Americans

[Bogusbet]

ahhhh.....oooooo.....oooohhhhh....."spellchecker", "gramar"......pwnage overload...somebody call the bomb squad quick!

I'm supercrams knobcheese on day release...

blah blah blah... thats all I hear from this guy....

4 days.

Wait till you have beeee......

[Titanic]

Americans are fat dumb shits who cant run a country or handle any amount of power properly. Well, thats the stereotypical view of Americans in England. I have to agree with the fat bit, and the bit that they cant handle power.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Americans are fat dumb shits who cant run a country or handle any amount of power properly. Well, thats the stereotypical view of Americans in England. I have to agree with the fat bit, and the bit that they cant handle power.

Unlike the British Empire which has provided us with wonderful examples on exactly how to handle power with examples like India, Rhodesia, Cape Colony, Jamaica, Ireland, Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Pakistan, and let's not forget my personal favorite, the Former 13 Colonies in what is now known as America.

Each one of them, wonderful examples, right?

[Anarkistsdream]

Americans are fat dumb shits who cant run a country or handle any amount of power properly. Well, thats the stereotypical view of Americans in England. I have to agree with the fat bit, and the bit that they cant handle power.

Unlike the British Empire which has provided us with wonderful examples on exactly how to handle power with examples like India, Rhodesia, Cape Colony, Jamaica, Ireland, Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Pakistan, and let's not forget my personal favorite, the Former 13 Colonies in what is now known as America.

Each one of them, wonderful examples, right?

ZING!!

[Titanic]

Yer Jesse, we actually controlled them pretty good, considering we had such a small pop conpared to the places we owned, and we educated a lot of their people, and bought law and order to the countries, and greatly helped their economies. You know that it was a trading company, not our military which took over India, our military only took over after a Charter which put it in our possession.

Also, by handling power I mean that when Britain was the worlds strongest power we did not tell everyone what to do, and interfere in everything(like USA does today). We took a neutral stance, let the world develop around us, and only acted if we were in grave danger or if we werereally needed to help maintain world peace (The Crimean War, WWI).

Look at USA today, they act like they are invincible and will recieve no consequences for their actions. They tell everyone what to do, expect everyone to do what they say, and invade or get mardy at everyon who dusn listen. Also, they interfere in conflict that dont concern them, and whilst there evil dictators and humanitarian crisis around they are fighting countries over fake intelligence and to make political points. Thats not responsable use of force.

[Anarkistsdream]

Yer Jesse, we actually controlled them pretty good, considering we had such a small pop conpared to the places we owned, and we educated a lot of their people, and bought law and order to the countries, and greatly helped their economies. You know that it was a trading company, not our military which took over India, our military only took over after a Charter which put it in our possession.

Also, by handling power I mean that when Britain was the worlds strongest power we did not tell everyone what to do, and interfere in everything(like USA does today). We took a neutral stance, let the world develop around us, and only acted if we were in grave danger or if we werereally needed to help maintain world peace (The Crimean War, WWI).

Look at USA today, they act like they are invincible and will recieve no consequences for their actions. They tell everyone what to do, expect everyone to do what they say, and invade or get mardy at everyon who dusn listen. Also, they interfere in conflict that dont concern them, and whilst there evil dictators and humanitarian crisis around they are fighting countries over fake intelligence and to make political points. Thats not responsable use of force.

Don't forget that America seems to have an aversion to trying to solve it's OWN problems, which is why we butt into everyone elses...

I agree with you, Titanic, I don't care for most typical Americans or their arrogance... But a few select groups are really amazing people.

[Stopper]

Yer Jesse, we actually controlled them pretty good, considering we had such a small pop conpared to the places we owned, and we educated a lot of their people, and bought law and order to the countries, and greatly helped their economies. You know that it was a trading company, not our military which took over India, our military only took over after a Charter which put it in our possession.

What friggin history book have you been reading? Educated their people? Only so many of the local upper classes/castes as would help the British keep control of their territories! Helped their economies? Just so the British could plunder them! What do you think the point of the friggin empire was??

Also, by handling power I mean that when Britain was the worlds strongest power we did not tell everyone what to do, and interfere in everything(like USA does today). We took a neutral stance, let the world develop around us, and only acted if we were in grave danger or if we werereally needed to help maintain world peace (The Crimean War, WWI).

You must be joking about the first sentence! And as for the bolded part, don't you see how remarkably close this attitude is to your average gung-ho US Republican's??

Look at USA today, they act like they are invincible and will recieve no consequences for their actions. They tell everyone what to do, expect everyone to do what they say, and invade or get mardy at everyon who dusn listen. Also, they interfere in conflict that dont concern them, and whilst there evil dictators and humanitarian crisis around they are fighting countries over fake intelligence and to make political points. Thats not responsable use of force.

This I agree with...But I'm trying to think who else this general description reminds me of... ...oh yeah, the BRITISH EMPIRE!

[Titanic]

Stopper, we educated loads of locals to work in our offices/embassies/armies/companies in their lands. Pretty much all the educated Indians before our departure were through our systems. Their local education systems were a shambles, if they actually even existed in some places. We helped their economies. Look at teh British East India Trading Company. Yes, it helped our economy and empire greatly, but it also made their economies stronger as we introduced better technologies in extracting raw materials and basic manufacturing processes.

You dont believe we took a neutral stance? From 1814 - 1914 we didn interfere in the wars of mainland Europe, whilst the German reunification, Italian unification, the Fraco-Prussian War, and numerous other conflicts took place. The closet one to home was the Crimean war which was still well over 1,000 miles away. Also, read some fcking history books. We had a notable neutral stance, any decent history book would tell you that, because we kept the balance of power in the world by being neutral. Only after the formation of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires was the balance of power adjusted, which then lead to the Triple Entente and WWI.

Um, the British Empire did not interfere everywhere and tell people what to do. In Europe we could have wooped anyones asses, but we barely interfered in the military and political climate there. If there was a conflict in the world we did not immediately send our troops if we could make an advantage out of it. We did not create conflicts to send political messages, everyone knew our strength and our stances and actually respected us for it, unlike USA today, whom very few people actually now respect after they have interfered and messed up in so many places.

[Sammy gags]

Yer Jesse, we actually controlled them pretty good, considering we had such a small pop conpared to the places we owned, and we educated a lot of their people, and bought law and order to the countries, and greatly helped their economies. You know that it was a trading company, not our military which took over India, our military only took over after a Charter which put it in our possession.

Also, by handling power I mean that when Britain was the worlds strongest power we did not tell everyone what to do, and interfere in everything(like USA does today). We took a neutral stance, let the world develop around us, and only acted if we were in grave danger or if we werereally needed to help maintain world peace (The Crimean War, WWI).

Look at USA today, they act like they are invincible and will recieve no consequences for their actions. They tell everyone what to do, expect everyone to do what they say, and invade or get mardy at everyon who dusn listen. Also, they interfere in conflict that dont concern them, and whilst there evil dictators and humanitarian crisis around they are fighting countries over fake intelligence and to make political points. Thats not responsable use of force.

is that really your typical Americans fault? I'm sure most of America agrees with you, but we cant do anything about it until the next time we get to vote

[Stopper]

I am well aware of Britain's so-called neutral stance, or "splendid isolation" as it used to be called. But, as you have already suggested yourself, it only referred to mainland Europe. This was because the mainland Europeans had to fight over limited amount of territory to maintain their empires, while the British, with their dominant navy, could more easily rape and pillage the more "backwards" parts of the world, including and by no means limited to, Ireland, the Indian empire, Africa, China. There was hardly (if any) a single year in the nineteenth century when the British didn't have to fight some war or insurgency somewhere.

Nevertheless, Britain of course still interfered in Europe, including the Napoleonic Wars and the Crimean War, because, as you say, it was necessary to keep the European opponents in balance so Britain didn't risk losing its dominance. Considering the size of both these wars, "splendid isolation" or "neutral stances" begins to look like the wild fantasy of some old duffer colonel.

Your last paragraph is so wrong from beginning to end, that I won't bother to address it, not least because I don't have the time. I have found an article which briefly discusses some British atrocities (and not even a mention of the Irish famine!!) - http://www.hindu.com/2005/12/28/stories ... 961100.htm - what with Google, you can easily follow up some of the stuff he refers to in there. You should also try reading George Orwell's "Not Counting N*gg*rs" - it's a short essay, and it's easily available on the internet.

If you really think you can criticise the USA by comparison to the British Empire, you are on very thin ice. The USA has caused the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but that is chickenfeed compared with the British in the last century-but-one.

[tonywalrus]

Stopper, we educated loads of locals to work in our offices/embassies/armies/companies in their lands. Pretty much all the educated Indians before our departure were through our systems. Their local education systems were a shambles, if they actually even existed in some places. We helped their economies. Look at teh British East India Trading Company. Yes, it helped our economy and empire greatly, but it also made their economies stronger as we introduced better technologies in extracting raw materials and basic manufacturing processes.

You dont believe we took a neutral stance? From 1814 - 1914 we didn interfere in the wars of mainland Europe, whilst the German reunification, Italian unification, the Fraco-Prussian War, and numerous other conflicts took place. The closet one to home was the Crimean war which was still well over 1,000 miles away. Also, read some fcking history books. We had a notable neutral stance, any decent history book would tell you that, because we kept the balance of power in the world by being neutral. Only after the formation of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires was the balance of power adjusted, which then lead to the Triple Entente and WWI.

Um, the British Empire did not interfere everywhere and tell people what to do. In Europe we could have wooped anyones asses, but we barely interfered in the military and political climate there. If there was a conflict in the world we did not immediately send our troops if we could make an advantage out of it. We did not create conflicts to send political messages, everyone knew our strength and our stances and actually respected us for it, unlike USA today, whom very few people actually now respect after they have interfered and messed up in so many places.

I fear for you and the British education system:

The East India Company; Formed by Royal Charter, sent to India to subjugate and control the Mughal Empire and other warring tribes; raped the subcontinent of it's natural resources with the help of a tiny and I mean tiny educated lapdog Indian elite.

1814 to 1914; The map of Europe and the competing power bases that controlled it were actually not that dissimilar to a finely balanced game of Risk. Britains chief foreign policy was based on Naval strength. It was known as Splendid Isolation. It's premise was to keep the competing European powers at arms length and to have a Naval power greater than the sum of its two nearest competitors. This led to the building of the Dreadnought class of warships and the acelerating arm race of that age. It culminated in the horrors of World War I. Finally, I guess that the colonisation of Africa, the Boer War, the Boxer Rebellion and the ongoing subjugation of Ireland did not happen either.

Please go to the library and read some of the history books you recommend.

[Titanic]

Saying we interefered in European affairs during the Napolianic wars is crap. We had to intervene because he was taking over Europe. We beat him twice over, and from them and for a whole century we rarely entered European affairs. The Splendid Isolation only referred to Europe as there were no powers outside of Europe. Whats the point of staying neutral in Africa, its hardly as if anyone in Africa actually had any power.

1816, the first year I looked at, no battles for the British army. During the 100 years from Waterloo to WWI, we only intervened in Crimea. The Italian unifaction, if we were so bothered about staying the worlds sole power, we would have intervened and stopped a unification, same store with Germany and the Franco-Prussian War. We let Europe get on with their affairs whilst we ruled the rest of the world.

Yes there were famines in the places we owned, thats unavoidable. Its then goes to the case of feed yourself, or feed someone else. I think everyone knows what anyone will answer. Also, their were famines everywher eint eh world, in Europe, in Ireland, in every place pretty much. We helped in Ireland, but it was just the norm in those days.

Tony, what wrong with us wanting to keep a strong navy? It helped protect us and maintained our world power, so whats wrong with that? We made the vital technilogical advance into iron-clads and steamships with the dreadnaught range, which pwned all other previous ships. The arms race was already happening, the dreadnaughts just made it more competitive. The colonisation of Africa was to gain access to its resources to help our economy which was growing rapidly and was the worlds largest at that point in time. The Boxer Rebellion was undertaken by 8 different countries, and we did not even send in the most troops, you can hardly criticise us there.

Overall, considering the times, the British Empire actually had a fairer grip on the world, and used their power more wisely then USA does today.

[Sammy gags]

they settled colonies that beat them in a war?

[tonywalrus]

Tony, what wrong with us wanting to keep a strong navy? It helped protect us and maintained our world power, so whats wrong with that?

The killing field's of France and Belgium. A whole generation wiped out in a grand game of who has the biggest dick. Industrial decline, the Great depression, the rise of Facism, the Second world war. The bankrupcy of our country, the Cold War, the growth of American hegemony.

Not much I guess and obviously, given the way in which we now stride across the world stage, it was all worth it.

Your ball.

[Guiscard]

Stopper, we educated loads of locals to work in our offices/embassies/armies/companies in their lands. Pretty much all the educated Indians before our departure were through our systems. Their local education systems were a shambles, if they actually even existed in some places. We helped their economies. Look at teh British East India Trading Company. Yes, it helped our economy and empire greatly, but it also made their economies stronger as we introduced better technologies in extracting raw materials and basic manufacturing processes.

You're very very very wrong I'm afraid. In no way can we claim any sort of moral justification for Empire. We subjugated India and abused it, and the same goes for most other colonial territories. It's ironic that the Empire brings us both our greatest achievement and our greatest shame. What sources are you getting your arguments from? (Most specifically India, as I'm taking a course on Colonial India at the moment) Most historiography still has a very British bias, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone still maintaining the values you express writing in the last thirty years or so in any field: economics, social policy, law, crime and justice, politics, gender studies... anything really.

[Stopper]

Saying we interefered in European affairs during the Napolianic wars is crap. We had to intervene because he was taking over Europe. We beat him twice over, and from them and for a whole century we rarely entered European affairs. The Splendid Isolation only referred to Europe as there were no powers outside of Europe. Whats the point of staying neutral in Africa, its hardly as if anyone in Africa actually had any power.

I don't know what definition of "interference" you are using, but it's difficult to see what else you could call Britain's participation in the Napoleonic wars..., since as has already been said, it was important that he didn't get out of control otherwise France could have threatened Britain's world dominance.

You know, from the bit in bold, you seem to be saying that British interference in Africa doesn't count, because...well, why? Did Africans matter less than Europeans? If hardly anyone in Africa "actually had any power" (compared to the ships and guns of the Europeans), does that mean Britain was morally right to go in and grab what it could for itself?



We seem to have left the subject of Americans. This thread needs re-naming...

[Titanic]

Tony, wtf does "Industrial decline, the Great depression, the rise of Facism, the Second world war. The bankrupcy of our country, the Cold War, the growth of American hegemony" have to do with keeping a strong navy?!?!?

Guiscard, we must have done something right in India because it is much more advanced and prosperous then other countries that we did not rule which have large population such as Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand/Vietnam/Laos, West Africa, most of the Middle East(until oil was found, but its hardly rich now anyway), etc.. We werent exactly perfect, but overall we werent that bad. Also, the most developed countries in the world, outside of Europe, were mostly in our Empire at some points. USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, India etc..

[Fieryo]

you guys should all be quiet, if it wasnt for America the world would be a whole lot thinner. And since the icecaps are melting we'll need that extra fat to keep us afloat in the soon to be Waterworld.

[2dimes]

Guiscard, we must have done something right in India because it is much more advanced and prosperous then other countries that we did not rule which have large population such as Brazil.

This almost needs a new thread.

[HaveABanana]

I think this 'off-topic' sequence is quite fitting actually. Where did America get its original leaders, perspective, and values? The British Empire of old had a great hand in shaping what the USA has become today. Obviously Americans have to be responsible for what their nation does, but you can't use the British Empire as a 'better comparison' in the way titanic would like.

Certainly I can't blame the British for what America is today, but do not try to get up on a high horse of your own creation and try to tell us that you're better because of what happened nearly 200 years ago, especially when it goes so far as to defeat your point in bashing Americans. For better or worse, the Brits and any other nation that participate in modern capitalistic society have nearly as much blame to share for what is happening.

Congrats on keeping the population thinner, though. That is certainly a sticking point!

[autoload]

Guiscard, we must have done something right in India because it is much more advanced and prosperous then other countries that we did not rule which have large population such as Brazil.

This almost needs a new thread.

Agreed. It seems as though I have been forgotten...

[Guiscard]

Tony, wtf does "Industrial decline, the Great depression, the rise of Facism, the Second world war. The bankrupcy of our country, the Cold War, the growth of American hegemony" have to do with keeping a strong navy?!?!?

Guiscard, we must have done something right in India because it is much more advanced and prosperous then other countries that we did not rule which have large population such as Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand/Vietnam/Laos, West Africa, most of the Middle East(until oil was found, but its hardly rich now anyway), etc.. We werent exactly perfect, but overall we werent that bad. Also, the most developed countries in the world, outside of Europe, were mostly in our Empire at some points. USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, India etc..

Whatever we did right we did a whole heap of bad stuff to get there. Was slavery alright because in the end it resulted in, I dunno, a prosperous economy in North America? Nothing to be proud of really I'm afraid. there certainly were good points to the British Administration in India, and certainly we contributed a lot to the economy, education etc. At the end of the day, however, subduing and abusing a native people for the benefit of an entirely different country is wrong.

I'm assuming you'e not studied de-colonisation either historically, politically or economically either. Let me tell you, its not that pretty in most cases.

I'm afraid we WERE that bad. Do a little reading and you might learn something.

[vic]

as an indian, here are some of my comments...

Your divide and conquer policy fucked us good.

Pakistan would not have been created if it wasn't for the british - and that was totally out of spite. They knew they could not hold india for longer - jinnah was going gung-ho to have pakistan created; but gandhi was losing his mind and even offered him the prime minister's post. He flatly refused (mainly due to urging from the british saying that the muslims would not integrate well in india) - This caused a fuckload of communal tension during the partition.

We have had 3 wars with pakistan, daily border tensions, the separation of east pakistan into bangladesh and osama and Co. also have come right from there, cheers boys!

Well that being said, the british also brought in the civil service, managed to improve literacy rates (within cities only, mind you), and setup some basic industrial infrastructure. Some good with a lot of bad.

We should look towards the future however, and try to solve our problems as world citizens. Ideologies like "them" and "us" will only lead to more conflict and tension.

- 2 cents.

[Guiscard]

We have had 3 wars with pakistan, daily border tensions, the separation of east pakistan into bangladesh and osama and Co. also have come right from there, cheers boys!

We try Glad you appreciate all our hard work...

[vic]

too bad the indians are such wussies... should have blasted those fuckers years back but they were sucking american dick - same money that is now used to fund their terror fucking activities including nuke technology to iran.

I still like america tho - they are turning things around.