Great Britain Fades to Black

First off... POST A LINK! while we all love to hear you bitch and moan about one thing or another, posting a link to a news article detailing the situation usually helps to support an individuals position.

Now, for my rebuttal.

Has the next round of mothballing been set in stone? Last i had heard were rumors and conjectures that were pretty much shot down by the brand new aircraft carriers they were building. Changing the make up of their fleet by mothballing ineffectual ships and replacing them with more powerful aircraft carriers isn't a bad thing.

I'm sorry not every soldier can be as good as the new poster child for the Republican party. Why don't you sit through boot camp and go find out what torture is like and see if you consider that group cowards or "worthless" still.

I'm sorry that Great Britain doesn't employ cowboy diplomacy like Bush does. I'm sorry that they actually attempt to use diplomatic channels instead of turning everything into a big pissing match.

Learn a thing or two about international diplomacy before you start spouting off. Guns aren't always the answer - If G.B. hat hit them back, things most likely would have escalated. Diplomacy, on the other hand, tends to save more lives.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 3 2007, 03:49 PM) [snapback]417235[/snapback]</div>

Well, they combined theories of racial superiority and social engineering with overwhelming military force and the creation of powerful quasi-commercial firms (the East India Company, for example) to subjugate and civilize --or colonize, as I believe it was called-- a number of countries...and, in the process, exploit the indigenous peoples...

Perhaps this penchant might explain their fall from "greatness."

Remember that li'l ol' American Insurrection...I mean, Revolution...? I'd suggest that, actually, the fall began then.

 

[attachmentid=7248]

'Nuff said.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Apr 3 2007, 05:10 PM) [snapback]417243[/snapback]</div>

I'm more inclined to believe that the fall of the British Empire actually began in earnest after WW1 and the finality of it came at the conclusion of WW2. England came within a hairbreath of being invaded by the Nazis, and would have been, if not for some stupendous military blunders by Adolf Hitler.

A similiar fate will likely befall the United States, with the downfall beginning with the defeat in Vietnam, concluding with the inevitable defeat and withdrawal from the ill-conceived Iraq debacle. After the two greatest foreign policy disasters in US history, it's quite unlikely that the US will ever be looked upon as 'the world's policeman' again.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 3 2007, 04:06 PM) [snapback]417242[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, but if we nuked Iran, then us Prius drivers would be sitting pretty compared to the SUV drivers as gas goes zooming past $5/gallon.

Really we can blame UK for the current Iraqi conflict - weren't they the ones that colonized Iraq and Iran? They set up political boundaries based on arbitrary lines, not ethnic regions, so when they left, dissimilar people were forced to work with others they didn't particularly trust...this has been brewing a long time, and probably will continue until there's a Kurdistan, Sunnistan and Shiitestan from Iraq, Iran and parts of Syria and Turkey.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Apr 3 2007, 04:40 PM) [snapback]417259[/snapback]</div>

I think it's more our stuttering African policy (Somalia, Sudan, etc.) and Gulf War II. The others were mixed or positive and people can put Viet Nam in the past. The giant to watch out for is China, with their growing international influence and greater need on foreign resources, much of it in the middle east. They aren't bothered by a few violent crackdowns on civilians or other anti-social behavior by the leaders, so their foreign policy can be often at odds with ours (Libya, Iran, etc.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Apr 3 2007, 04:45 PM) [snapback]417262[/snapback]</div>

And...we have a winner!

I would humbly agree with your assessment.

The sun *has* set on the British Empire, and for good reason (I'd like to think that it's mostly due to their absconding with a number of relics from Before the Common Era...which, in actuality, were the property of the GREEKS!)

Social engineering doesn't work. The White Way isn't always the best. Western Culture and Religion will NOT, due to their supposed inherent superiority, prevail. Thus, the fall of the British Empire.

Yes, the WW's were the final nail in the coffin, but the seeds had been sown long before then.

As far as the US, we're a hedonistic and individualistic (some would say, selfish) society, with a fragile economy (the welfare of which is based in significant part on cheap energy), and --face it, Hawks among us-- despite the big and expensive show of force staged recently for Iraq's benefit, our hands are tied and our choices few if any...just like the Brits.

Why? 'Cause we're unwilling to make changes domestically, which would open up options internationally.

Until we become less sacrifice-averse as a society, and realize that living moderately makes us stronger, we're going to have to keep up the sabre rattling bravado (at the expense of our own credibility).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 3 2007, 01:49 PM) [snapback]417235[/snapback]</div>

One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.


An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.


When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.


It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

Sir Winston Churchill




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 3 2007, 02:06 PM) [snapback]417242[/snapback]</div>

Hmmmmmm, WWII, Chamberlain, ring a bell?

“We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators.†- Neville Chamberlain

WWII death toll 40-55 million, we can't afford this type of diplomacy. As Churchill said above sometimes doing what is right isn't enough eventually we have to do what is necessary..

Wildkow

 

This is in no way similar to WWII. Germany was hell bent on conquest - Iran (in this case) was supposedly protecting it's borders... the fact that those borders aren't well defined, etc is what caused the problem.

A much better example would be WWI. What would have happened if actual diplomacy had happened prior to that war? When the archduke was shot, certain demands were placed, countries felt that they weren't met and war declared. Other countries got pulled in due to alliances, and it became a world war. If, on the other hand, they had pursued diplomatic channels with earnest, war may not have been declared, and we might have avoided WWI - at least until some other localized situation drew in the "super powers".

Good job in bring up large numbers in an attempt to polarize people to support your viewpoint, but next time you might want to pick a situation that actually applies, instead of the standard Germany/Nazi/Hitler route thats been tried to death on this board.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 3 2007, 05:05 PM) [snapback]417268[/snapback]</div>

When you're a bullet, everything is a target.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 3 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]417274[/snapback]</div>

The whole thing sounds a lot more like the Iranians have grabbed some prisoners to swap (possibly with the one mentioned in the link below and maybe some of the "diplomats" we've been grabbing in Iraq lately) -- public protestations notwithstanding.

Kidnapped Iranian Diplomat Freed, Iraqi Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

 

With all due respect, the US has done a pretty good job of wimping out in the Middle East as well. The local inhabitants know we don't have the stomach, backbone, or attention span to wage an effective campaign. We wouldn't be holding this discussion now if the Iranians were properly dealt with when they seized our embassy.

The East India Company may be history but there are still plenty of other corporations exploiting native populations with the consent and blessing of their own independant governments. India, China, and Vietnam don't have problems with sweat shops.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Apr 3 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]417259[/snapback]</div>

And hooray for that!

And about time!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Apr 3 2007, 06:04 PM) [snapback]417344[/snapback]</div>

Right on the money and now we have caved also! Where's the Gipper when you need him?

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zapranoth @ Apr 3 2007, 09:38 PM) [snapback]417421[/snapback]</div>

Cheering for the downfall of the United States of America how PC Liberal of you. :angry:

Wildkow

 

This remains a diplomatic situation, the UK is not at war with Iran. Either our people were inside Iraqi waters, in that case the Iranian forces invaded and kidnapped British subjects or they were in Iranian waters and arrested for illegal entry. Either case is not a middle east crises.
There is also a BBC journalist, Alan Johnston, missing in Gaza. Last year Hezbolla kidnapped two Isreali soldiers, and there was an apparent plot in the UK to kidnap soldiers in the UK. There may be a common thread but as yet it is not proven.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 4 2007, 09:10 AM) [snapback]417521[/snapback]</div>

Equating the USA with an international empire - how very neocon of you. :angry:

 

This just in - Iran announced they will let the 15 British sailors go free.

 

Berman,
1 - Yes, if we had put more troops on the ground in the beginning, it would be over by now. In fact, for the first year or two i was all for doing just that. But instead the administration allowed the insurgency to get a foothold and become entrenched to the point where we can't realistically hope to defeat them anytime in the near (2-4 years) future.

2 - agreed.

3 - Russia doesn't bother me any more - the cold war is over, they have a new form of government, and in fact we get along with them pretty darned well. China is a little worse do to their stance on human rights, but at the same time, the balance of nuclear powers would keep things in check regardless of the size of peoples armies and navies.

4 - I think the US *should* help those less fortunate, or those that suffer from a natural disaster. it's called humanitarian aid, and by saying that you don't want the US to offer it anymore really shows the type of person you are. "it's someone else's problem".

5 - things have slowed considerably since the cold war, but there are no signs of stopping. agreed.

6 - yes, the US economy is probably the most influential on the worlds economy, however the Chinese economy is bigger, and the EU is more stable - multiple countries sharing the burden means a problem in one isn't felt as much in the currency valuation.

7 - yes and no... as we've seen with China, it's very easy to set up blockers to limit the internet's effects on the country and population.

8 - There are more opportunities here than elsewhere, which is why everyone wants to live here. that doesn't mean it's the best, just the most profitable. and money doesn't make a man happy, despite what the masses think.

Finally, your hatred for G.B. clearly stems from the fact that they are handling a situation much, much better than Bush handled his. They didn't go in guns blazing to exact revenge - they used diplomatic resources to come to a satisfactory conclusion that not only brought their soldiers home, but avoid bloodshed and loss of life. These are tactics that Bush, and apparently you, don't understand and probably never will. Great Britain is still a leading force in this world. The only difference is that they exercise this power diplomatically, not militarily.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 4 2007, 09:39 AM) [snapback]417565[/snapback]</div>

I agree with much of what you said however there are still time to carry the "big stick". It is amazing to me that the British sailors were to going to be put on trial right up until PM Blair gave Iran two days. Did Iran suddenly decide the sailors weren't in Iranian waters or did they just decide to forgive and forget? Amazing how fast the "charges" were dropped after the deadline was given.