&#039;special relati&#111;nship&#039; rejuvenated??

Chieftain

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355

Quote

Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 17:45

I have? I was arguing with him until you jumped in and proclaimed everyone else full of "bollocks" and magnanimously began expounding your brilliant ideas to us clueless imperialist fascist racist nazis.

If you are interested in the truth, I don't see it like this at all. I don't consider you clueless. You wrote the propaganda of your respective sides, I responded with the propaganda of my side. No need for ad-hominem attacks to explain this.

He - the "imperialist guy" - wrote my words?

Anyway, if you mean nuvolari, you really ought to try reading through threads more carefully. That wasn't his position at all, he was arguing against just that, as you are. His contention was that the US had destroyed the empire, and he was bitter about it.

No, I don't mean nuvolari, although he is also an imperialist. The one I mentioned knows who he is and he already replied. You probably have forgotten to read what's been written in your haste to attack me. Anyway, that guy wrote the same thing that you have written. I responded to him, and you attacked me, with all your arsenal. Naturally I conclude you are on the same side.

Immediate wasn't fast enough. Your post got censored because you were calling for killings of a certain ethnic group of a certain nationality. Any reasonable person would understand that such is unacceptable, but apparently, you still don't ... it's all a racist, imperialist conspiracy against you, and we should have just understood that it's your right to encourage mass killings. Right?

It must be lonely for you at such lofty ethical heights.

First of all, I am not American and it did not occur to me that redneck referred to an 'ethnic group' (by this term I believe you actually mean 'race'). I use it as a derogatory term for Southern Americans who vote for the Republican Party (I believe the imperialist I was replying to is one) of all ethnic groups. My dislike for American imperialists have nothing to do with their 'ethnic group', I hate them all.

Secondly, when it was pointed out to me that 'redneck' can be a racial term (I admit that when I think about it it seems true, since black people are unlikely to have red skin). I actually agreed to edit that in my post and replaced it with 'imperialist'. So I apologise for it and I won't use that term again. I don't want anyone to think that I hate white imperialist americans more than the black ones, because that is not true at all.

Thirdly, calling for killings. I clearly wrote that I am talking about independence movements. The sad fact is, US troops get involved in suppressing independence movements. From the context it is obvious that I am talking about that. In Vietnam far more Vietnamese were killed than invading Americans. I hope in the next war, the ratio will be better, i.e. more imperialist Americans will be killed for each native. I am not calling for attacks on innocent Americans or anything like that.

Rest of what you wrote is ad-hominem drivel (that I believe there is a conspiracy against me etc), and lies (that I don't accept that writing redneck was wrong) it does not deserve an answer other than this.

Then what do you call social security?

Social security takes money from workers now and pays the retired now. For the individual it seems like a long term scheme, but for the state it is not. Indeed, many states are panicking now because their social security schemes are under strain because they haven't planned the long term demographic changes.

India has a Parliament, right now, as we speak.

Yea, they have now, i.e. 2009 AD.

Mostly in the 50s. Are these supposed to be rhetorical questions?

? I am asking you since you claim that the British promoted self-rule in their colonies (since the 19th century), when did they institute parliaments and elections?

Well, alright. But just some friendly advice from someone who also enjoys discussing history, politics etc? I honestly don't think you're going to find that the "true colours" are going to be what you expect them to be, and you might expose your own "true colours" in the process more than you do anyone else's - and they may be in equally poor agreement with your expectations, which could be upsetting. At least, that's my experience.

Yes, as you wrote before, you have a high opinion of yourself, giving 'advice' like this, sharing your wisdom with us bloodthirsty simpletons.

True colours are indeed revealed (or made) in discussion or in action. You may believe you are something, but it is your actions that define what you are. You can discuss 'responsible government' for 100 years, and fancy yourself progressive, but if you go killing the natives and stealing their resources when you are practising, you are a bloody imperialist in reality. Similarly, you may believe that you are a progressive, but if you side with the racists/orientalists who try to whitewash the atrocious imperialist past everytime (this is not the first time you are doing this, it is the third time that I remember), than you are definitely on their side.

Your example was one of an Anglo/European population - you said that "all" former colonies had to fight for independance like the US did. Clearly, then, you are changing your position and being dishonest about what it was.

I am not dishonest. I gave that example because it is the earliest date for an independence movement which was opposed. If you say that in Canada there was no struggle for rights, and Britain gave you all the rights without you asking for it, maybe you are right, you'd know the history of your country better. In that case, I reply that would be because you are whites and the oppressed people have already been exterminated. Also, you should understand that when someone says British Empire, I (like everyone else) think of India, not Canada (which, in comparison, was insignificant frozen wasteland).

No, the Soviets were forced by practical considerations to abandon them, just as the British were. Different considerations, of course. But both had to work out a transfer of power.

What transfer of power was the Soviets 'worked out'? None, really. Britain did not work out any either. Both had last-minute plans to divide the countries they are leaving in a way that would be beneficial for them. Russians failed in Eastern Europe. Britain was more successful.

No, it means that I just respond to the content of posts often without paying any attention to who wrote them. Unless they make some sort of impression, good or bad, which you failed to do before calling for killings.

Just admit that you were wrong. I am not Khomeini 'calling for killings', and you knew perfectly well where I come from all along.

edgewaters View Drop Down

Sultan

Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394

Quote

Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 14:06

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

Says the guy who's arguing that Britain wanted to get rid of its colonies in the 19th century...

Eh? Desire hasn't got a thing to do with it.

And no, they were not seized of the matter in 1887 ... they had begun to discuss it, because necessity had already imposed several ad hoc instances of more autonomy being granted to colonies. In particular, the reforms of 'responsible government' as it was termed by the British (not me). Apologies for the emphasis, but it's necessary given your style.

You have obviously sided with the imperialist guy.

He wrote that Britain had the intention to let go of the colonies (your words)

He - the "imperialist guy" - wrote my words?

and decolonisation was bad for the subject peoples

Well ... it was, in some cases. I didn't say it was always bad. I said some former colonies have had a hard go since independance, because they were made economically dependant and then abandoned.

You immediately censored my post

It must be lonely for you at such lofty ethical heights.

I don't believe anyone in AE is stupid enough to buy this.

Indeed.

No country plans ahead for 40 years.

Then what do you call social security?

I am still to hear when the Indians got their parliament and elections. 200 years of democracy-loving, freedom-cultivating British rule, and when have they got their parliament?

India has a Parliament, right now, as we speak.

When have the Africans got their parliaments and elections?

Mostly in the 50s. Are these supposed to be rhetorical questions?

I believe that I have a job.

I honestly don't think you're going to find that the "true colours" are going to be what you expect or preconceive them to be, and you might expose your own "true colours" in the process, more than you do anyone else's. Which may not be what you expect, either.

Well, I did not mean physical fighting for all cases, which was of course impossible in territories where the natives were exterminated. I have India in mind, where majority of British subjects lived. Also Africa.

You lost track of any sensible train of tought, it seems.

I suppose it would look that way from far enough out in space.

Soviets never gave their satellites any independence!

No, the Soviets were forced by practical considerations to abandon them, just as the British were. Different considerations, of course. But both had to work out a transfer of power.

You are not a nazi, just a social fascist.

Errrm ... ok, then ...

The Nobel Peace Prize? You mean the one Sakharov got? Father of the Soviet Hydrogen Bomb? The man who ensured that we will all die in a nuclear war?

Yep, that's the one. Personally I don't think much of it either, sometimes. But that's not really the point, is it? The point was that there was a perception, in many minds at the time, that Pearson was the individual most responsible for the resolution of the crisis.

Let's see, you are a member here for three years, and argued with me in various threads, but you thought I was Cuban until now... Well, that means either you are a moron, or a liar.

Edited by edgewaters - 12-Feb-2009 at 17:00

Peteratwar View Drop Down

Colonel

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591

Quote

Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 14:00

Well if you are aware Independence was always a goal of Britain although I would not deny there were forces opposed to that. 40 years is not a long time and yes countries do plan in many areas over that or even longer timescales.

Note also if referring to me, I did NOT say decolonisation was bad. I said that the RESULTS of decolonisation has been bad in many areas by the actions of those who took power. I quoted Mugabe as an example.

I would suggest to you that basically the British Empire devolved power to the inhabitants (including the original inhabitants) of the various countries from the 1800's on. Some took longer than others some relatively quick. AFAIK the went peacefully in Austrailia, Canada, New Zealand, Fiji, Pacific Islands, Malaysia, West Indies, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Basutoland, Mauritius, Seychelles and others. Troubles there were in Rhodesia and Kenya and lesser troubles in India. However, all gained their independance and remained in the British Commonwealth and were pleased to do so. Many of them have adopted British Parliamentary traditions.

I assume you disapprove very much the way China and the USSR have handled their empires and still do to this day.

I presume your location as shown has given rise to an assumption you are Cuban. Not unreasonable.

Edited by Peteratwar - 12-Feb-2009 at 14:01

Beylerbeyi View Drop Down

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1957/press.html

Chieftain

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355

Quote

Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 12:33

Deliberate distortion doesn't really assist in that process.

Says the guy who's arguing that Britain wanted to get rid of its colonies in the 19th century...

A knee-jerk response. I'm not 'siding' with anyone. You just presume I am because my views on the events that happened don't agree with your imperialist Soviet revisionism. I haven't made any moral/ethical judgement about decolonization or the lack thereof.

I called the Soviets an Empire, obviously I am not a revisionist. You have obviously sided with the imperialist guy. He wrote that Britain had the intention to let go of the colonies (your words) and decolonisation was bad for the subject peoples and I objected to his propaganda. You immediately censored my post (or told your moderator buddies to do that, which is the same thing) and rushed in to attack me here, and later censored my response to you as well. That's bloody well siding with the imperialists, typical behaviour of those who used to be called social-fascist in the past.

That was already done. You know quite well what policies were enacted, within about 3 or 4 decades after the issue entered the public consciousness. Which isn't really that slow, considering the political culture we're talking about is evolutionary (rather than revolutionary) in nature.

What bollocks. So let's see, things were 'discussed' in 1870s, and some policies were enacted 40 years later, so that proves your point... Yea, right... I don't believe anyone in AE is stupid enough to buy this. So who do you think you are fooling? No country plans ahead for 40 years. And Britain had no such plans or policies.

See above. Again, you know very well what measures were taken as regards self-rule. I don't suppose I need to prove to you the rest - expansionism and economic dependance - or do I?

I am still to hear when the Indians got their parliament and elections. 200 years of democracy-loving, freedom-cultivating British rule, and when have they got their parliament? When have the Africans got their parliaments and elections?

Absolutely and utterly incorrect. When did Canada have to fight Britain? Australia? New Zealand? There were conflicts in South Africa, but they didn't have anything to do with independance from Britain. There were no conflicts preceding independance in numerous African colonies, either (Swaziland, Zambia, etc). The statement that "everyone" had to fight for it is quite simply wrong.

This whole notion that "apathetic" natives were just languishing under the British whip until Marxism came along and showed the "wogs" and "niggers" the light of self-determination (two can play that game, friend), thereby collapsing the British empire, is rubbish.

Where have I written that Gandhi was a Marxist? You are just lying in desperation. Socio-economic conditions in the 20th century created the independence movements in the dependencies, which were organised along nationalist and/or marxist lines. I am a materialist and I know that ideas/ideologies follow socio-economic changes.

That's just your knee-jerk perception. See above.

Only knee-jerk response comes from you in attacking me. You also attacked in another thread I was involved in.

Oh my! We don't think too highly of ourselves or anything, do we?

? I don't know how highly you think of yourself, neither do I care. I just wrote that I believe that I have a job. Which involves exposing your lies.

Those are hardly equivalent positions! The Soviet Union (eventually) worked to give numerous republics and satellites independance. Do you agree with that statement? If so, then you must believe that the Soviets thought they were "bringing civilization to the wogs" because the two statements are equivalent (according to you).

You lost track of any sensible train of tought, it seems. Soviets never gave their satellites any independence! Hungary 1956, Czech Republic 1968, Poland in the 80s... All the way to the end they tried to keep their satellites in line. Just like the British did with their colonies and the Americans still do with their satellites. Of course, Soviets helped Viet Nam or Cuba or South Africa and 100 other countries and insurgencies outside their sphere, but those countries all had indigenous independence movements.

"An apple is an orange, so you're a nazi!" C'mon. Gimme a break.

You are not a nazi, just a social fascist.

The USSR never agreed to the solution in the Suez Crisis.

USSR and USA already solved the problem outside the UN.

You mean Pearson. Big smile

At least, that's what they said at his Nobel Peace Prize presentation. It was a perception, at the time.

"Therefore, it may well be said that the Suez crisis was a victory for the United Nations and for the man who contributed more than anyone else to save the world at that time. That man was Lester Pearson."

The Nobel Peace Prize? You mean the one Sakharov got? Father of the Soviet Hydrogen Bomb? The man who ensured that we will all die in a nuclear war? The prize that Henry Kissinger (a Hitler wannabe) got, but Gandhi never did? And you expect me to respect that? For me it tells a lot that you respect that.

I don't see what the nuanced understanding Cuba has of Canada, due to our special relationship, has to do with your "race" (whatever you happen to think that is, I surely don't know - I figured you were Cuban, but was puzzled about your bizarre analysis. That you are not Cuban clears that up).

Let's see, you are a member here for three years, and argued with me in various threads, but you thought I was Cuban until now... Well, that means either you are a moron, or a liar.

edgewaters View Drop Down

Sultan

Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394

Quote

Posted: 11-Feb-2009 at 16:57

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

Let me tell you the point in arguing. It allows us to clarify the positions.

Deliberate distortion doesn't really assist in that process.

Like how you reveal your true nature and side with the imperialists.

Also 'discussing' something (even if that happened) does not mean that it is a national policy or strategy. If you want me to take you seriously show me what policies were enacted, not 'discussed'.

Essentially the British plan was to expand the empire to its limits, cause the colonies to become economically dependant, and then devolve self-rule to them once that was achieved.

Proof? As in documents? Laws? Actions?

See above. Again, you know very well what measures were taken as regards self-rule. I don't suppose I need to prove to you the rest - expansionism and economic dependance - or do I?

Because they had no intention of granting self-rule to anyone. Everyone who got it had to fight for it, starting with the Americans back in the 1770s.

Nice maneouver there, launching smoke screens, are we? 'Increase in living standards' was a result of socialist/Keynesian policies after the wars, as the distribution improved. Increase in total GDP, however, which was what you were talking about, was huge in the 19th century.

Sorry but there was no GDP increase in any two consecutive decades of the 19th century to match the 1950-1970 increase. Neither in absolute terms nor as a percentage.

You could probably find much larger increases in productivity, industrial output, agricultural output, etc. But not GDP or living standards.

Let me clarify why I use that language: you side with the imperialists.

That's just your knee-jerk perception. See above.

My job is to reveal your true nature.

Oh my! We don't think too highly of ourselves or anything, do we?

In nazi forums they write 'British empire brought civilisation to the wogs', in AE you write 'Britain worked to give India self-rule'. You are both on the same side, have the same aim. If you believe your position is different, you will prove it.

"An apple is an orange, so you're a nazi!" C'mon. Gimme a break.

No what I have written applies at all stages.

It's a simple question: was there a net profit or not?

UN? You mean the same UN which has UK and France and US as veto-power holding permanent members?

Yep, that one. The same one that managed to circumvent that very problem in the Suez crisis (without any help from the Soviet imperialists in doing so).

The same UN which invaded Korea few years ago to fight against Communism? UN never solved any problem which was not agreed on by the US and the USSR.

The USSR never agreed to the solution in the Suez Crisis.

So you see, you show your true colours as you get angrier. All terror Lenin knew he learned from your kind in the Civil War. As for concentration camps and gulags, that's a speciality of Britain and nazis, again racists, imperialists and anti-communists like you.

Errm ... who is it that's supposed to be getting angry and showing true colours, again?

Oh Canada, saviour of the World!

You mean Pearson. Big smile

At least, that's what they said at his Nobel Peace Prize presentation. It was a perception, at the time.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1957/press.html

Ah ... that would explain the lack of nuance.

Oh please excuse my racial inferiority...

Edited by edgewaters - 11-Feb-2009 at 17:51

Beylerbeyi View Drop Down

Chieftain

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355

Quote

Posted: 11-Feb-2009 at 13:53

To the faceless moderator who removed my second post:

I assume it was because I wrote that edgewaters 'lacked brains'. It was a direct reply to him as he wrote '[what I write] just makes you look like a bloodthirsty simpleton'.

I have hereby changed my post, it no longer alleges that he lacks brains, but instead reads 'what you write just makes you look like a drooling imbecile'. I am sure this will be acceptable for you.

Bring my post back here today (by 00:00 GMT).

Edited by Beylerbeyi - 11-Feb-2009 at 14:08

edgewaters View Drop Down

Sultan

Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394

Quote

Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 22:12

It was actually the UN General Assembly that ended up being the one to impose a solution ... America tried to resolve it on its own in the SC and via sanctions, and couldn't, so it appealed to the GA under the special "Unity for Peace" clause which authorized the GA to do an end-run around the SC and authorize military force by majority vote, without possibility of veto. Canada drafted the proposal and it's Pearson's presentation most members credited as being the one that influenced their vote, to the degree he was granted the Nobel Peace Prize. As was said during its presentation, "Therefore, it may well be said that the Suez crisis was a victory for the United Nations and for the man who contributed more than anyone else to save the world at that time. That man was Lester Pearson." (Definately some over the top language there, but somebody made it irresistable for me to post that particular quote!)

So, it was really alot more than a double blow. Britain was not just backhanded by her most powerful ally, not just perceived to have had to back down before Soviet demands, but a Commonwealth member engineered that state of affairs and the international community, as a whole and by a very decisive vote, put an end to Britains activities.

The US's negotiations with the British behind closed doors must have failed, as the British vetoed the American resolution in the SC. They didn't agree to the GA resolution either, but they didn't have a veto there and couldn't stop the UN from deploying UNEF. Truly a series of unfortunate decisions - had Britain simply complied with the US in the first place, it would still have been humiliated, but not to such a great degree. On the other hand, what happened was unprecedented and there was surely no way that Britain could have expected anything like it to be the outcome.

Practically the only time the GA was ever able to exert any power.

Edited by edgewaters - 10-Feb-2009 at 22:35

Guests

Guest

Quote

Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 21:51

..hello again...

……i think a principal difficulty in establishing just who played a major role in ending the Suez affair is that Washington did its business with London behind closed doors…the threat of financial pressure, oil leverage, and aggressive diplomacy in Anglo-American dealings during the crisis was kept secret….the problem therefore, was that it appeared to those not privy to UK-US communications that Britain only suffered a humiliating climb down due to communist intimidation ……Soviet threats to launch rocket/nuclear attacks were not taken seriously by the Americans or the British then, and since proved to have been a bluff anyway…however, this is how it seemed to outsiders and Khrushchev milked the perception of a victory for all its worth…..which of course he would, that makes sense…and so would the Americans and the British if they were in a similar position… in addition, it seems Nasser later acknowledged that it was the Americans who defeated Anglo-French-Israeli aggression and not the USSR……but this does not really matter, at the time, the ‘reality’ for many was that in effect, Britain endured a double-blow from being knocked back by her closest ally and the humiliation of a defeat by the ‘enemy’ in the cold war……

….I don’t want to bring in another subject area, but it was a similar case with the Cuban crisis….it is commonly perceived that the affair was an all-American ‘victory’ but a good case for success could be made for Khrushchev in that he was granted concessions by the American administration, but these were also kept secret at the time, and therefore, the ‘perception’ was that Kennedy triumphed…this view was felt in the Kremlin and the idea that the Soviet Union was seen to have ‘lost face,’ may have constituted one of the reasons for Khrushchev’s downfall…. the ‘cold war’ was generally about ‘perceptions’ anyway…all sides bluffed and counter bluffed and a large part of Soviet and American policy was formulated according to perceptions of the other sides strength….very rarely was the truth really known…

….anyway, getting back to the nature of UK-US relations, Suez was indeed the most humiliating episode in post-war Anglo-American affairs, and in the face of some uncomfortable truths regarding global status and independence, the end result led Britain to decide not only to restore closer ties with America but also brought about a clearer orientation towards a more established European policy…in the wake of Suez, there followed a sharp decline in the Anglo-American relationship but it also resulted in the view on both sides of the Atlantic that such a fissure should never be allowed to occur again..

..all the best..AoO…

Beylerbeyi View Drop Down

Chieftain

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355

Quote

Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 17:31

What's the point of arguing against your own strawman? Seems sort of ... masturbatory, to me. If you find that pleasing, be my guest, but in order to make a rebuttal you have to actually address the point.

Like you address the points I raised? Let me tell you the point in arguing. It allows us to clarify the positions. When the going gets tough all the liars and the wolves in sheeps clothing have to reveal their true nature. Like how you reveal your true nature and side with the imperialists. The 'straw man' is real if you rush to defend it. Only masturbation here is performed by you imperial apologists lusting over your lost glory.

Uhmmm ... that IS 19th century history, and there's nothing new about it. Self-rule is explicitly discussed not only in the 1887 Imperial Conference, but in the public forum as well.

You seem to have no idea about the 19th century. Also 'discussing' something (even if that happened) does not mean that it is a national policy or strategy. If you want me to take you seriously show me what policies were enacted, not 'discussed'.

Essentially the British plan was to expand the empire to its limits, cause the colonies to become economically dependant, and then devolve self-rule to them once that was achieved.

Proof? As in documents? Laws? Actions?

This is partially why some former colonies have experienced so much trouble in the wake of independance. An economic dependancy was created, but then Britain abandoned the idea of even a trade bloc, leaving these (now dependant) economies to fend for themselves.

You are right about Britain creating dependencies, but you have given us no proof of them creating self-rule. Because they had no intention of granting self-rule to anyone. Everyone who got it had to fight for it, starting with the Americans back in the 1770s.

Sorry but that's applicable only in a relative sense, that is, compared to the rest of the world. In absolute terms, no comparable increase in living standards in such a short time was ever achieved in the 19th century, or even in the early years of the 20th before the wars. Not even close.

Your failure to understand why I use this language just makes you look like a drooling embecile. Let me clarify why I use that language: you side with the imperialists. My job is to reveal your true nature. What colour of lipstick you put on your pig is not my concern. My concern is to make sure everyone understands that it is still a pig, and you are engaged in imperial apologism. In nazi forums they write 'British empire brought civilisation to the wogs', in AE you write 'Britain worked to give India self-rule'. You are both on the same side, have the same aim. If you believe your position is different, you will prove it.

As for the rest: have you actually studied the British experience in India, Afghanistan etc in the 19th century? It sure doesn't seem like it.

I did actually. British are responsible for more deaths there than Hitler. Quite an accomplishment for the 19th century...

No what I have written applies at all stages.

The USSR did not 'resolve' the situation. It made only one proposal for a solution: World War 3.

You clearly have no idea about Cold War politics. I recommend you read up on that. If Soviets wanted WW3, they would have attacked, not talked (or more correctly, postured, which was typical way of conducting business in the Cold War).

It did not present a solution to the UN.

UN? You mean the same UN which has UK and France and US as veto-power holding permanent members? The same UN which invaded Korea few years ago to fight against Communism? UN never solved any problem which was not agreed on by the US and the USSR. You are the first person I've seen who believes UN has some power by itself.

In short, the USSR provided a motive for resolution, but took absolutely no part in an actual solution and was in fact disgusted and frustrated in its ambitions when one appeared. It had lost the chance to take control of the Suez, cut Europe off from oil, and thereby bring such liberating Soviet joys as "mass terror" (Lenin's term, not mine!) and gulags to Western Europe.

Lenin? Terror? Gulags? Talk about strawmen. So you see, you show your true colours as you get angrier. All terror Lenin knew he learned from your kind in the Civil War. As for concentration camps and gulags, that's a speciality of Britain and nazis, again racists, imperialists and anti-communists like you.

The USA, because of the Soviet threat, was interested in finding a solution but was unable to do so. Their sanctions against the UK and France were ignored, and their proposal in the UN was shot down. American forces did not play a role in UNEF, either. The US did back Pearson's proposal which contributed in no small part to its success.

Interesting fantasy. What really happened was US did not call when the Soviets upped the ante, because their idiot partners acted without consulting them. What's more the idiot partner (Eden) came to the US asking for money, as they could not afford the war, and of course the US said 'go fornicate yourself' in diplomatic language. So the project fell apart, and the crisis came to an end. What happened in the end was about how the mess would be cleared up. The solution was reached the moment when USSR and USA came to an agreement that the aggression should end.

But ultimately, the situation was resolved not by the USA nor even by Pearson, but by the UNGA. Without any help from the Soviet Union.

Yeah, sure. Oh Canada, saviour of the World!

Ah ... that would explain the lack of nuance.

Oh please excuse my racial inferiority...

Edited by Beylerbeyi - 11-Feb-2009 at 16:14

edgewaters View Drop Down

Sultan

Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394

Quote

Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 15:54

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

1830s? 1870s? OK, you are right. Imperialism and colonialism are myths. Race for Africa never happened. So-called "Age of Imperialism" never took place. Britain was trying to promote self rule in the lands they ruled but it took them 200 years to arrange that.

The Imperial Conferences began to discuss decolonization in 1887.

Yeah, decolonisation, sure. You just revolutionised the 19th century history single handedly. Well maybe together with neo-cons like Niall Ferguson.

Uhmmm ... that IS 19th century history, and there's nothing new about it. Self-rule is explicitly discussed not only in the 1887 Imperial Conference, but in the public forum as well.

To the contrary, one of the main reasons behind the increase in the colonialisation rate was the rush for new markets. Not decolonisation.

The rush for new markets caused both the expansion of the empire, and movement towards self-rule of the colonies. Essentially the British plan was to expand the empire to its limits, cause the colonies to become economically dependant, and then devolve self-rule to them once that was achieved.

This is partially why some former colonies have experienced so much trouble in the wake of independance. An economic dependancy was created, but then Britain abandoned the idea of even a trade bloc, leaving these (now dependant) economies to fend for themselves.

This is irrelevant and also wrong. If you want unprecedented growth (both absolute but especially relative to the rest of the world) in England, you should look into the 19th century.

So according to you INC had nothing to do with Indian independence. Gandhi and Nehru and others do not mean anything. It was all a benevolent gift to the Indian wogs from their white masters, right? The fact, however, is, subject peoples turned against their foreign overlords all around the world during the 20th century as modernity, nationalism and marxism spread to the non-european portions of the world. Greatest weapon of the imperialists in the 19th century was the apathy of the subject peoples

Oh please, save all your "wogs" and "niggers" and "racists" and "kill all American rednecks" crap. It doesn't help your argument, it just makes you look like a bloodthirsty simpleton. I'm familiar enough with you that I know you know better. You could make your points without any of that.

As for the rest: have you actually studied the British experience in India, Afghanistan etc in the 19th century? It sure doesn't seem like it.

Your model is wrong. The Empire is extremely beneficial, but it is high-maintenance. If you can meet the high maintenance costs, you will reap great benefits.

This might be true if you're trying to build an empire. But if you've already got one, you're already reaping whatever 'great benefits' (ie profit) that exist. There is either a net benefit, or not.

It might even be true if, for some reason, you already have an empire but your military is inactive ... but at the time, the problem was decommissioning an army, not raising one.

Swedish PM brokered many deals during the Cold War. If you are interested in Historical Fantasy, you should look at your 'superpower Canada calling the shots in Cold War' story.

He may well have done ... but not that one, as he was not in a position to do so. As far as your characterization of my position, you seem to be building strawmen like a wheat farmer next door to a bird sanctuary.

I don't deny that the Canadian PM made a good job of cleaning up the mess, but the situation was resolved by the USSR and USA, like most other situations during the Cold War.

The USSR did not 'resolve' the situation. It made only one proposal for a solution: World War 3. It played no role at all in the solution, and in fact, when faced with the viable solution for peace presented by Pearson - which was agreeable to both Egypt and Israel - the USSR abstained. It did not present a solution to the UN. It conducted no negotiation with parties to the conflict. In short, the USSR provided a motive for resolution, but took absolutely no part in an actual solution and was in fact disgusted and frustrated in its ambitions when one appeared. It had lost the chance to take control of the Suez, cut Europe off from oil, and thereby bring such liberating Soviet joys as "mass terror" (Lenin's term, not mine!) and gulags to Western Europe.

The USA, because of the Soviet threat, was interested in finding a solution but was unable to do so. Their sanctions against the UK and France were ignored, and their proposal in the UN was shot down. American forces did not play a role in UNEF, either. The US did back Pearson's proposal which contributed in no small part to its success.

But ultimately, the situation was resolved not by the USA nor even by Pearson, but by the UNGA. Without any help from the Soviet Union.

I am not Cuban

Ah ... that would explain the lack of nuance.

Edited by edgewaters - 10-Feb-2009 at 16:56

nuvolari

Earl

Joined: 14-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269

Quote

Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 15:50

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

edgewaters,

Just a quick aside here: Those junky old destroyers were still valuable. There were still, in 1940/41 over 100 of them in service in the US navy awaiting replacement by more modern classes, and all the DDs in the Asiatic squadron were old four stackers.

Fifty destroyers, old or not, were useful to ASW in the Atlantic. They could still make 30 knots, could drop a good number of depth charges, and could outgun any U boat on the surface. How long would it have taken for British yards to build 50 destroyers? The emergency flotilla construction program didn't go into effect until 1941, and the classes were based on existing plans for WW I ships!

Quite right ! These 50 destrpyers were absolutely critical to the British war effort. Even allowing for the contribution to the ASW, it was one of these that destroyed the lock gates at St. Nazaire.

Peteratwar View Drop Down

Colonel

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591

Quote

Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 15:32

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

1. Why are the Indian population still alive and well.

Alive and well? That's like saying 'if Hitler killed the Jews, why there are so many alive and well today'? Yea, there are a few Indians 'alive and well', living in 'reservations' like endangered species in Africa, where before they owned all of the continent.

AFAIK there was no stealing of land unless you think of Mexico under the Spaniards whi stole that land and Cuba etc. BTW if you study history well enough you will see everyone has stolen lanmd at some time from earlier inhabitants.

So it will be OK when Mexico will reclaim all the land you stole from them. Which may happen soon enough, given the demographic trends.

US has bases in some countries and does not arbitrarily invade other countries without provocation apart from about 1 as far as I can remember.

You don't remember very far then. How old are you, 7?

2. Britain had every intention of giving up its Empire in course of time and continued to do so at an accelerated rate after WWII unfortunately for the inhabitants, their new leaders were largely awful and oppressive with some exceptions

Reading racist drivel like this makes me hope the next independence movement will kill more redneck Americans. Luckily your empire is in terminal decline and I will see the world flush the toilet on your kind.

3. The canal was not created by Britain but they bought shares in the Company running it when that Company was having problems. The manner of being taken over was not well done

The Canal is Egyptian and they do what they goddam please with it. They Nationalised it, they even paid the stock holders full compensation. All you can do is STFU at that point. Not draw up secret invasion and partition plans and attack them.

4. Until WWI end the Middle East was under Ottoman control. Britain had mandates from the League of Nations to oversee, Palestinet, Iraq and in part Jordan. On the whole peaceful until the question of the Jewish Homeland started to come up. Then the UN took over in 1948 and the Arab nations then defied them and attacked Israel. Your so-called old Palestinians on TV is I think somewhat suspect. BTW the British user 'tear' gas not the sort that Saddam Hussein used against his own people

Ooooh, Britain was given 'mandates' to 'oversee', ooh poor Britain, sending its brightest and the best to oversee the savages and bring them civilisation, to save them from themselves. The white man's heavy burden... Who started the Palestinian-Jewish debacle other than the drooling evil embecile Britain put in charge in Palestine? His grave has him depicted in Crusader armour... And what happened when the Palestinians (whom the British considered sub-human) started protesting? They were killed and tortured by the British during the riots in the 30s, that's what the old Palestinian who was a protester at the time was referring to. I saw this on BBC, even the British don't deny it. It seemingly takes the lowest of the imperialist to apologise for this, all in the name of true nazi-like racial solidarity, given that you are not even British...

The USSR of course is hardly backward in claiming an Empire for itself against the wishes of the inhabitants. Thanks to the determination of the US, UK and the rest of the free world this was largely broken

Completely retarded reading of the Cold War (as if we expected anything else). Soviets had their Empire and they were concerned in defending it. The rest of the world, however, was under Western empire, which was broken, thanks mostly to local independence movements, but also support from the Soviets. This process is still going on as the West becomes weaker and weaker in relative terms.

Well, that was a nice polite reply which clearly shows up the level of your knowledge and of your prejudices.

First very few if any races in any nation are the original inhabitants. Cuba's original inhabitants were at the least driven out or slaughtered by the Spanish as were the Mexicans,if they didn't surrender. The original British were driven out/ assimiliated by the Anglo Saxons who had in their turn been pushed out of their ancestral homes etc. Carry on that theme with most of Europe, Africa, Middle East etc.

Apart from the latest invasion of Iraq, please show where the US has invaded and conquered and assimiliated another country without reason.

If you think of what President Mugabe is doing to his people is fine and great then I am sorry for your delusion. He is not the only one. India and others are clearly doing better and are keen to stay associated with Britain as a Commonwealth member.

Suez was certainly in Egyptian lands but the money and running was provided elsewhere. Compensation was eventually paid but that wasn't much on the cards previously. USSR of course rattled their sabre to distract everyone else from their brutal suppression of the Hungarian peoples who wanted their freedom.

Yes most of the Middle East was under Ottoman control and something had to be done when that Empire disintegrated to keep things under control and the inhabitants safe. Thank you for the references, perhaps you should read them and think about what was going on. Exactly when did the British think any Palestinian or anyone else for that matter as sub-human ? Note by the way Britain never said to the Palestinians and Jews 'Fight each other'. The British desire was to keep the peace.

I note the USSR and Cuba and others are never backward in using torture. I also note you confirm the USSR had an Empire which she ruled by brute force. That has disintegrated but she is still trying to keep control.

Beylerbeyi View Drop Down

Chieftain

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355

Quote

Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 15:00

A reasonable man would not allow his opinion of your post to be unduly influenced by your location.

That would indeed be reasonable, given that you are mistaken about my location.

However, given the nature of the content of your replies, I can only think that your politics are greatly coloured by where you reside.

This is amazingly correct. It is amazing because you start from a false premise (that I reside in Cuba) and come to true conclusion (that my views were formed by my experiences in the country that I live in). I live in the UK, and I write these because I saw how you went to plunder Iraq, how you deny your imperial atrocities, how you have a corporate dominated economy, etc.

To end on a positive note, though, I will say that having worked in Havana for many weeks until late last year, I do love your countries rum, music, women and cigars, although quite where one goes for a decent meal is anybodie's guess !!

I am not Cuban, but I thank you on their behalf. I also like your country's gin and music.

Beylerbeyi View Drop Down