The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/ sm_837220.html?menu=news.latestheadlines
So, Dubya on the one hand praises the 'brave Americans' who have fought for their country, but on the other hand he doesn't want them to have any compensation for what they've gone through. Doubtless Belly No Balls will start squealing "it was a war, what do they expect?", at which point a little something called the Geneva Convention should be mentioned...
But the real reason I want to bring this story to attention is that Dubya is saying he wants the money to be spent on "reconstruction". And who is leading the 'reconstruction' program? Why...is it the companies who backed and financed Dubya's election campaign?! You know, it is...
This lying, thieving, warmongering chimp isn't even trying to hide his corruption any more. He is happy to sell out the people he purports to represent to his friends in big business. What a patriotic American he is; putting the needs of the rich few before those of the needy many. He is in need of a good, hard, car park kicking.
So, Dubya on the one hand praises the 'brave Americans' who have fought for their country, but on the other hand he doesn't want them to have any compensation for what they've gone through. Doubtless Belly No Balls will start squealing "it was a war, what do they expect?", at which point a little something called the Geneva Convention should be mentioned...
But the real reason I want to bring this story to attention is that Dubya is saying he wants the money to be spent on "reconstruction". And who is leading the 'reconstruction' program? Why...is it the companies who backed and financed Dubya's election campaign?! You know, it is...
This lying, thieving, warmongering chimp isn't even trying to hide his corruption any more. He is happy to sell out the people he purports to represent to his friends in big business. What a patriotic American he is; putting the needs of the rich few before those of the needy many. He is in need of a good, hard, car park kicking.
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Whatever you want to think.
>
> You're not worth it.
Not worth what? Answering a valid question that I posed after an apology to you? Man...you get upset at the weirdest things.
>
> I'm going to add some shine to your day.
How? You've 'quit' this board 3 times before, and come slithering back each time. All that would add shine to my day would be you actually using your brain and thinking for a change.
>
> Goodbye, feel free to add your own little snide comments, rants etc
> afterwards 'cause I won't be reading them.
Really? I will bet you a large sum of money that you're reading this Bell.
>
> The entire site sucks in my opinion, along with a majority of the
> users. But hey, you probably feel the same about me so we're all
> equal.
It sucks so much that you feel compelled to return here all the time and get entangled in arguments, then throw your rattle cos you're being forced to think?
Well, if you want to carry on deluding yourself that we're all nasty, you carry on. Doubtless you'll be back in a few weeks, and we can carry on where we left off.
>
> Whatever you want to think.
>
> You're not worth it.
Not worth what? Answering a valid question that I posed after an apology to you? Man...you get upset at the weirdest things.
>
> I'm going to add some shine to your day.
How? You've 'quit' this board 3 times before, and come slithering back each time. All that would add shine to my day would be you actually using your brain and thinking for a change.
>
> Goodbye, feel free to add your own little snide comments, rants etc
> afterwards 'cause I won't be reading them.
Really? I will bet you a large sum of money that you're reading this Bell.
>
> The entire site sucks in my opinion, along with a majority of the
> users. But hey, you probably feel the same about me so we're all
> equal.
It sucks so much that you feel compelled to return here all the time and get entangled in arguments, then throw your rattle cos you're being forced to think?
Well, if you want to carry on deluding yourself that we're all nasty, you carry on. Doubtless you'll be back in a few weeks, and we can carry on where we left off.
Belldandy wrote:
> So, how much of your life you smoked away today eh?
---
Wow, that showed me. I totally got out-debated there.
See Bell, I never get personal do I?
Do I laugh and call you a porky Pokemon-obsessed, manga-jacking virgin Billy-no-mates?
Nope.
I stick to general, and 9/10 amusing, insults that refrain from personal comment about your appearance/hobbies/lifestyle.
And why is that?
Because I'm not a chubby, lonely collector of children's sci-fi paraphenalia hell-bent on proving everybody wrong and ending up very bitter when, as per usual, I come unstuck googling websites frantically in a vain attempt to back up a non-existent argument based on the opinions of others.
And please, don't think this is being written in any kind of annoyance, it's a bemused confusion as to how you'll ever procreate when the closest you'll ever get to sex is ramming a GI Joe toy up your ass whilst wearing a Dubya mask and ejaculating arcing ropes of mis-informed mindwad onto forums that treat you with the derision you deserve.
Still, if that means I'm punished by one less mini-baby Bell on my adventures through this life, I should be thankful I suppose.
Hell, even my putdowns have more thought than your most thought-iest post.
You can eat my ass twelve times over, you illiterate baboon.
> So, how much of your life you smoked away today eh?
---
Wow, that showed me. I totally got out-debated there.
See Bell, I never get personal do I?
Do I laugh and call you a porky Pokemon-obsessed, manga-jacking virgin Billy-no-mates?
Nope.
I stick to general, and 9/10 amusing, insults that refrain from personal comment about your appearance/hobbies/lifestyle.
And why is that?
Because I'm not a chubby, lonely collector of children's sci-fi paraphenalia hell-bent on proving everybody wrong and ending up very bitter when, as per usual, I come unstuck googling websites frantically in a vain attempt to back up a non-existent argument based on the opinions of others.
And please, don't think this is being written in any kind of annoyance, it's a bemused confusion as to how you'll ever procreate when the closest you'll ever get to sex is ramming a GI Joe toy up your ass whilst wearing a Dubya mask and ejaculating arcing ropes of mis-informed mindwad onto forums that treat you with the derision you deserve.
Still, if that means I'm punished by one less mini-baby Bell on my adventures through this life, I should be thankful I suppose.
Hell, even my putdowns have more thought than your most thought-iest post.
You can eat my ass twelve times over, you illiterate baboon.
Belldandy wrote:
> Goodbye, feel free to add your own little snide comments, rants etc
> afterwards 'cause I won't be reading them.
>
> The entire site sucks in my opinion, along with a majority of the
> users. But hey, you probably feel the same about me so we're all
> equal.
---
Aaaah, the "I'm leaving" approach.
So, we've had the "Here is where I pop old arguments having been proven to be stupid as food" approach, and now "I'm leaving so it doesn't matter".
All we need is the "I was only testing" line, and it's back to March of this year.
And hey, it's good to see Bellendy honoured his decleration to Snuggly to refrain from childish, circular arguments when he was in pious mode, having thought he had been victorious in banning IB.
Who has returned.
*points and laughs*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You tool.
> Goodbye, feel free to add your own little snide comments, rants etc
> afterwards 'cause I won't be reading them.
>
> The entire site sucks in my opinion, along with a majority of the
> users. But hey, you probably feel the same about me so we're all
> equal.
---
Aaaah, the "I'm leaving" approach.
So, we've had the "Here is where I pop old arguments having been proven to be stupid as food" approach, and now "I'm leaving so it doesn't matter".
All we need is the "I was only testing" line, and it's back to March of this year.
And hey, it's good to see Bellendy honoured his decleration to Snuggly to refrain from childish, circular arguments when he was in pious mode, having thought he had been victorious in banning IB.
Who has returned.
*points and laughs*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You tool.
Belldandy wrote:
> So, Light, this is topic avoidance eh? Find me ONE thing in there
> that is not related to what unknown kernel said.
>
> Go on.
>
> No whining excuses, find where I avoided the topic.
----
Wow, it's like you've adopted my tactics 100%!
Now, correct me if I'm wrong unknown_kernel, but this is the stage where, having been roundly dismissed as a clown in the "Dude, Where's My Country?" thread in Movies, Bell returns to old arguments in an attempt to shore up his ego and precious self-worth?
So we have the traditional humiliation at the hands of logic & truth, now we have the "HA! But I was right here though!!!!!" defence?
.....thought so.
> So, Light, this is topic avoidance eh? Find me ONE thing in there
> that is not related to what unknown kernel said.
>
> Go on.
>
> No whining excuses, find where I avoided the topic.
----
Wow, it's like you've adopted my tactics 100%!
Now, correct me if I'm wrong unknown_kernel, but this is the stage where, having been roundly dismissed as a clown in the "Dude, Where's My Country?" thread in Movies, Bell returns to old arguments in an attempt to shore up his ego and precious self-worth?
So we have the traditional humiliation at the hands of logic & truth, now we have the "HA! But I was right here though!!!!!" defence?
.....thought so.
Light wrote:
> Actually, you know what Bell? I can't drag this one out. Call it
> sympathy for the rather savage spanking you've been receiving. Or
> call it a desire to make you look stupider, quicker...
Whatever you want to think.
You're not worth it.
I'm going to add some shine to your day.
Goodbye, feel free to add your own little snide comments, rants etc afterwards 'cause I won't be reading them.
The entire site sucks in my opinion, along with a majority of the users. But hey, you probably feel the same about me so we're all equal.
> Actually, you know what Bell? I can't drag this one out. Call it
> sympathy for the rather savage spanking you've been receiving. Or
> call it a desire to make you look stupider, quicker...
Whatever you want to think.
You're not worth it.
I'm going to add some shine to your day.
Goodbye, feel free to add your own little snide comments, rants etc afterwards 'cause I won't be reading them.
The entire site sucks in my opinion, along with a majority of the users. But hey, you probably feel the same about me so we're all equal.
Actually, you know what Bell? I can't drag this one out. Call it sympathy for the rather savage spanking you've been receiving. Or call it a desire to make you look stupider, quicker...
No, you were not evasive to kernal. Not in the manner that you usually are. I think you're wrong, but that is by the by. You definitely weren't evasive. Furthermore, I apologise for stating that you were being evasive in this post.
Now then...
It's pretty clear just how much it bugged you that someone said you'd done something, then refused to provide any evidence for that. It's also clear that the idea of someone making a statement connected with one of your posts, then refusing to clarify or back up that statement, sends you into prissy, red-faced rage. Certainly judging by your "Come on then Light; where was I evasive? Eh? Eh?" response, you didn't like it one bit.
So why do you do it all the time? Surely now you can at least begin to see why you're treated with such utter contempt by almost everyone who posts replies to you now?
I'll make it even clearer in case you want to avoid addressing this question by feigning misunderstanding or using one of your usual methods.
-you are evasive all of the time, and try to be abusive and insulting to anyone who gets annoyed by your evasiveness.
-Yet you cannot abide someone being evasive to you
- My question for you to answer is: So why the double standard?
Really, I'd love for you to answer.
No, you were not evasive to kernal. Not in the manner that you usually are. I think you're wrong, but that is by the by. You definitely weren't evasive. Furthermore, I apologise for stating that you were being evasive in this post.
Now then...
It's pretty clear just how much it bugged you that someone said you'd done something, then refused to provide any evidence for that. It's also clear that the idea of someone making a statement connected with one of your posts, then refusing to clarify or back up that statement, sends you into prissy, red-faced rage. Certainly judging by your "Come on then Light; where was I evasive? Eh? Eh?" response, you didn't like it one bit.
So why do you do it all the time? Surely now you can at least begin to see why you're treated with such utter contempt by almost everyone who posts replies to you now?
I'll make it even clearer in case you want to avoid addressing this question by feigning misunderstanding or using one of your usual methods.
-you are evasive all of the time, and try to be abusive and insulting to anyone who gets annoyed by your evasiveness.
-Yet you cannot abide someone being evasive to you
- My question for you to answer is: So why the double standard?
Really, I'd love for you to answer.
Belldandy wrote:
> Well for starters the British Empire founded a sizeable (not all) of
> it's income through slavery. Obviously when the British were forced
> to abandon it in ALL forms it dented the economy of the Empire
> because all of a sudden you have to find people to work for you
> rather than going to a village, rounding all the women and children
> up and getting the men to work for you, or just rounding everyone up
> and dumping them on a ship to another place.
Right, I don't have time to write a proper answer to this but it is, in my opinion, not very accurate. I'll get round to it soon.
> >You then start talking about the Indian Mutiny -
> 1857, and which you rechristened a couple of weeks ago as the first
> Indian war of independence, following the Braveheart school of
> history - to back this up.
>
> Well again this is explained simply by the fact that to the Indian
> resistance movements it was the beginning of the Indian War of
> Independence, and to the British it was the Indian Mutiny. For the
> British, calling it a mutiny is better politically because it makes
> it sound like a few malcontents are playing silly b*ggers. Call it a
> war and suddenly people are asking these awkward "if the Empire
> is so great how come a war is starting in it" type questions. I
> believe I did repeat this in that original topic.
I don't want to bang on about this - no, actually, I do - but how can it be a war for independence IF NO ONE IS FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE? The mutiny/rebellion was portrayed by the nationalist writers of the early 20th C (ie, 50 years after the event) as as an abortive war on empire but this was more propaganda than anything else - this interpretation is an interesting part of how Indian nationalism was shaped but it doesn't make it true. There was a military mutiny, based on religion; there were Indian princes who joined in this rebellion (or whatever), annoyed at the deal they were getting from the British, or jealous of the princes who were allowed to deal with the British; and there were also agrarian rebellions, directed mainly towards the landlords who, at this time, were almost exclusively Indian. No one was fighting for independence. So to call the mutiny 'The First Indian War of Independence' is a bit like calling the Wright Brothers first trip in a plane 'The First Flight to the Moon'.
> Well for starters the British Empire founded a sizeable (not all) of
> it's income through slavery. Obviously when the British were forced
> to abandon it in ALL forms it dented the economy of the Empire
> because all of a sudden you have to find people to work for you
> rather than going to a village, rounding all the women and children
> up and getting the men to work for you, or just rounding everyone up
> and dumping them on a ship to another place.
Right, I don't have time to write a proper answer to this but it is, in my opinion, not very accurate. I'll get round to it soon.
> >You then start talking about the Indian Mutiny -
> 1857, and which you rechristened a couple of weeks ago as the first
> Indian war of independence, following the Braveheart school of
> history - to back this up.
>
> Well again this is explained simply by the fact that to the Indian
> resistance movements it was the beginning of the Indian War of
> Independence, and to the British it was the Indian Mutiny. For the
> British, calling it a mutiny is better politically because it makes
> it sound like a few malcontents are playing silly b*ggers. Call it a
> war and suddenly people are asking these awkward "if the Empire
> is so great how come a war is starting in it" type questions. I
> believe I did repeat this in that original topic.
I don't want to bang on about this - no, actually, I do - but how can it be a war for independence IF NO ONE IS FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE? The mutiny/rebellion was portrayed by the nationalist writers of the early 20th C (ie, 50 years after the event) as as an abortive war on empire but this was more propaganda than anything else - this interpretation is an interesting part of how Indian nationalism was shaped but it doesn't make it true. There was a military mutiny, based on religion; there were Indian princes who joined in this rebellion (or whatever), annoyed at the deal they were getting from the British, or jealous of the princes who were allowed to deal with the British; and there were also agrarian rebellions, directed mainly towards the landlords who, at this time, were almost exclusively Indian. No one was fighting for independence. So to call the mutiny 'The First Indian War of Independence' is a bit like calling the Wright Brothers first trip in a plane 'The First Flight to the Moon'.
Belldandy wrote:
> So, Light, this is topic avoidance eh? Find me ONE thing in there
> that is not related to what unknown kernel said.
>
> Go on.
>
> No whining excuses, find where I avoided the topic.
Oh, but Bell I thought you didn't care about what anyone thought?
You care so little that you feel the need to pop this one up? Heh. Yeah, you really don't care at all do you?
Well, see my post below for how you're avoiding the topic. And then by all means avoid addressing that.
> So, Light, this is topic avoidance eh? Find me ONE thing in there
> that is not related to what unknown kernel said.
>
> Go on.
>
> No whining excuses, find where I avoided the topic.
Oh, but Bell I thought you didn't care about what anyone thought?
You care so little that you feel the need to pop this one up? Heh. Yeah, you really don't care at all do you?
Well, see my post below for how you're avoiding the topic. And then by all means avoid addressing that.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> So, I mention something to do with colonialism - slavery - that
> unknown kernel - who says he knows something about colonialism - does
> not, and I'm squirming ? How come, If I am avodiing the subject, I
> replied to unknown kernel, eh ? Rather bizarre topic avoidance
> that....
Well, you're now avoiding addressing kernal's posts again, and trying to twist away from the subject, and also posting everything you know about the subject be it relevant or not, so that looks like avoidance to me.
>
> You are one of the prime people who cannot seem to get this
> "people can have an opinion but it does not make it the only
> one" idea into your head, as your religion topic shows.
>
Bwah ha ha haaaa! Yeah Bell, that must be why I'm having a decent debate about it, and not laying into someone just for having a differing opinion. That's what grown ups with different opinions do you know; they discuss them. That must be why I'm arguing my opinion, and both Hobbo and Biggles are arguing theirs, and we're not resorting to avoiding the topics raised. That must be why none of us are trying to change the subject and refusing to explain ourselves. That must be why none of us are acting like cowards.
>
> Because it will annoy certain people, heck you felt enough to comment
> on it...
Ha.
Ahaha.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
What an absolute pile! It will annoy certain people? What, is it just another test then Bell?
I felt enough to comment on it because you keep saying "do you think I care?", then go nuclear with rage about "one rule for notables and one rule for everyone else". So please, carry on trying to pretend that you don't care before wailing and scweaming that nasty old IB (who had the nerve to make FUN of you! You, with your great dignity and reputation to protect!) is back.
Whining little coward; when will you realise that you get treated differently by many here because you're a mewling, bullying little cocksock who avoids addressing points raised but demands he gets respect from all?
>
> So, I mention something to do with colonialism - slavery - that
> unknown kernel - who says he knows something about colonialism - does
> not, and I'm squirming ? How come, If I am avodiing the subject, I
> replied to unknown kernel, eh ? Rather bizarre topic avoidance
> that....
Well, you're now avoiding addressing kernal's posts again, and trying to twist away from the subject, and also posting everything you know about the subject be it relevant or not, so that looks like avoidance to me.
>
> You are one of the prime people who cannot seem to get this
> "people can have an opinion but it does not make it the only
> one" idea into your head, as your religion topic shows.
>
Bwah ha ha haaaa! Yeah Bell, that must be why I'm having a decent debate about it, and not laying into someone just for having a differing opinion. That's what grown ups with different opinions do you know; they discuss them. That must be why I'm arguing my opinion, and both Hobbo and Biggles are arguing theirs, and we're not resorting to avoiding the topics raised. That must be why none of us are trying to change the subject and refusing to explain ourselves. That must be why none of us are acting like cowards.
>
> Because it will annoy certain people, heck you felt enough to comment
> on it...
Ha.
Ahaha.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
What an absolute pile! It will annoy certain people? What, is it just another test then Bell?
I felt enough to comment on it because you keep saying "do you think I care?", then go nuclear with rage about "one rule for notables and one rule for everyone else". So please, carry on trying to pretend that you don't care before wailing and scweaming that nasty old IB (who had the nerve to make FUN of you! You, with your great dignity and reputation to protect!) is back.
Whining little coward; when will you realise that you get treated differently by many here because you're a mewling, bullying little cocksock who avoids addressing points raised but demands he gets respect from all?
Belldandy wrote:
> unknown kernel wrote:
> On the slavery thing I wondered whether you meant the slave trade or
> slavery itself; where you were talking about; and how that tied in
> with the decline in British power, given what the empire was all
> about. I admit that the nuances of that question may have been
> obscured by me going 'wot?'
>
> Well for starters the British Empire founded a sizeable (not all) of
> it's income through slavery. Obviously when the British were forced
> to abandon it in ALL forms it dented the economy of the Empire
> because all of a sudden you have to find people to work for you
> rather than going to a village, rounding all the women and children
> up and getting the men to work for you, or just rounding everyone up
> and dumping them on a ship to another place.
>
> The other thing, about "Britain's will to govern by force ended
> in the early 1900's" just confused me. The other day you were
> saying that Britain's empire ended because of the effects of WWII
> and
> that only the damage to its military forced Britain to let its
> empire
> go; now you're saying that Britain didn't want to rule by force by
> the early 1900s.
>
> I'll clarify, and again this is based on my opinion so anyone else
> silly enough to think one opinion is the be all and end all can go
> run off a cliff:
>
> Britain's will to govern by force came to an end around the early
> 1900's in that we did not have the enthusiasm, capacity, or actual
> forces to deploy to prop up every single colony we had. We could
> however involve the 'natives' in some capacity to further the
> situation for a little longer. At the time resistance movements were
> GENERALLY not organised enough nor doing enough to cause major
> trouble.
>
> Then comes WW2, piles of people from our colonies fight with us, and
> we're fighting in theory for freedom, democracy and all that. War
> ends. Our economy is knackered, our military is, whilst not on it's
> last legs, suddenly policing parts of Germany and spread around the
> world in hundreds of battle zones. Economically we can no longer
> support the colonies nor pay for them. Militarily we could defend
> them IF the 'natives' helped. Except they won't, because after
> fighting to destory the axis powers in the name of freedom they
> realise that they're going back to a place where they do not have
> freedom. Resistance movements become popular, and in places like
> India a convergence of domestic political events, upheavals and
> public opinion means that we can give independence to India, and
> other places, still come out as the relative good guys, and by jove
> we'll sell them everything they need for their new bona fide state.
>
>
> >You then start talking about the Indian Mutiny -
> 1857, and which you rechristened a couple of weeks ago as the first
> Indian war of independence, following the Braveheart school of
> history - to back this up.
>
> Well again this is explained simply by the fact that to the Indian
> resistance movements it was the beginning of the Indian War of
> Independence, and to the British it was the Indian Mutiny. For the
> British, calling it a mutiny is better politically because it makes
> it sound like a few malcontents are playing silly b*ggers. Call it a
> war and suddenly people are asking these awkward "if the Empire
> is so great how come a war is starting in it" type questions. I
> believe I did repeat this in that original topic.
>
> >I agree with most of what you're saying,
> although I think that the change wasn't that dramatic. I don't know
> much about the Far East but certainly in Africa and India, Britain
> always preferred to rule 'peacefully' by trading and co-operation
> with local elites, but was happy to respond with great force if they
> stepped out of line (much like the US today). I don't think that
> approach changed much until the independence movements, when Britain
> was forced to fight mass movements rather than a few disgruntled
> chiefs and their mercenaries.
>
> Well that is your opinion, but when you read the more detailed
> accounts of the antics of people like Stanley, and of the other
> European accounts of their activities in Africa and India, I find it
> hard to believe we were the only ones being 'civilised' in any way.
> More like our accounts of those times were sanitised for the official
> sources at the time. We do know that Africa, during the last half of
> the 19th Century, suffered massive population loss in the areas where
> the Europeans were. Now we know that there was no major disease
> problem as there was when Europeans went to the New World, so either
> there was a mass immigration no one knows about, or we really did
> sell millions into slavery or kill/massacre them. The other important
> point is that Britian rarely comitted such acts officially, in the
> colonies, towards the end of the 19th Century, proxy forces, such as
> those of the local elites, stood in nicely. Should some inconvenient
> person like Edward Morel (who campaigned for an end to all slavery
> and uncovered the truth about the Belgian colonies in Africa) come
> across something you could blame it on those people instead of white
> people.
>
> Essentially I think you're talking about two kinds of military type
> actions - ones that had terrorising the locals/enforcing a peace
> kinds of objectives, and ones that had a more battlefield type
> objective.
>
> It seemed to me that you were changing your argument. My point -
> rather enigmatically put - was that if you are going to descend into
> each thread like Moses carrying tablets down the mountain, then at
> least bring the same tablets every time.
>
> Except I don't have that intention. I always state my opinion and for
> some strange reason many seem to take it as fact or truth.
So, Light, this is topic avoidance eh? Find me ONE thing in there that is not related to what unknown kernel said.
Go on.
No whining excuses, find where I avoided the topic.
> unknown kernel wrote:
> On the slavery thing I wondered whether you meant the slave trade or
> slavery itself; where you were talking about; and how that tied in
> with the decline in British power, given what the empire was all
> about. I admit that the nuances of that question may have been
> obscured by me going 'wot?'
>
> Well for starters the British Empire founded a sizeable (not all) of
> it's income through slavery. Obviously when the British were forced
> to abandon it in ALL forms it dented the economy of the Empire
> because all of a sudden you have to find people to work for you
> rather than going to a village, rounding all the women and children
> up and getting the men to work for you, or just rounding everyone up
> and dumping them on a ship to another place.
>
> The other thing, about "Britain's will to govern by force ended
> in the early 1900's" just confused me. The other day you were
> saying that Britain's empire ended because of the effects of WWII
> and
> that only the damage to its military forced Britain to let its
> empire
> go; now you're saying that Britain didn't want to rule by force by
> the early 1900s.
>
> I'll clarify, and again this is based on my opinion so anyone else
> silly enough to think one opinion is the be all and end all can go
> run off a cliff:
>
> Britain's will to govern by force came to an end around the early
> 1900's in that we did not have the enthusiasm, capacity, or actual
> forces to deploy to prop up every single colony we had. We could
> however involve the 'natives' in some capacity to further the
> situation for a little longer. At the time resistance movements were
> GENERALLY not organised enough nor doing enough to cause major
> trouble.
>
> Then comes WW2, piles of people from our colonies fight with us, and
> we're fighting in theory for freedom, democracy and all that. War
> ends. Our economy is knackered, our military is, whilst not on it's
> last legs, suddenly policing parts of Germany and spread around the
> world in hundreds of battle zones. Economically we can no longer
> support the colonies nor pay for them. Militarily we could defend
> them IF the 'natives' helped. Except they won't, because after
> fighting to destory the axis powers in the name of freedom they
> realise that they're going back to a place where they do not have
> freedom. Resistance movements become popular, and in places like
> India a convergence of domestic political events, upheavals and
> public opinion means that we can give independence to India, and
> other places, still come out as the relative good guys, and by jove
> we'll sell them everything they need for their new bona fide state.
>
>
> >You then start talking about the Indian Mutiny -
> 1857, and which you rechristened a couple of weeks ago as the first
> Indian war of independence, following the Braveheart school of
> history - to back this up.
>
> Well again this is explained simply by the fact that to the Indian
> resistance movements it was the beginning of the Indian War of
> Independence, and to the British it was the Indian Mutiny. For the
> British, calling it a mutiny is better politically because it makes
> it sound like a few malcontents are playing silly b*ggers. Call it a
> war and suddenly people are asking these awkward "if the Empire
> is so great how come a war is starting in it" type questions. I
> believe I did repeat this in that original topic.
>
> >I agree with most of what you're saying,
> although I think that the change wasn't that dramatic. I don't know
> much about the Far East but certainly in Africa and India, Britain
> always preferred to rule 'peacefully' by trading and co-operation
> with local elites, but was happy to respond with great force if they
> stepped out of line (much like the US today). I don't think that
> approach changed much until the independence movements, when Britain
> was forced to fight mass movements rather than a few disgruntled
> chiefs and their mercenaries.
>
> Well that is your opinion, but when you read the more detailed
> accounts of the antics of people like Stanley, and of the other
> European accounts of their activities in Africa and India, I find it
> hard to believe we were the only ones being 'civilised' in any way.
> More like our accounts of those times were sanitised for the official
> sources at the time. We do know that Africa, during the last half of
> the 19th Century, suffered massive population loss in the areas where
> the Europeans were. Now we know that there was no major disease
> problem as there was when Europeans went to the New World, so either
> there was a mass immigration no one knows about, or we really did
> sell millions into slavery or kill/massacre them. The other important
> point is that Britian rarely comitted such acts officially, in the
> colonies, towards the end of the 19th Century, proxy forces, such as
> those of the local elites, stood in nicely. Should some inconvenient
> person like Edward Morel (who campaigned for an end to all slavery
> and uncovered the truth about the Belgian colonies in Africa) come
> across something you could blame it on those people instead of white
> people.
>
> Essentially I think you're talking about two kinds of military type
> actions - ones that had terrorising the locals/enforcing a peace
> kinds of objectives, and ones that had a more battlefield type
> objective.
>
> It seemed to me that you were changing your argument. My point -
> rather enigmatically put - was that if you are going to descend into
> each thread like Moses carrying tablets down the mountain, then at
> least bring the same tablets every time.
>
> Except I don't have that intention. I always state my opinion and for
> some strange reason many seem to take it as fact or truth.
So, Light, this is topic avoidance eh? Find me ONE thing in there that is not related to what unknown kernel said.
Go on.
No whining excuses, find where I avoided the topic.
Page: