Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/22/08 08:55 AM, Kasualty wrote: I think if all the former English colonies joined into one giant country we could control the world.

Not really, considering it'd be a pain in the ass to try and manage India, Jamaica and Australia at the same time. For a start, try divvying up resources and materials to supply all of them.

The former British colonies own a lot of the worlds power. As to whether or not they could conquer the world, i don't ,know. It depends on whether or not you count china as a former British colony. parts of china were under spheres of influence by Britain and other European colonizers, and hong kong was a British colony. If you consider china a former British colony then yes they could conquer if you don't then they might be able to but they might not.

As to whether or not they should, they shouldn't. British culture has already basically conquered the world. Even in areas Britain didn't conquer British culture still has had a huge influence.

At 8/22/08 08:36 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Anyway, England doesn't reign, and never will again. English speaking countries combined currently do hold a dominant position in the world but this is because of the US. The UK, and England specifically, constitute a 2nd string participant. The UK today would be largely irrelevant were it not for its special relationship with the US.

You do have a terrible habbit of trying to predict the future and telling us how the non-existant paths of history would have developed.

How about we let the UN take over the world and we all live in happiness, assuming the UN is a perfect organization.

Brittania you say?

At 8/23/08 06:20 PM, DariusR wrote: How about we let the UN take over the world and we all live in happiness, assuming the UN is a perfect organization.

Fail assumption is fail.

sorry but im a irish-scot-(czech-russian too)

and i am preatty angry how theenglish decided to go and conquer my homelands so i doubt the irish would join ya and if scotland were its own country again im preatty sure they would not join you and americans they would not join india would give you a big fuck you so im preatty sure england is not going imperal again oh and dont go fuckin with ireland

GO ERIN BRAGH

At 8/23/08 03:20 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 8/22/08 08:36 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Anyway, England doesn't reign, and never will again. English speaking countries combined currently do hold a dominant position in the world but this is because of the US. The UK, and England specifically, constitute a 2nd string participant. The UK today would be largely irrelevant were it not for its special relationship with the US.

You do have a terrible habbit of trying to predict the future

Um, I have a terrible "habbit" (see: habit) of saying simple truths.

and telling us how the non-existant paths of history would have developed.

What I said was 100% correct. Pretending that what I said described "non-existant" history is a cop out. Especially considering you can't elaborate.

It's a fact that there is no longer a British empire. It's a fact that the UK is no longer in a position to become an empire. It's a fact that the strong position the UK has today is largely due to its relationship with the US.

1) The US saved the UK in WWII, funding the vast majority of the war effort and doing more tactically/strategically.
2) The US forgave the majority of debt that the UK owed the US, which otherwise would have sabotaged prospects for future prosperity in Britain.
3) The US gave the UK loads of economic aid via the Marshal plan, free of charge. In fact, the UK got more than any other European country. About as much as France and Germany combined.
4) The US is the reason the UK has nuclear weapons, the UK owes its nuclear arsenal to the US. It's almost entirely American-made components, most of it is actually US-owned but just leased to the UK. Therefore much of the deterrent capability the UK has, and its position as a recognized nuclear power is because of the US. This goes for other military technology as well.

The reason the UK is a relatively heavy hitter in the world today is because of the US.

All ENGLISH SPEAKING countries. Not all former British colonies. My B.

At 8/24/08 02:36 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

You do have a terrible habbit of trying to predict the future

Um, I have a terrible "habbit" (see: habit) of saying simple truths.

You don't know what's going to happen on this planet a few centuries down the line. I don't think their will ever be a British empire. In fact I just don't like imperialism all together, but that doesn't mean it can't happen again. The US could just decide down the line, why not continue the war on terrorism in other places. But what it comes down to is you can't predict the future.

and telling us how the non-existant paths of history would have developed.

What I said was 100% correct. Pretending that what I said described "non-existant" history is a cop out. Especially considering you can't elaborate.

Well it's not really, all the things you stated are based on what happened, for history as we know it. You don't know what would have happened to the UK if the US didn't help it. You don't know what would have happened to the US and UK if the Germans didn't invade Russia and just finished us off instead.

You just don't know. Nobody can know. But a guess it's amusing to think of the what ifs'

At 8/24/08 04:45 AM, Kasualty wrote: All ENGLISH SPEAKING countries. Not all former British colonies. My B.

Most counteries now have english as a second language, are they included also?

At 8/24/08 06:25 AM, Jon-86 wrote: You don't know what's going to happen on this planet a few centuries down the line.

I don't. But I don't need to have the gift of prophesy to make logical predictions based on the facts as we know them.

What I said was 100% correct. Pretending that what I said described "non-existant" history is a cop out. Especially considering you can't elaborate.

Well it's not really, all the things you stated are based on what happened, for history as we know it.

That's kind of redundant in a political discussion. Basically what you're doing is using a philosophical view to a degree that you could disregard just about any fact you wanted to disregard.

You don't know what would have happened to the UK if the US didn't help it.

Yes, because anything could have happened according to such a philosophical outlook on history. But that's irrelevant, and pretty inapplicable in a political discussion. As I said, you could take that way of looking at things and use any kind of wacky theory you want to discount anything, about history or about any sort of educated guess of any kind.

For example; I probably shouldn't "predict" that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow because I can't peer into the future and anything could happen. The sun has been rising in what we refer to as the east for billions of years. As long as I've lived I've seen the sun only rise in the east and head west. But I shouldn't be so confident in my own "prediction" to claim it will do the same tomorrow, because for all I know, aliens might destroy it before then. That's only according to your logic, of course.

You don't know what would have happened to the US and UK if the Germans didn't invade Russia and just finished us off instead.

I don't know for absolute certain, but based on the facts, what I said is the most reasonable and fundamentally logical interpretation of history. In fact, it seems the only people who claim that the war could have been won without the US are the people who don't have the critical information to come a conclusion in the first place.

You just don't know. Nobody can know. But a guess it's amusing to think of the what ifs'

What I said was not that big of a "what if".

At 8/24/08 07:07 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I don't. But I don't need to have the gift of prophesy to make logical predictions based on the facts as we know them.

Educated guesses can only go as far as a few decades at most, any further then that and your making predictions that are uncertain. Saying England will never rule or anybody for that matter is a prediction that you made.

Well it's not really, all the things you stated are based on what happened, for history as we know it.

That's kind of redundant in a political discussion. Basically what you're doing is using a philosophical view to a degree that you could disregard just about any fact you wanted to disregard.

You're the one taking the philosophical view when you try to say what would/could have happened. It dose disregard everything except that which actually happened. Redundant yes, so don't do it.

Yes, because anything could have happened according to such a philosophical outlook on history. But that's irrelevant, and pretty inapplicable in a political discussion. As I said, you could take that way of looking at things and use any kind of wacky theory you want to discount anything, about history or about any sort of educated guess of any kind.

And this point takes the fact you took a philosophical outlook on history. Talking about the what ifs, that's why I pointed it out. Theirs no point in talking about the what ifs. You can't honestly tell me you can make an educated guess about any outcome of WW2 that's different from what happened. The most I even claimed was that the Germans would have finished off the UK even with the help of the US if they didn't invade Russia. That is as deep as you could go and even then I could be wrong. WW2 had way too many variables in it to say what the outcome could have been if a few things were changed.

For example; I probably shouldn't "predict" that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow because I can't peer into the future and anything could happen. The sun has been rising in what we refer to as the east for billions of years. As long as I've lived I've seen the sun only rise in the east and head west. But I shouldn't be so confident in my own "prediction" to claim it will do the same tomorrow, because for all I know, aliens might destroy it before then. That's only according to your logic, of course.

Now that's just daft, even if I took an extremely biased philosophical view, what you said their took that view and blew it out of all proportions. And you compared random events such as tactics of soldiers fighting on a battlefield and compared it to something that's a almost guaranteed event with nearly no variables to it.

it seems the only people who claim that the war could have been won without the US are the people who don't have the critical information to come a conclusion in the first place.

Nobody can say the war would have been won if it wasn't for the US nobody can say it would have been lost, because everyone played their part in the outcome that we got. If Britland fell to the Germans it would have played out in a totally different way, the US wouldn't have needed to cross the Atlantic and might have ended up being allies and having a special relationship with Russia. For all we know.

Point still is we dont know.

At 8/23/08 01:30 PM, ThePretenders wrote: The UK's natural home is with the EU. Over half of our trade is with the EU and it makes sense to deepen ties with the EU. By opting out of certain European legislations and directives, the influence of the UK is not as great as France or Germany. Too many Britons believe that the UK could still be independent and still be influential in world affairs, when the opposite is true.

Just because we trade with the EU doesn't mean we have to be swallowed by them. I don't see any point in getting dragged further into the EU project, particularly as the organisation has a habit of poking its nose into our internal affairs. For example, the EU insists that its member states must not have the death penalty. I'm against the death penalty but it's of no concern to anyone else if we have it or not. The idea that we'll somehow gain loads of influence in the EU by bending over and doing whatever the French and Germans want us to is an even bigger joke than the idea of this 'special relationship' with the US. The only times the EU has ever listened to us is when we've started being difficult, by opting out and vetoing. We'll be completely taken for a ride if we give into the EU.

I don't see the point in gaining independence from one power bloc only to give it to another. Hell, at least the US doesn't butt into our internal affairs.

At 8/24/08 02:36 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: 1) The US saved the UK in WWII, funding the vast majority of the war effort and doing more tactically/strategically.
2) The US forgave the majority of debt that the UK owed the US, which otherwise would have sabotaged prospects for future prosperity in Britain.
3) The US gave the UK loads of economic aid via the Marshal plan, free of charge. In fact, the UK got more than any other European country. About as much as France and Germany combined.

Yeah, thanks for all that (Though not to you specifically). Still, I don't think it should have any bearing on how we conduct our foreign policy today. It happened before even my parents were born and the vast majority of Americans who were alive then were only kids anyway. The ones who were really responsible for it are long dead. I don't see why we should show any gratitude just to the descendents of those who helped us.

4) The US is the reason the UK has nuclear weapons, the UK owes its nuclear arsenal to the US. It's almost entirely American-made components, most of it is actually US-owned but just leased to the UK. Therefore much of the deterrent capability the UK has, and its position as a recognized nuclear power is because of the US. This goes for other military technology as well.

I don't know about that. It's certainly been the case with the land-based nuclear missiles (Just US missiles stationed here, weren't even under our command), but I think it's a different matter with our SLBMs. Yes, they're supplied by America, but that's probably only because they were the cheaper option. The French were quite capable of making their own independent nuclear deterrent and that country's roughly the same size as ours with regards to economy and population. There's no reason why we couldn't do the same, so I think we need to stop the penny pinching and do it.

At 8/24/08 10:58 AM, Jon-86 wrote: Saying England will never rule or anybody for that matter is a prediction that you made.

It's a logical prediction. It's not 100% absolute, but it's pretty reasonable.

Does this sadden you or what?

You're the one taking the philosophical view when you try to say what would/could have happened.

Um no... I'm taking a factual position based on what actually happened and what the alternative would have been if different things happened. It is not a stretch of logic at all to conclude that Limeys would have been fucked had the US not provided the aid it did, had the US not entered the war etc... Given the facts about the war, that is the most obvious conclusion someone could come to.

What you're doing is disregarding reality by spewing out a philosophical defense that is entirely inapplicable given the context of the argument.

You might as well say something like "for all you know, we're in the Matrix right now and for all you know, the countries that would compete against England for an empire might not even exist... therefore bah humbug."

And this point takes the fact you took a philosophical outlook on history.

No, I took a historically accurate, logical outlook on history.

Theirs no point in talking about the what ifs. You can't honestly tell me you can make an educated guess about any outcome of WW2 that's different from what happened.

I can, and I did. As have history experts, military tacticians etc...

It's a simple fact that the Brits and the Russians both were losing before the US entered the war. It's a fact that the war did not start going in the allies' favor until the US entered the war. The US provided ridiculously large amounts of aid almost entirely free of charge to the allies, that the allies couldn't provide for themselves. Just so I don't have to repeat myself or copy and paste, take a gander at this page for a little sample of the facts. It's not at some super-intangible "what if" to conclude that the war would have been lost without the US.

Now that's just daft, even if I took an extremely biased philosophical view, what you said their took that view and blew it out of all proportions. And you compared random events such as tactics of soldiers fighting on a battlefield and compared it to something that's a almost guaranteed event with nearly no variables to it.

Um, the chaos of the universe as a whole has less variables than the chaos of a war? Interesting, your own logic defeats itself.

When you look at the facts of history, the defeat of the allies would have been almost certain in absence of the US. Unless some earth-shattering event, a miracle took place, that is what would have happened.

At 8/24/08 02:46 PM, Loch-Ness-Monster wrote: Yeah, thanks for all that (Though not to you specifically). Still, I don't think it should have any bearing on how we conduct our foreign policy today.

It should, because it would show you that as was true in the past, the US is basically the only country willing/capable to do such a thing again.

It happened before even my parents were born and the vast majority of Americans who were alive then were only kids anyway. The ones who were really responsible for it are long dead. I don't see why we should show any gratitude just to the descendents of those who helped us.

I'm not telling anyone to thank me. I was just saying the UK's position as it is today is largely due its relationship with the US. The UK owes the US as a whole quite a bit for its current prosperity and relatively powerful world position. So talking about a resurgent British empire, as if it would rule over the the English speaking world instead of the US, isn't very reasonable, because the US is currently the senior partner apparently.

4) The US is the reason the UK has nuclear weapons, the UK owes its nuclear arsenal to the US. It's almost entirely American-made components, most of it is actually US-owned but just leased to the UK. Therefore much of the deterrent capability the UK has, and its position as a recognized nuclear power is because of the US. This goes for other military technology as well.

I don't know about that.

I do. Check the same link I gave to Jon-86, right after I provided evidence about WWII I provided some links about the UK's dependence on the US.

It's certainly been the case with the land-based nuclear missiles (Just US missiles stationed here, weren't even under our command), but I think it's a different matter with our SLBMs.

No. Trition missiles that the UK uses are leased from the US and maintained by the US. They also depend on GPS data from the US in order to be accurate. (Little do people know, but GPS is a gift to the world by the US. The US could block non-US access to it.)

Yes, they're supplied by America, but that's probably only because they were the cheaper option.

And the better option. A deterrent is a deterrent, but not all nuclear weapons and delivery systems are created equal as far as reliability, capability, specifically accuracy etc...

The French were quite capable of making their own independent nuclear deterrent and that country's roughly the same size as ours with regards to economy and population.

And they did it, but the UK didn't so...

There's no reason why we couldn't do the same, so I think we need to stop the penny pinching and do it.

That's the thing, your country is unwilling to produce its own nuclear deterrent due to the money and effort involved, but at the same time unwilling to go without nukes. So your country got the best of both world's by depending on the US and benefiting from its relationship with the US.

At 8/24/08 02:46 PM, Loch-Ness-Monster wrote: Just because we trade with the EU doesn't mean we have to be swallowed by them. I don't see any point in getting dragged further into the EU project, particularly as the organisation has a habit of poking its nose into our internal affairs. For example, the EU insists that its member states must not have the death penalty. I'm against the death penalty but it's of no concern to anyone else if we have it or not.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees human rights in a written document, something the U.K. has failed to do in its constitution. Having a good human rights record (free speech, abolishing cruel and unusual punishment etc.) is a prerequisite for membership. The EU has to enforce this because you can't let any country with a poor human rights record, like Turkey, without forcing them to make concessions on laws that hinder human rights. The UK knew what it was getting into when it signed it. It wasn't a big secret that there was going to be a supranational Europe.

The idea that we'll somehow gain loads of influence in the EU by bending over and doing whatever the French and Germans want us to is an even bigger joke than the idea of this 'special relationship' with the US. The only times the EU has ever listened to us is when we've started being difficult, by opting out and vetoing. We'll be completely taken for a ride if we give into the EU.

Oh no, ze French and German conspiracy in Bruxelles to destroy ze Monarchy. The British and practically every country apart from the French, want to get rid of the Common Agricultural Policy because they benefit the least from it. If the UK was more enthusiastic, then they could bargain with them to reduce subsidies or even dismantle it all together, but as along as the UK remain aloof, the French and Germans will contunue to hold more influence in European decisions.

I don't see the point in gaining independence from one power bloc only to give it to another. Hell, at least the US doesn't butt into our internal affairs.

Because the 'special relationship' mainly concerns foreign issues, but if you want to continue the illusion that a totally independent Britain can still hold great influence in world affairs, then be my guest because the UK will slip further down the power chain to the likes of China, Russia, and India in the future.

What I don't get about you Eurosceptic guys is that you complain and still vote for the three main parties (all of in favour of deeper integration, even the Tories (Maastricht, Single European Act)). If you want to leave the EU, then vote for UKIP in the general election.

At 8/22/08 08:55 AM, Kasualty wrote: I think if all the former English colonies joined into one giant country we could control the world.

Do you think this is a good idea?

Controlling the world? nah, you need to kill too many innocents. It's better to be a small, efficient nation, like Norway, or Switzerland.

1. time destroys all Americia will fall Britian fell rome fell russia fell ect

2. so we can assume that at all the time there will be a dominent power that switches and turns and changes

3. so we can assume that a large percentage of the world will always be in poverty

4. so we can assume that eventually Americia will be violently cast down or just cast down

5.now it turns out that it doesnt matter who is the better country or who had the better empire

6. so by me writing this i have proved that i'm i'm an idiot

7.btw the British empire was a terrible empire based on slave trade

8. btw the Americian rule is terrible it is based on sweatshops and horrible working coditions

9.China rule well i dont really need to say whats wrong with it because its so obvouis

10. so why do we want to happy with "empires" that use bad means of gaining power

11. i realise most of the modern world is helping sweat shops and shit but Americia being the places of many buisnesses that incorparate sweatshop shizzle and the goverment needs to do something about this

fin

At 8/26/08 04:26 PM, ILovezoms wrote: 1. time destroys all Americia will fall Britian fell rome fell russia fell ect

Actually, Brittain, Russia, and the most important part of Rome (italy) are still there.

I swear to god, you can look on a map and everything.

2. so we can assume that at all the time there will be a dominent power that switches and turns and changes

Kay.

3. so we can assume that a large percentage of the world will always be in poverty

Kay.

4. so we can assume that eventually Americia will be violently cast down or just cast down

No, we can't? "A large percentage of the worlds population will always be in poverty" doesn't mean the U.S will be in poverty.

5.now it turns out that it doesnt matter who is the better country or who had the better empire

Yes, it does, by far. If you're so convinced nothing is to be gained by being the best nation on earth, feel free to move to Ethiopia. It doesn't matter, right?

6. so by me writing this i have proved that i'm i'm an idiot

No one was calling you an idiot... before you wrote this, that is.

7.btw the British empire was a terrible empire based on slave trade

And a loooooot more.

8. btw the Americian rule is terrible it is based on sweatshops and horrible working coditions

Actually, the only area in the U.S that operates sweatshops are the Northern Mariana Islands territory, with a population of 80,000 people. Assuming every man, woman, child, and infant who lives there works in sweatshops (the realistic number would be more like 10,000 of them, but let's use 80,000), then that means exactly .05 of U.S workers work in sweat shops.

So no, the majority of our economy isn't based on sweat shops, like you say, 5 hundredth of one percent of our economy is.

9.China rule well i dont really need to say whats wrong with it because its so obvouis

Racist.

10. so why do we want to happy with "empires" that use bad means of gaining power

We aren't. That's why we declared our independence and all that.

11. i realise most of the modern world is helping sweat shops and shit but Americia being the places of many buisnesses that incorparate sweatshop shizzle and the goverment needs to do something about this

Sweatshops are point oh five of an issue.

fin

Yay.

The British Empire never actually "fell". It was a slow decline and some of it still exists.

At 8/24/08 08:39 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: It's a logical prediction. It's not 100% absolute, but it's pretty reasonable.

Does this sadden you or what?

Thankyou for saying you agree youcant predict the future, and no it dosnt sadden me? Whats that about?

Um no... I'm taking a factual position based on what actually happened and what the alternative would have been if different things happened. It is not a stretch of logic at all to conclude that Limeys would have been fucked had the US not provided the aid it did, had the US not entered the war etc... Given the facts about the war, that is the most obvious conclusion someone could come to.

Well it is a big streach of logic. You see as educated guesses go they cannot make long temr predictions. I am not arguing that the Germans would have probaly invaded the UK after all they had plans. The point your not getting is as soon as you change something, you will have a different outcome in a war as big as this. We dont know if it would have ended when it did. For all we know if the UK was lost and the US didnt have a foot hold the war would have been fought for an extra 10 years.

The point still is we just dont know. And to try and predict the outcome when it whould have ended, who whould have won and how history would have changed since then is what you have done a few times.

You might as well say something like "for all you know, we're in the Matrix right now and for all you know, the countries that would compete against England for an empire might not even exist... therefore bah humbug."

Thats another daft what if the sun doesn't shine tomorrow thing you have posted their!

It's a simple fact that the Brits and the Russians both were losing before the US entered the war. It's a fact that the war did not start going in the allies' favor until the US entered the war. The US provided ridiculously large amounts of aid almost entirely free of charge to the allies, that the allies couldn't provide for themselves. Just so I don't have to repeat myself or copy and paste, take a gander at this page for a little sample of the facts. It's not at some super-intangible "what if" to conclude that the war would have been lost without the US.

I would say this is history in your perspective. Sure the US gave aid to loads of places I dont question that. But I do question your who "the US saved the world" view point. The only thing you can argue or conclude if the US didnt enter the war, would be Europe falling the the Germans. After that you cant say what would have happened.

Also going by your logic its just as easy to say if the Russians wern't fighting on the eastern front then the Allies in the west would have lost. It wasnt all the US it was everyone fighting the Germans on all sides.

Um, the chaos of the universe as a whole has less variables than the chaos of a war? Interesting, your own logic defeats itself.

Ah but you didnt say the "universe as a whole" you said the Sun, this is our solar system alone. Which is quite predictable and the variables of things that can happen are reduced to nothing because we can see things coming or whats going to happen well in advance of when it dose.

You would only have a point here if you said some distant solar system. As when you look into deep space. If you were then to travel there. By the time you got their Millions of years would have passed, because of the "chaos of the universe". So my logic is spot on, you just misinterprited again!

When you look at the facts of history, the defeat of the allies would have been almost certain in absence of the US.

OR the USSR OR the British Empire (which includes more then the British isles) OR China OR any other country or nation that helped us back then.

---

Also on another point, I do like your whole argument the US give the UK a nuclear deterrant. You put your argument in such a way as if to say "we can take your toys away from you again" are you gonna link me to some site that shows the US secretly can deactivate any bomb they have supplied?

Because if you cant, the place the bombs come from means nothing. The people that have them and can use them are all that matters. The point you argue here is just the same (but on a smaller scale) as saying....We trained and armed the Mujahideen with US weapons and tac-tics to fight the Soviets.

At 8/22/08 08:55 AM, Kasualty wrote: Do you think this is a good idea?

Hell no. The British Empire fell because the British thought that their way was superior to the obviously very different cultures of their subjects. Eventually, these subjects grew tired of British oppression and then they rebelled. There should be no empires in the world due to the various differences in culture.

Given the English language is pretty much the most widely used around the world i would say the British empires influence was that strong.

This is most definitely a bad idea. First of all, the British colonies have worked hard to gain independence. They should not submit to British influence under any circumstances. Second, world domination can only fail. The aggressors will just waste time, money and blood.

At 8/27/08 08:44 AM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 8/24/08 08:39 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: It's a logical prediction. It's not 100% absolute, but it's pretty reasonable.

Does this sadden you or what?

Thankyou for saying you agree youcant predict the future, and no it dosnt sadden me? Whats that about?

It saddens you that the British Empire ceased to exist and you lost your empire forever.

Well it is a big streach of logic.

Um no it's not.

And you have no evidence to support your claim.

You might as well say something like "for all you know, we're in the Matrix right now and for all you know, the countries that would compete against England for an empire might not even exist... therefore bah humbug."

Thats another daft what if the sun doesn't shine tomorrow thing you have posted their!

Lol, you're calling things "daft" when your entire argument consists of a shaky philosophical view that you cowardly use to avoid dealing with the facts. I used the Matrix analogy to show just how cowardly your way of arguing is. You provide no evidence to suggest that the Allies could have won without the US, all you do is say "you don't know what could have happened" as your only way of discounting the facts.

I would say this is history in your perspective. Sure the US gave aid to loads of places I dont question that. But I do question your who "the US saved the world" view point.

The US certainly saved the countries who were under threat of the Axis.

The only thing you can argue or conclude if the US didnt enter the war, would be Europe falling the the Germans. After that you cant say what would have happened.

Um, I can also conclude that Asia would have fallen to the Japanese as well, considering the US basically single-handedly defeated them. The funny thing about limeys is, they basically disregard the existence of Imperial Japan in your account of WWII. It's pretty funny.

Also going by your logic its just as easy to say if the Russians wern't fighting on the eastern front then the Allies in the west would have lost.

And yet you ignore that Russians were only able to put up a fight against the Germans on the eastern front because the US gave them so much aid. The US gave the Russians ridiculously large amounts of fuel, ammunition, infantry weapons, artillery pieces, vehicles, food, uniforms, boots etc...

It wasnt all the US it was everyone fighting the Germans on all sides.

With the US doing the most tactically and strategically.

Um, the chaos of the universe as a whole has less variables than the chaos of a war? Interesting, your own logic defeats itself.

Ah but you didnt say the "universe as a whole" you said the Sun, this is our solar system alone.

Holy semantics.

The solar system is IN THE UNIVERSE, thus being vulnerable to the chaos of the universe.

Your position, where you basically say a prediction can't be made because we can't see the future, is very effectively shown for its idiocy by using that sun rising theory. It's an exdtreme analogy, but your view is equally extreme. You basically discount both history and simple logic by taking a philosophical approach where you don't need any facts, any evidence, any real logic whatsoever to allow you to disregard the reality that is too harsh for you to accept.

Also on another point, I do like your whole argument the US give the UK a nuclear deterrant. You put your argument in such a way as if to say "we can take your toys away from you again" are you gonna link me to some site that shows the US secretly can deactivate any bomb they have supplied?

Lol. I think your favorite word "daft" can be used to decribe you right now. First off, it wouldn't matter if the US could secretly deactivate British bombs or not. It's a simple fact the the UK nuclear deterrent was provided by the US. The UK's nuclear deterrent and the power and prestige it has because of it is due to the US.

However, the US didn't just provide British nukes decades ago and end it at that, the US provides ongoing maintenance, and GPS data for the targeting of British nuclear missiles. I already proved that. The US is proactively involved in the British nuclear arsenal. Britain is currently still dependent on the US for its nuclear capability.

Because if you cant, the place the bombs come from means nothing.

Um, the fact that the UK's entire nuclear deterrent came from US, is made up of Us equipment, is maintained b the US, and needs access to US-provided information to be operationally effective. That means EVERYTHING. That means, as I said, that the UK owes the US for its nuclear deterrent.

At 8/24/08 08:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: It should, because it would show you that as was true in the past, the US is basically the only country willing/capable to do such a thing again.

I don't think it should have any bearing. WW2 happened a while back and most of what's happened in recent years has not been particularly promising. The US seemed quite willing to allow the IRA to raise funds freely on American soil, ingnoring British pleas to stop it. For all the bleating about the war on terror, the US seemed quite qilling to undermine our own war on terror. Then the US wants us to go to the lengths of fighting their wars. Though I blame that on our own spineless government for that rather than the US.

I'm not telling anyone to thank me. I was just saying the UK's position as it is today is largely due its relationship with the US. The UK owes the US as a whole quite a bit for its current prosperity and relatively powerful world position. So talking about a resurgent British empire, as if it would rule over the the English speaking world instead of the US, isn't very reasonable, because the US is currently the senior partner apparently.

You're taking it a bit seriously, everyone in this country knows the British Empire is long gone. They're only joking.

And the better option. A deterrent is a deterrent, but not all nuclear weapons and delivery systems are created equal as far as reliability, capability, specifically accuracy etc...

But is it worth sacrificing our independence over? I don't think it is. I'm sure we can create a perfectly good nuclear missile system by ourselves, maintained only by ourselves. Definitely worth it for a truly independent deterrent.

That's the thing, your country is unwilling to produce its own nuclear deterrent due to the money and effort involved, but at the same time unwilling to go without nukes. So your country got the best of both world's by depending on the US and benefiting from its relationship with the US.

Seems more like the worst of both worlds to me. We pay loads out for a nuclear deterrent (Though granted, probably less than an indigenous one), while not actually getting a fully independent deterrent out of it.

At 8/25/08 07:30 AM, ThePretenders wrote: The Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees human rights in a written document, something the U.K. has failed to do in its constitution. Having a good human rights record (free speech, abolishing cruel and unusual punishment etc.) is a prerequisite for membership. The EU has to enforce this because you can't let any country with a poor human rights record, like Turkey, without forcing them to make concessions on laws that hinder human rights. The UK knew what it was getting into when it signed it. It wasn't a big secret that there was going to be a supranational Europe.

When I look at what previous human rights legislation has been (Eg. a charter for terrorists, criminals, illegal immigrants, ect.) in this country, forgive me if I'm not overjoyed at the idea of yet more human rights bullshit. We've never needed human rights legislation, it's the Germans who acted like animals in WW2. Let them do the human rights grovelling if they wish, not us. As for Turkey, EU pressure on human rights issues has only served to strengthen the islamist parties in the country, so that one has been a bit of an own goal. Also, I don't think we really knew what we were getting into when we signed up. We were promised a trading bloc, but it slowly developed into the monster we know today. Besides, even if we did know that doesn't mean it should be the case that our internal affairs are interfered with.

Oh no, ze French and German conspiracy in Bruxelles to destroy ze Monarchy. The British and practically every country apart from the French, want to get rid of the Common Agricultural Policy because they benefit the least from it. If the UK was more enthusiastic, then they could bargain with them to reduce subsidies or even dismantle it all together, but as along as the UK remain aloof, the French and Germans will contunue to hold more influence in European decisions.

We never needed to reform the CAP as we've always has a rebate (One of the few good things Thatcher did). The rebate removed much our financial burden of the for the CAP. Of course, then Blair gave part of it away, the spineless twat.

Because the 'special relationship' mainly concerns foreign issues, but if you want to continue the illusion that a totally independent Britain can still hold great influence in world affairs, then be my guest because the UK will slip further down the power chain to the likes of China, Russia, and India in the future.

Is it necessarily a desireable thing to hold a position of massive influence in the world? Plenty of smaller countries do quite well for themselves, to quote the previous examples of Norway and Switzerland.

What I don't get about you Eurosceptic guys is that you complain and still vote for the three main parties (all of in favour of deeper integration, even the Tories (Maastricht, Single European Act)). If you want to leave the EU, then vote for UKIP in the general election.

I'll agree with that, I would never vote for any of the main parties, they all disgust me. Anyway, I don't want full withdrawal from the EU, I would rather us use our veto power to negotiate a kind of 'half in, half out' membership. I think we could manage it.

At 8/23/08 06:34 PM, AniMetal wrote: Brittania you say?

My God!! It took until that point in the second page for that joke to finally come out?

At 8/26/08 06:50 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/26/08 04:26 PM, ILovezoms wrote: 1. time destroys all Americia will fall Britian fell rome fell russia fell ect

Actually, Brittain, Russia, and the most important part of Rome (italy) are still there.
by Russia I meant USSR and by Britian I meant the empire they were both very powerful now there power has been weakened
I swear to god, you can look on a map and everything.

2. so we can assume that at all the time there will be a dominent power that switches and turns and changes

Kay.

3. so we can assume that a large percentage of the world will always be in poverty

Kay.

4. so we can assume that eventually Americia will be violently cast down or just cast down

No, we can't? "A large percentage of the worlds population will always be in poverty" doesn't mean the U.S will be in poverty.

hmmm you are correct thanks

5.now it turns out that it doesnt matter who is the better country or who had the better empire

Yes, it does, by far. If you're so convinced nothing is to be gained by being the best nation on earth, feel free to move to Ethiopia. It doesn't matter, right?

when i say best country i say like America now however I wouldnt mind moving to Germany or france it wouldnt be that big a deal as what your suggesting

6. so by me writing this i have proved that i'm i'm an idiot

No one was calling you an idiot... before you wrote this, that is.

twas a joke because I argued against arguing this subject

7.btw the British empire was a terrible empire based on slave trade

And a loooooot more.

yes but thats the biggie

8. btw the Americian rule is terrible it is based on sweatshops and horrible working coditions

Actually, the only area in the U.S that operates sweatshops are the Northern Mariana Islands territory, with a population of 80,000 people. Assuming every man, woman, child, and infant who lives there works in sweatshops (the realistic number would be more like 10,000 of them, but let's use 80,000), then that means exactly .05 of U.S workers work in sweat shops.

So no, the majority of our economy isn't based on sweat shops, like you say, 5 hundredth of one percent of our economy is.

no silly I am talking about americian based companys however still it is a global problem i was harsh to shove it on the USA

9.China rule well i dont really need to say whats wrong with it because its so obvouis

Racist.

of course critsising a country ruled by a dictator is racist just because the people there have a different colour skin wow

10. so why do we want to happy with "empires" that use bad means of gaining power

We aren't. That's why we declared our independence and all that.

we still allow it we arent really doing anything its all talk no action

11. i realise most of the modern world is helping sweat shops and shit but Americia being the places of many buisnesses that incorparate sweatshop shizzle and the goverment needs to do something about this

Sweatshops are point oh five of an issue.
eh

yes there are many problems but i think that stopping near slave labour is a number 2 on my list of Bad things the human race needs to sort out

fin

Yay.

thanks for the points

At 8/29/08 08:35 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/27/08 08:44 AM, Jon-86 wrote: Thank you for saying you agree you can't predict the future, and no it doesn't sadden me? Whats that about?

It saddens you that the British Empire ceased to exist and you lost your empire forever.

Well no, have you forgotten the Maggie Thatcher thread where you avoided answering the obvious question that would silence you main off-topic rant? From that thread you would know I couldn't care about the empire. As a matter of fact I work towards and support organizations who's political goals are to break away from the union.

Well it is a big streach of logic.

Um no it's not.
And you have no evidence to support your claim.

My claim, that of "not being able to predict the future" AND "not being able to tell how history would unfold, if you were to change something". Is a scientifically accepted, proven truth. Not a claim, a fact!

Lol, you're calling things "daft" when your entire argument consists of a shaky philosophical view that you cowardly use to avoid dealing with the facts. I used the Matrix analogy to show just how cowardly your way of arguing is. You provide no evidence to suggest that the Allies could have won without the US, all you do is say "you don't know what could have happened" as your only way of discounting the facts.

Cowardly??? I am not saying the Allies could have won without the US, if you read I am saying the allies would not have one if any one of the main forces were not their. And this will touch on other points you make below.

The US certainly saved the countries who were under threat of the Axis.

Helped not saved, and exactly it was countries who needed it not the world.

Um, I can also conclude that Asia would have fallen to the Japanese as well, considering the US basically single-handedly defeated them. The funny thing about limeys is, they basically disregard the existence of Imperial Japan in your account of WWII. It's pretty funny.

Well we were not talking about Asia, your information was talking about Europe. I don't disagree America done well in Asia. Sure the Japanese would have won up until the US took them on, and if they didn't they would probably have successfully invaded more places. You can only say Japan was stopped because of the US because that is what happened! You don't know who would have fought back against Japan if the US didn't. You don't know how the war would have been fought in Asia after the point in which the US declared war. Because it didn't happen. The Japanese might have won. But we don't know for sure. That's the exact same thing as before. Who's to say? Dose that take away anything from the men and women who fought in that war no?

And yet you ignore that Russians were only able to put up a fight against the Germans on the eastern front because the US gave them so much aid. The US gave the Russians ridiculously large amounts of fuel, ammunition, infantry weapons, artillery pieces, vehicles, food, uniforms, boots etc...

No I didn't ignore that. And here I would like to give you a little perspective on your whole argument about aid during the war. The US gave the USSR aid. Sure the UK even gave the USSR aid. Not as much as the US but it did. The USSR also gave the US aid during the war. As a matter of fact. Aid was coming from a lot of places and going to a lot of people. When the world was at was. People didn't really care where they got food and cloths from as long as they got it. It's not as if they kept itemized bills and receipts when they were being bombed. Another thing to note is this. Your argument seems to be..."The US gave aid and others didn't" and the obvious part to that is. The US was able to give more aid. The factories and supply lines in the US were not being bombed by the Luftwaffe. The US itself was not being bombed by the Luftwaffe. Only the US forces not the civilians needed aid. So being able to produce more and not requiring as much. Is it any surprise their? No so making that your main claim for the US being better because they supplied aid is rubbish. That and if damn disrespectful to the millions of people who fought against the Germans. I they US won the war by supplying aid. Then why did millions starve to death in the battle of Stalingrad? That was the turning point in the war for the Russian forces that then came back on the offensive forcing the Germans to fight on two sides dividing their tank forces. Also without the men to fight the battles, all the aid in the world, you can give doesn't mean anything now dose it.

With the US doing the most tactically and strategically.

No they didn't they played a shared part.

Holy semantics.

The solar system is IN THE UNIVERSE, thus being vulnerable to the chaos of the universe.

It is not my fault if you do not understand the concept of time and distance.

Your position, where you basically say a prediction can't be made because we can't see the future

My position is you can't make long term predictions into the unknown! I already said "estimated guesses" can be made accurately for up to a few decades. And that's in the real world not in space. Beyond that we can't know for sure.

It's a simple fact the the UK nuclear deterrent was provided by the US. The UK's nuclear deterrent and the power and prestige it has because of it is due to the US.

I like how you didn't quote my last point that puts it into perspective. Sure the US supplied the UK nuclear deterrent. But its still the UK nuclear deterrent isn't it? It doesn't really mater where you get your weapons from or who makes them their still yours. The UK doesn't owe the US anything because they bought some bombs off them? You would only have a point here if they could take them back. As I already said. And since the US cant do that they don't hold anything over the UK by simply being a supplier. It's the same as the US doesn't hold any sway over the Mujahideen that now fight against them in Afghanistan.

Um, the fact that the UK's entire nuclear deterrent came from US, is made up of Us equipment, is maintained b the US, and needs access to US-provided information to be operationally effective. That means EVERYTHING. That means, as I said, that the UK owes the US for its nuclear deterrent.

Ok so the UK bought their bombs from the US like they did any other weapon.
Maintained by the US what do you mean by this? Software updated???
Also your point about GPS is kinda pointless. I know the US developed the GPS system. But they depend on it also so they can't just shut it off.

That also the Galileo system is just as viable for this purpose. And don't give me link to how it was hacked by some guy in the US that's old news! Is it really that hard to accept that most of the world doesn't need the US after all?

It is worth mentioning though. Being that this has gone slightly off topic. The whole reason the British Empire no longer exists is because of WW2. It had to give up most of the places it had colonies in to pay the debt for aid from the US during WW2 which it has recently finally paid.

If the British empire still as big as it was before WW2, and WW2 didn't happen the US civil war is essentially the same as the Easter rising in Ireland and I'm sure the British army would have been chasing the Yankees calling them terrorists. Just like the US is doing with whomever in the Middle East ;-)