing earlier and meant that there larger ships were forced to stay in harbor it was enough fuel to use their smaller ships, submarines, and kamikaze planes/boats. 

Second you seem to forget that Japan was still occupying large sections of Asia that were still producing resources even if they couldn't make it to Japan.  By the time Japan surrendered they still occupied Wake Island, Nauru, South Pacific Mandate, Guam, New Guinea, East Timur, Myanmar, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, and parts of China.  Maybe you are fine with giving an enemy that is on the verge of defeat a chance to rebuild.

As for experienced personnel while it is true that Japan has lost most of their experienced personnel you don't really need that much experience when the main defense plan called for kamikaze attacks and suicidal last stands.

Lastly for starving them into submission I suppose you would of been fine with letting the war continue on for another year or so till they have been starved into submission.  Historically when you look at past starvation tactics to get a group of people to surrender it normally ends up killing between 5% and 15% of the population being starved so I suppose between about 3.6 million and 10.8 million people starving to death would of been preferable to you.  That is assuming the Japanese people acted as past groups have and the revived Bushido culture wouldn't of had an impact which given past action of the Japanese is extremely unlikely.  

[Merc14]

53 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

That is simply not a true statement and any level of actual research would show it.

Japanese oil inventories in thousands of barrels

Fiscal Year	Crude Petroleum			Refined Products			Starting Inventories			Consumption
	Imports	Production	Total	Imports	Production	Total	Crude	Refined	Total
1941	3,130	1,941	5,071	5,242	15,997	21,239	20,857	28,036	48,893	36,974
1942	8,146	1,690	9,836	2.378	16,674	19,052	12,346	25,883	38,229	41,790
1943	9,848	1,814	11,662	4,652	16,167	20,819	6,839	18,488	25,327	43,992
1944	1,641	1,585	3,226	3,334	9,615	12,949	2,354	11,462	13,816	25,045
1945 (first half)	0	809	809	0	1,933	1,933	195	4,751	4,946	~6,576

From http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/O/i/Oil.htm

As can clearly be seen the Japanese home islands were able to produce 2,742,000 barrels of oil in 1945 in the Japanese home islands on top of the 4,751,000 barrels of oil they had at the start of 1945 for a total of 7,493,000 barrels of oil.  While that is significantly less then what they were producing earlier and meant that there larger ships were forced to stay in harbor it was enough fuel to use their smaller ships, submarines, and kamikaze planes/boats. 

Second you seem to forget that Japan was still occupying large sections of Asia that were still producing resources even if they couldn't make it to Japan.  By the time Japan surrendered they still occupied Wake Island, Nauru, South Pacific Mandate, Guam, New Guinea, East Timur, Myanmar, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, and parts of China.  Maybe you are fine with giving an enemy that is on the verge of defeat a chance to rebuild.

As for experienced personnel while it is true that Japan has lost most of their experienced personnel you don't really need that much experience when the main defense plan called for kamikaze attacks and suicidal last stands.

Lastly for starving them into submission I suppose you would of been fine with letting the war continue on for another year or so till they have been starved into submission.  Historically when you look at past starvation tactics to get a group of people to surrender it normally ends up killing between 5% and 15% of the population being starved so I suppose between about 3.6 million and 10.8 million people starving to death would of been preferable to you.  That is assuming the Japanese people acted as past groups have and the revived Bushido culture wouldn't of had an impact which given past action of the Japanese is extremely unlikely.  

It is far easier to judge from 50 years in the future than it was in 1945 with millions of Americans exhausted from endless war and contemplating invading the home islands of an enemy that had regularly chosen mass suicide over surrender.  

[The Silver Thong]

3 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Seriously?  You missed that whole Afghanistan thing?  How about all the terrorists killed in terror friendly countries?  You aren't a very well informed guy are you.

We did supply ISIS when Libya fell but not sure how Putin getting 20% of the US uranium (you get plutonium FROM uranium)  helps supply terrorists?    I do agree that was a bad deal and very suspicious of the entire transaction, hopefully tey FBI is investigating.

.

Well for one 17 of the 18 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia why not attack them the very ones that funded Osama Bin crapterd. So tell me smart guy, is Afganistan better off now, is Iraqi better off, is Lybia better off and do you feel safer. I don`t.  

At least you admit to funding and creating Isis

The funny thing is that Trump showed some respect to Putin but the Obama admin sold material to Russia that could be used to make a nuke. Oh Wait the U.S. also gave Iran how many billions hmmm.

Like I said NK is but a pimple. In all honesty if we bull dozed NK I would not care. First we need to figure out how and how it ends because so far nothing has worked anywhere.

 

[The Silver Thong]

Merc could you remind me what your question was and be spicific please

[The Silver Thong]

From Merc

``You mean where it says Calgary, Alberta Canada? Is that in America now? ``

OMG we both live in North America, I could email you a map if you like

You don`t own the name America, a reminder, you are living in the nation called United States of America.

You have heard of Canada and Mexico right

Edited May 4, 2017 by The Silver Thong

[Bama13]

6 minutes ago, The Silver Thong said:

From Merc

``You mean where it says Calgary, Alberta Canada? Is that in America now? ``

OMG we both live in North America, I could email you a map if you like

You don`t own the name America, a reminder, you are living in the nation called United States of America.

When the majority refer to "America" they are referring to the USA, not North or South America. As far as I know it is the only country on either continent that contains the word "America". Hence we are referred to as "Americans". People from Canada are usually referred to as "Canadians" (which should be "Canadans" as they are from Canada, not Canadia, but that is another topic for another day). People from Mexico are usually referred to as "Mexicans".

I quite sure that you know all this but are just giving Merc a hard time.

[The Silver Thong]

5 minutes ago, Bama13 said:

When the majority refer to "America" they are referring to the USA, not North or South America. As far as I know it is the only country on either continent that contains the word "America". Hence we are referred to as "Americans". People from Canada are usually referred to as "Canadians" (which should be "Canadans" as they are from Canada, not Canadia, but that is another topic for another day). People from Mexico are usually referred to as "Mexicans".

I quite sure that you know all this but are just giving Merc a hard time.

Oh I hear what your saying but its arrogant, just a small point. Is it ok if I call myself an American since I live here. The U.S. is a band of states and stake the name America.  Im a Canadian that lives in North America. It really is that simple. However I would not like to be called an American though I am. It`s   Geography

How many people are asked are you from Africa or are you from Europe or are you from Asia.  I`m a North American that has three differnt countries. First and formost I am Canadian that lives in North AMERICA.

 

[Merc14]

59 minutes ago, The Silver Thong said:

Well for one 17 of the 18 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia why not attack them the very ones that funded Osama Bin crapterd. So tell me smart guy, is Afganistan better off now, is Iraqi better off, is Lybia better off and do you feel safer. I don`t.  

Why do you think?  

Quote

At least you admit to funding and creating Isis

Where did I do that?  I admitted to arming them inadvertently, not creating or funding them so WRONG AGAIN!!!  That must be getting old plus you have, ONCE AGAIN, not answered my question.  

Quote

The funny thing is that Trump showed some respect to Putin but the Obama admin sold material to Russia that could be used to make a nuke. Oh Wait the U.S. also gave Iran how many billions hmmm.

You might want to dig into the facts before posting such a simplistic scenario, 

Quote

Like I said NK is but a pimple. In all honesty if we bull dozed NK I would not care. First we need to figure out how and how it ends because so far nothing has worked anywhere.

A pimple with nuclear weapons.   You're simplistic arguments, many errors and immature choice to avoid facing the moral question means you are getting to be a very BORING conversation.   

[The Silver Thong]

Lets be friends and I offer you a big hug

 

[F3SS]

The United States of America is well known as "America" by anyone's definition. Nobody refers to the continent as "America". It's either North America South America or "The Americas". Besides the context was obviously about the US.

[Merc14]

15 minutes ago, The Silver Thong said:

Oh I hear what your saying but its arrogant, just a small point. Is it ok if I call myself an American since I live here. The U.S. is a band of states and stake the name America.  Im a Canadian that lives in North America. It really is that simple. However I would not like to be called an American though I am. It`s   Geography

How many people are asked are you from Africa or are you from Europe or are you from Asia.  I`m a North American that has three differnt countries. First and formost I am Canadian that lives in North AMERICA.

 

Your specious argument is nothing but you trying to avoid answering a difficult question.  How stupid to demand being called something you don't want to be  called.   BTW, try and be a little smarter and realize you live in the Americas but are a Canadian. See if you'd use correct words you wouldn't confuse people.  I am putting you in the yammie/manfred category after this ridiculous bob and weave, change the subject cowardice mixed with a heavy dollop of ignorance and a thick coating  of duh responses.    Congrats, you have reached the lowest common denominator status

[The Silver Thong]

7 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Your specious argument is nothing but you trying to avoid answering a difficult question.  How stupid to demand being called something you don't want to be  called.   BTW, try and be a little smarter and realize you live in the Americas but are a Canadian. See if you'd use correct words you wouldn't confuse people.  I am putting you in the yammie/manfred category after this ridiculous bob and weave, change the subject cowardice mixed with a heavy dollop of ignorance and a thick coating  of duh responses.    Congrats, you have reached the lowest common denominator status

Im putting you in the nutball catagory. I asked very kindly what was your question because I think you forgot what it was, I know I did.  *Snip* Why resort to insults, oh it means you don`t have a leg to stand on, you do make me laugh though.  Yup I guess I will go to your level and just call you a dumb dumb

Does this meen no hug.....

Edited May 5, 2017 by kmt_sesh
Threats

[Thanato]

31 minutes ago, F3SS said:

The United States of America is well known as "America" by anyone's definition. Nobody refers to the continent as "America". It's either North America South America or "The Americas". Besides the context was obviously about the US.

I call the United States of America, the United States or simply the US. I call Citizens of the United States, Yanks or Americans.