The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Swearing now?
How many forum rules do you want to violate?
How many forum rules do you want to violate?
Oh dear, yet another person unable to grasp that what somebody types is but one interpretation of events.
You do go to/have been to Uni , unknown kernel ? They did do about competing discourses e.t.c I assume ? Y'know, that just because someone interprets events one way it does not make them the only interpretation, nor the wrong or right interpretation.
You asked two questions of me, which I answered.
You then chose to ignore those questions, despite saying you supposedly knew something about the end of colonialism - apparently you seem to have skipped the most basic bits about slavery but nevermind - and go off on a totally different, baseless, rant.
Light asked for my opinion as to why I believed the end of British power was at the end of the 19th Century and not when he believed it was, the middle of the 20th Century. I answered, and you'll notice that Light did not seem to think any of the answer was inappropriate. He then asked if by my own reasoning I though US power was waning, which again I answered, admittedly in a rather long answer, but I do not believe the topic can be addressed in a much shorter way, because lets face it, people have written endless books on the subject so a few thousand words is not much in comparison.
Which leaves you, unknown kernel, whining. As usual. As for teaching, well I don't believe colonialism features all that big in the curriculum at that level. As a supposed grown up I would have also thought that you could recognise that people can seperate personal and professional interests from each other. I would never dream of incorporating my own beliefs into any teaching because the job is to teach children the national curriculum, not what ever you happen to fancy doing. The same goes for teaching at any level, even university lecturing - a lecturer can have their own take on an idea or theory or theme but they have to present a rounded view of the subject to allow students to make their own decisions. The idea being that with a basic education children/young adults are more than capable, more so than most adults, of forming their own beliefs and interpretations.
So unknown kernel I suggest that you try to actually add something with your next post rather than a rant. Ironically I'm having a minor rant at you, but there you go.
You do go to/have been to Uni , unknown kernel ? They did do about competing discourses e.t.c I assume ? Y'know, that just because someone interprets events one way it does not make them the only interpretation, nor the wrong or right interpretation.
You asked two questions of me, which I answered.
You then chose to ignore those questions, despite saying you supposedly knew something about the end of colonialism - apparently you seem to have skipped the most basic bits about slavery but nevermind - and go off on a totally different, baseless, rant.
Light asked for my opinion as to why I believed the end of British power was at the end of the 19th Century and not when he believed it was, the middle of the 20th Century. I answered, and you'll notice that Light did not seem to think any of the answer was inappropriate. He then asked if by my own reasoning I though US power was waning, which again I answered, admittedly in a rather long answer, but I do not believe the topic can be addressed in a much shorter way, because lets face it, people have written endless books on the subject so a few thousand words is not much in comparison.
Which leaves you, unknown kernel, whining. As usual. As for teaching, well I don't believe colonialism features all that big in the curriculum at that level. As a supposed grown up I would have also thought that you could recognise that people can seperate personal and professional interests from each other. I would never dream of incorporating my own beliefs into any teaching because the job is to teach children the national curriculum, not what ever you happen to fancy doing. The same goes for teaching at any level, even university lecturing - a lecturer can have their own take on an idea or theory or theme but they have to present a rounded view of the subject to allow students to make their own decisions. The idea being that with a basic education children/young adults are more than capable, more so than most adults, of forming their own beliefs and interpretations.
So unknown kernel I suggest that you try to actually add something with your next post rather than a rant. Ironically I'm having a minor rant at you, but there you go.
unknown kernel wrote:
> This does seem to be a bit of the old "uh oh, I've been caught
> out, I'll write down a thousand mostly irrelevant words and hope that
> my awesome breadth of knowledge distracts people from me being
> wrong".
Heh. Change 'a thousand' to 'two or three thousand' and that pretty much sums up my opinion of your latest magnum opus. Even in my moderately inebriated state I can see how you contradict yourself from paragraph to paragraph, and from post to post. Perhaps I'll write a proper and well reasoned response later in the weekend, but for now I'll just say how amusing this all is. I find it funny that, when pressed, you write down EVERYTHING YOU KNOW about a subject, even if it is not the subject at hand. I find it even funnier that, despite your know-it-all just-the-facts tone, whenever you write about something that other people know about (eg ebola, Michael Moore) then they can immediately tell that you are a fraud; and that whenever people take the time to examine what you are saying about other subjects then your knowledge is revealed as shallow at best, misrepresentation as a medium, and downright lies at worst.
I shudder at the thought that you will someday become a teacher. Not because your bullying, supercilious ways might cow a bunch of twelve year olds into submission; but because one day a pupil with guts is going to challenge your latest godlike judgement and show you up as the Bush fellating unthinker that you are - and I dread to think what your response will be. No doubt you will wax lyrical for several hours on an unrelated subject, but eventually even this will fail to satisfy your tortured and humiliated soul and you will - I have no doubt about this - go postal and embark on an unprecedented killing spree.
I only hope that these forums do not need to be presented as evidence in some future court case.
> This does seem to be a bit of the old "uh oh, I've been caught
> out, I'll write down a thousand mostly irrelevant words and hope that
> my awesome breadth of knowledge distracts people from me being
> wrong".
Heh. Change 'a thousand' to 'two or three thousand' and that pretty much sums up my opinion of your latest magnum opus. Even in my moderately inebriated state I can see how you contradict yourself from paragraph to paragraph, and from post to post. Perhaps I'll write a proper and well reasoned response later in the weekend, but for now I'll just say how amusing this all is. I find it funny that, when pressed, you write down EVERYTHING YOU KNOW about a subject, even if it is not the subject at hand. I find it even funnier that, despite your know-it-all just-the-facts tone, whenever you write about something that other people know about (eg ebola, Michael Moore) then they can immediately tell that you are a fraud; and that whenever people take the time to examine what you are saying about other subjects then your knowledge is revealed as shallow at best, misrepresentation as a medium, and downright lies at worst.
I shudder at the thought that you will someday become a teacher. Not because your bullying, supercilious ways might cow a bunch of twelve year olds into submission; but because one day a pupil with guts is going to challenge your latest godlike judgement and show you up as the Bush fellating unthinker that you are - and I dread to think what your response will be. No doubt you will wax lyrical for several hours on an unrelated subject, but eventually even this will fail to satisfy your tortured and humiliated soul and you will - I have no doubt about this - go postal and embark on an unprecedented killing spree.
I only hope that these forums do not need to be presented as evidence in some future court case.
unknown kernel wrote:
> This
> period also saw Britain forced to abandon slavery in the east,
> though
> it would continue in the west until the early 20th century.
Britain abolished slavery in the 19th century century, but this only referred to the arab slaves in the eastern colonies. because the law only applied to slaves in the British Empire. Africa was not part of that Empire anyway at that time, and the British soon set about using African's instead because the law was barely enforced. The few times a British slave trader was in danger of being caught he simply dumped his cargo. Further, the anti-slavery laws were aimed at stopping arab slave traders who were putting Europeans ones out of business. In 1889 a European anti slavery conference was headed by King Leopold II in Brussels. The irony being that he would later enslave millions of Africans in his african colonies, along with the British and other Europeans to a lesser extent. The end of (European)slavery in Africa would not end until the early 20th century from 1909 onwards.
> Britain's will to govern by force ended in the early 1900's
>
> Eh?
World War one cost Britain dearly in terms of lost troops, increasingly after World War One colonial troops were made up of British subjects (people who were ruled by Britain as opposed to British born) and not British military forces. In India this was already the case pre WWI - the officer corps was British but most troops were India born - highlighted by the events leading to the Indian mutiny. If you look at the colonies Britain held then very little attempt was made militarily to enforce British rule post WW1.
If you know anything about colonialism - and BTW I have never said I'm an expert, in fact I knew very little before university - then you should at least know about the slavery thing.
> This
> period also saw Britain forced to abandon slavery in the east,
> though
> it would continue in the west until the early 20th century.
Britain abolished slavery in the 19th century century, but this only referred to the arab slaves in the eastern colonies. because the law only applied to slaves in the British Empire. Africa was not part of that Empire anyway at that time, and the British soon set about using African's instead because the law was barely enforced. The few times a British slave trader was in danger of being caught he simply dumped his cargo. Further, the anti-slavery laws were aimed at stopping arab slave traders who were putting Europeans ones out of business. In 1889 a European anti slavery conference was headed by King Leopold II in Brussels. The irony being that he would later enslave millions of Africans in his african colonies, along with the British and other Europeans to a lesser extent. The end of (European)slavery in Africa would not end until the early 20th century from 1909 onwards.
> Britain's will to govern by force ended in the early 1900's
>
> Eh?
World War one cost Britain dearly in terms of lost troops, increasingly after World War One colonial troops were made up of British subjects (people who were ruled by Britain as opposed to British born) and not British military forces. In India this was already the case pre WWI - the officer corps was British but most troops were India born - highlighted by the events leading to the Indian mutiny. If you look at the colonies Britain held then very little attempt was made militarily to enforce British rule post WW1.
If you know anything about colonialism - and BTW I have never said I'm an expert, in fact I knew very little before university - then you should at least know about the slavery thing.
Light wrote:
> Using that as a justification, that means that the USA's days as a
> superpower are numbered, are they not? After all, they lost horribly
> in Vietam, failed to do much in Somalia, and are looking increasingly
> inept in Iraq. So if a nation's army are the measure of how powerful
> they are, doesn't that mean that, using your logic, the influence of
> the US is on the wane.
In a sense yes. The Gulf War was only won because of a massive superiority of numbers and technology against a force which was still recovering from the Iran/Iraq war, and that featured many conscripts/prisoners and the like. When the Gulf War started there was only ever one conclusion - UN victory. Actual ground combat took place over 100 hours, for the most part it was an air war, fought beyond the visual range of an enemy.
Following the Gulf War, a famous quote is that of the Indian defence minister, who was asked what he had learnt about modern warfare following the conflict. He replied: "Do not fight the United States unless you have nuclear weapons".
As you have pointed out before Light, China and North Korea are left relatively alone by the US/UN, and they have nuclear weapons, or are at least suspected of having them.
The only places then where the US can engage is where, on paper, their technology will allow a victory, and a quick war. Somali turned into a disaster and a pull out because of the casualties, Vietnam I would argue was a partial success in terms of objectives: it forced Russia and China to expend resources and wealth and devestated the country ensuring Communism would not spread outside of it's borders. In terms of losses it was a victory at a horrendous cost. But it was also a warning to the military - technology had only achieved so much, but few looked at it that way.
In, I think 1980, Operation Desert Claw - US Special Forces tasked to release the Iranian hostages, failed. Again, on paper the technology worked and would ensure success. Same again in Grenada, facing a rag tag milita with Soviet weapons but little training with them, US forces took far too long to invade and remove the enemy. At one point an entire platoon of rangers parachuted onto an enemy airfield straight in front of Cuban machine gunners - only Castro's orders for the Cubans not to open fire on Americans prevented a massacre.
Grenada also showed the limited usefulness of the Special Ops teams that Kennedy and successive Presidents had placed so much in, three SEAL teams were killed or badly injured when they attempted to inflitrate via motor dinghy in high seas and stormy conditions. Panama likewise, SEAL units failed to initially capture a vital landing field despite only being outnumbered 2:1.
Victory came in the Gulf because the Iraqi forces were stupid enough to just sit and wait for us, indeed they had invaded under the Iraqi ambassador's misunderstanding of a meeting with the US ambassador the night before the invasion of Kuwait. The two had met to discuss Iraq's dispute with Kuwait, at the end the US ambassador, not knowing that Iraq already had units sitting around near the Kuwaiti border, told the Iraqi ambassador that the United States did not have a position regarding Iraq's dispute with Kuwait. The meaning was that the US would not take sides to solve it. Saddam interpreted this, assuming the US knew of the troop build ups, as US/Western go ahead to do what he wanted to.
Anyway, digressing.
The United State's military power is based around being able to fight conventional wars. Both sides array their full military, army and navy, and act either in defence or offense for defined objectives. Before 9/11 the only units that did not follow this model were Special Forces units tasked to counter terrorism, unlike the UK where the SAS provides this role alongside other duties, the US has a higher level of training for domestic police and law enforcement units assigned to tactical situations and these are expected to deal with all but major terrorist incidents pre 9/11. In short, many US special forces units have had little real engagement with well trained terrorists.
Then comes 9/11. Suddenly the bad guys are not sitting around in a desert waiting to be hit. You can't flatten the entire country because your enemy is not the country but elements in it. The Cold War ended in 1989, but until this point the military has continued to plan for that kind of conflict. All of a sudden a bunch of guys with AK47's and RPG's along with local knowledge can evade and disrupt an entire light brigade, and your only other advantage is your helicopters. Which are prone to being shot out of the sky by a guy with an RPG hidden in his cloak until you hover. And, as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite all your forces and technology, your soldiers are dying.
Except on paper they should not be. But they are. And the symbols of US might, the stealth planes, the hundreds of fighter squadrons, B52's, everything, is suddenly useless because you're fighting guys on foot with light weapons mixed in a civilian population.
Which would be okay, if the greatest threat to you was another nation, except that the threat is these people on foot. These terrorists do not have large targets you can strike, no command infrastructure to destroy, no divisions to anhilate. Every time you hit something another one or more springs up.
To tackle the threat of this new enemy at home means increasing security, which means that you're chaning your entire society and culture, because of these guys. And even worse, these people can do what they want, because odds are you cannot hurt them back. If North Korea had funded the 9/11 hijackers then no problem, nice big country to bomb and invade, excellent stuff. But it was Bin Laden. And he's not to worried, because unlike the leaders of most nations, he doesn't care if he lives or dies and he has no power at risk. He knows he has no territory of his own to risk.
So, the US has military power, but not the enemy to use most of it against, and not configured to fight the wars of today or the future, hence US influence is waning and it's days as a superpower in military terms are numbered in my belief.
To a certain degree, power is no longer based on military might, though, especially if you cannot use that might. Take the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam got not one penny of Kuwait's actual money because it existed in electronic accounts inaccessible to the Iraqi's. Money is the new power amongst most nations, which is the problem, because today's enemies are not nations.
There is one factor which makes this all unpredictable though, and one that was not present in the past at any other time.
9/11.
To me, it's the wildcard of the whole situation - will Americans continue to support Bush because he is seen as pursuing the enemy, or will they turn to someone else and forget, in part, 9/11. Already we have seen that the US administration believes the US public will tolerate military casualties that it would not tolerate pre 9/11. Anyone opposing Bush and his policies has to convince the people that there is another way, and that it will work. America, unlike post WW1, cannot isolate itself because that is not possible in the international economy today. Events in one place impact economies half the way around the world in a parody of the chaos effect.
> However, I did say that we were the pre-eminent power prior to WWII.
> Whilst I accept that we were in no way the powerful empire we once
> were, we still wielded more influence on the world stage than any
> other single nation.
You're entitled to think that, but we weren't. In 1895 Lord Salisbury, Prime Minister of a coalition government, himself commented that: "British policy is to drift lazily down the stream, occasionally putting out a boat-hook to avoid a collision".
That's the actual words of the leader of the nation. More evidence can be found in the sheer amounts of Imperial propoganda that was churned out from around 1890 that was aimed at getting the British public to support the 'Empire' and think of it as theirs. This propoganda took the form of colonial literature - accounts fashioned by people like Livingstone, Stanle, various societies, and such like, theatres, postcards, posters, even adverts on food packaging. To what aim? To garner political support for the inevitable military actions and service required to defend a crumbling Empire. The Navy could protect the colonies from invasion and other nations, but against hostile populaces it was not effective.
> I'm afraid have you given me anything to back up your view that we
> were NOT the biggest of the world powers; you've certainly convinced
> me that we weren't BY FAR AND AWAY the main world player, but then I
> never actually said that we were, just that we were marginally bigger
> than the others. If you can give me any links, facts, or figures that
> show any other one nation having more influence on the world stage
> than us prior to WWII, I'd be grateful for them.
Arguably the 20th century was the American Century, a harbringer of this was the defeat of the Spanish in the Spanish-American War in 1898 where Spain requested a truce and acceeded to US demands, and the eventual pacification of the Phillipines in 1902 by US led forces. America was also less effected by the 1918 flu epidemic and lost 'only' 900 000 people compared to an estimated 15-20 million in Europe.
Really it depends how you want to define influence and whether that influence equated with power and dominance. America was powerful - militarily, economically, politically when it chose to be. Except that, bar an involvement towards the end of WW1, the US remained out of European affairs because it simply had no need to become involved in them. Russia was seen as a threat , yes, but a European threat. Whilst the Europeans feared an expanding Russia, America new that even if that happened it would have little to worry about, after all it was sepereated by an ocean and eminenetly powerful. Britain had influence, but only on it's colonies at this point, and only dominance of those places for obvious reasons. It's leaders, as policy documents from that era show, knew that this was the end of Empire but that quesion was how long it could hang on. Same went for the rest of Europe's colonial empires, they all knew that the end was nigh, but at the same time each engaged covertly and overtly in trying to hasten the end of others empires in case doing so preserved their - for example Germany gave weapons to the Boers in the Boer War on the context that it was to aid them against an agressor.
The change came after World War 2 because the US could not remain isolated any more, it could not do as it had done in WW1 and remove itself from world affairs and remain prosperous at the same time, it would have to engage the world to remain wealthy, and it would have to exercise the might it had built up. In addition, new military technology meant the the USA was no longer geographically safe from attack - Pearl Harbour had shown that, plus if Russia were to rebuild Europe then it would control Europe.
Summary, the USA was the dominant force at the end of the 19th Century but isolated itself from the world largely until the end of WW2. Britain remained with some power until the end of WW2, but little more than any other European nation, and only within it's own domains where this was maintained by force of arms.
I've looked around the net for links but there seems very little on this topic I can find, and the majority of this stuff comes from the old fashioned (and to me, much preferred) books.
The American Century by Harold Evans is a good account, though largely pictures, of the rise and dominance of America from the end of the 19th Century.
King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild is good account of the African land grab/declining influence and power of Britain.
Anything written by Halford J Mackinder is an indication of just how dire the situation was for Britain at the start of the 20th Century. He tried to influence political leaders with his theories. They essentially showed the continuing importance of the navy, that the threat to the Empire came from the inability of a sea power to defeat a land power. This was in part further justification for colonialism, because it would establish land bases which could be supplied by the navy and extend British rule, he also called for the public to be educated about the Empire so that they would serve it, die for it if necessary, he realised that the Empire would require force to preserve it. Ultimately the guy was a patriot who thought he could save what he loved most, the Empire.
I'll post some more books later this weekend 'cause I'll have to look them up.
> Using that as a justification, that means that the USA's days as a
> superpower are numbered, are they not? After all, they lost horribly
> in Vietam, failed to do much in Somalia, and are looking increasingly
> inept in Iraq. So if a nation's army are the measure of how powerful
> they are, doesn't that mean that, using your logic, the influence of
> the US is on the wane.
In a sense yes. The Gulf War was only won because of a massive superiority of numbers and technology against a force which was still recovering from the Iran/Iraq war, and that featured many conscripts/prisoners and the like. When the Gulf War started there was only ever one conclusion - UN victory. Actual ground combat took place over 100 hours, for the most part it was an air war, fought beyond the visual range of an enemy.
Following the Gulf War, a famous quote is that of the Indian defence minister, who was asked what he had learnt about modern warfare following the conflict. He replied: "Do not fight the United States unless you have nuclear weapons".
As you have pointed out before Light, China and North Korea are left relatively alone by the US/UN, and they have nuclear weapons, or are at least suspected of having them.
The only places then where the US can engage is where, on paper, their technology will allow a victory, and a quick war. Somali turned into a disaster and a pull out because of the casualties, Vietnam I would argue was a partial success in terms of objectives: it forced Russia and China to expend resources and wealth and devestated the country ensuring Communism would not spread outside of it's borders. In terms of losses it was a victory at a horrendous cost. But it was also a warning to the military - technology had only achieved so much, but few looked at it that way.
In, I think 1980, Operation Desert Claw - US Special Forces tasked to release the Iranian hostages, failed. Again, on paper the technology worked and would ensure success. Same again in Grenada, facing a rag tag milita with Soviet weapons but little training with them, US forces took far too long to invade and remove the enemy. At one point an entire platoon of rangers parachuted onto an enemy airfield straight in front of Cuban machine gunners - only Castro's orders for the Cubans not to open fire on Americans prevented a massacre.
Grenada also showed the limited usefulness of the Special Ops teams that Kennedy and successive Presidents had placed so much in, three SEAL teams were killed or badly injured when they attempted to inflitrate via motor dinghy in high seas and stormy conditions. Panama likewise, SEAL units failed to initially capture a vital landing field despite only being outnumbered 2:1.
Victory came in the Gulf because the Iraqi forces were stupid enough to just sit and wait for us, indeed they had invaded under the Iraqi ambassador's misunderstanding of a meeting with the US ambassador the night before the invasion of Kuwait. The two had met to discuss Iraq's dispute with Kuwait, at the end the US ambassador, not knowing that Iraq already had units sitting around near the Kuwaiti border, told the Iraqi ambassador that the United States did not have a position regarding Iraq's dispute with Kuwait. The meaning was that the US would not take sides to solve it. Saddam interpreted this, assuming the US knew of the troop build ups, as US/Western go ahead to do what he wanted to.
Anyway, digressing.
The United State's military power is based around being able to fight conventional wars. Both sides array their full military, army and navy, and act either in defence or offense for defined objectives. Before 9/11 the only units that did not follow this model were Special Forces units tasked to counter terrorism, unlike the UK where the SAS provides this role alongside other duties, the US has a higher level of training for domestic police and law enforcement units assigned to tactical situations and these are expected to deal with all but major terrorist incidents pre 9/11. In short, many US special forces units have had little real engagement with well trained terrorists.
Then comes 9/11. Suddenly the bad guys are not sitting around in a desert waiting to be hit. You can't flatten the entire country because your enemy is not the country but elements in it. The Cold War ended in 1989, but until this point the military has continued to plan for that kind of conflict. All of a sudden a bunch of guys with AK47's and RPG's along with local knowledge can evade and disrupt an entire light brigade, and your only other advantage is your helicopters. Which are prone to being shot out of the sky by a guy with an RPG hidden in his cloak until you hover. And, as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite all your forces and technology, your soldiers are dying.
Except on paper they should not be. But they are. And the symbols of US might, the stealth planes, the hundreds of fighter squadrons, B52's, everything, is suddenly useless because you're fighting guys on foot with light weapons mixed in a civilian population.
Which would be okay, if the greatest threat to you was another nation, except that the threat is these people on foot. These terrorists do not have large targets you can strike, no command infrastructure to destroy, no divisions to anhilate. Every time you hit something another one or more springs up.
To tackle the threat of this new enemy at home means increasing security, which means that you're chaning your entire society and culture, because of these guys. And even worse, these people can do what they want, because odds are you cannot hurt them back. If North Korea had funded the 9/11 hijackers then no problem, nice big country to bomb and invade, excellent stuff. But it was Bin Laden. And he's not to worried, because unlike the leaders of most nations, he doesn't care if he lives or dies and he has no power at risk. He knows he has no territory of his own to risk.
So, the US has military power, but not the enemy to use most of it against, and not configured to fight the wars of today or the future, hence US influence is waning and it's days as a superpower in military terms are numbered in my belief.
To a certain degree, power is no longer based on military might, though, especially if you cannot use that might. Take the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam got not one penny of Kuwait's actual money because it existed in electronic accounts inaccessible to the Iraqi's. Money is the new power amongst most nations, which is the problem, because today's enemies are not nations.
There is one factor which makes this all unpredictable though, and one that was not present in the past at any other time.
9/11.
To me, it's the wildcard of the whole situation - will Americans continue to support Bush because he is seen as pursuing the enemy, or will they turn to someone else and forget, in part, 9/11. Already we have seen that the US administration believes the US public will tolerate military casualties that it would not tolerate pre 9/11. Anyone opposing Bush and his policies has to convince the people that there is another way, and that it will work. America, unlike post WW1, cannot isolate itself because that is not possible in the international economy today. Events in one place impact economies half the way around the world in a parody of the chaos effect.
> However, I did say that we were the pre-eminent power prior to WWII.
> Whilst I accept that we were in no way the powerful empire we once
> were, we still wielded more influence on the world stage than any
> other single nation.
You're entitled to think that, but we weren't. In 1895 Lord Salisbury, Prime Minister of a coalition government, himself commented that: "British policy is to drift lazily down the stream, occasionally putting out a boat-hook to avoid a collision".
That's the actual words of the leader of the nation. More evidence can be found in the sheer amounts of Imperial propoganda that was churned out from around 1890 that was aimed at getting the British public to support the 'Empire' and think of it as theirs. This propoganda took the form of colonial literature - accounts fashioned by people like Livingstone, Stanle, various societies, and such like, theatres, postcards, posters, even adverts on food packaging. To what aim? To garner political support for the inevitable military actions and service required to defend a crumbling Empire. The Navy could protect the colonies from invasion and other nations, but against hostile populaces it was not effective.
> I'm afraid have you given me anything to back up your view that we
> were NOT the biggest of the world powers; you've certainly convinced
> me that we weren't BY FAR AND AWAY the main world player, but then I
> never actually said that we were, just that we were marginally bigger
> than the others. If you can give me any links, facts, or figures that
> show any other one nation having more influence on the world stage
> than us prior to WWII, I'd be grateful for them.
Arguably the 20th century was the American Century, a harbringer of this was the defeat of the Spanish in the Spanish-American War in 1898 where Spain requested a truce and acceeded to US demands, and the eventual pacification of the Phillipines in 1902 by US led forces. America was also less effected by the 1918 flu epidemic and lost 'only' 900 000 people compared to an estimated 15-20 million in Europe.
Really it depends how you want to define influence and whether that influence equated with power and dominance. America was powerful - militarily, economically, politically when it chose to be. Except that, bar an involvement towards the end of WW1, the US remained out of European affairs because it simply had no need to become involved in them. Russia was seen as a threat , yes, but a European threat. Whilst the Europeans feared an expanding Russia, America new that even if that happened it would have little to worry about, after all it was sepereated by an ocean and eminenetly powerful. Britain had influence, but only on it's colonies at this point, and only dominance of those places for obvious reasons. It's leaders, as policy documents from that era show, knew that this was the end of Empire but that quesion was how long it could hang on. Same went for the rest of Europe's colonial empires, they all knew that the end was nigh, but at the same time each engaged covertly and overtly in trying to hasten the end of others empires in case doing so preserved their - for example Germany gave weapons to the Boers in the Boer War on the context that it was to aid them against an agressor.
The change came after World War 2 because the US could not remain isolated any more, it could not do as it had done in WW1 and remove itself from world affairs and remain prosperous at the same time, it would have to engage the world to remain wealthy, and it would have to exercise the might it had built up. In addition, new military technology meant the the USA was no longer geographically safe from attack - Pearl Harbour had shown that, plus if Russia were to rebuild Europe then it would control Europe.
Summary, the USA was the dominant force at the end of the 19th Century but isolated itself from the world largely until the end of WW2. Britain remained with some power until the end of WW2, but little more than any other European nation, and only within it's own domains where this was maintained by force of arms.
I've looked around the net for links but there seems very little on this topic I can find, and the majority of this stuff comes from the old fashioned (and to me, much preferred) books.
The American Century by Harold Evans is a good account, though largely pictures, of the rise and dominance of America from the end of the 19th Century.
King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild is good account of the African land grab/declining influence and power of Britain.
Anything written by Halford J Mackinder is an indication of just how dire the situation was for Britain at the start of the 20th Century. He tried to influence political leaders with his theories. They essentially showed the continuing importance of the navy, that the threat to the Empire came from the inability of a sea power to defeat a land power. This was in part further justification for colonialism, because it would establish land bases which could be supplied by the navy and extend British rule, he also called for the public to be educated about the Empire so that they would serve it, die for it if necessary, he realised that the Empire would require force to preserve it. Ultimately the guy was a patriot who thought he could save what he loved most, the Empire.
I'll post some more books later this weekend 'cause I'll have to look them up.
As someone who does know a fair bit about the end of colonialism I can officially state that it is one of the many subjects on which Belldandy claims to be the world's foremost expert while actually possessing no knowledge of it beyond an A4 sheet of lecture notes.
This does seem to be a bit of the old "uh oh, I've been caught out, I'll write down a thousand mostly irrelevant words and hope that my awesome breadth of knowledge distracts people from me being wrong". But, hell, while I'm here:
Belldandy wrote:
> This
> period also saw Britain forced to abandon slavery in the east, though
> it would continue in the west until the early 20th century.
What do you mean by this?
> Britain's will to govern by force ended in the early 1900's
Eh?
This does seem to be a bit of the old "uh oh, I've been caught out, I'll write down a thousand mostly irrelevant words and hope that my awesome breadth of knowledge distracts people from me being wrong". But, hell, while I'm here:
Belldandy wrote:
> This
> period also saw Britain forced to abandon slavery in the east, though
> it would continue in the west until the early 20th century.
What do you mean by this?
> Britain's will to govern by force ended in the early 1900's
Eh?
Belldandy wrote:
> Plus your previous ideas about the end of colonialism. I suggest you
> email that post to your mate at whatever it is university...
Oh Bell, still upset at being caught out making up a geographical model?
>
> If anything, the UN simply replaced the colonial powers in certain
> aspects but had none of the resources that the former powers had. It
> was a public face of neo-colonialism, but instead of rule by military
> force, the West simply dominated by economic means instead.
We've already discussed colonialism in another thread. As I recall, you backed off when I started asking for further information for your beliefs. I also seem to recall you being caught out telling blatant lies to support your points. Of course, I may be entirely wrong as there were so many threads that you were being caught out telling lies in at that point that I may be getting one confused with another.
Shall I pop it and find out?
> Plus your previous ideas about the end of colonialism. I suggest you
> email that post to your mate at whatever it is university...
Oh Bell, still upset at being caught out making up a geographical model?
>
> If anything, the UN simply replaced the colonial powers in certain
> aspects but had none of the resources that the former powers had. It
> was a public face of neo-colonialism, but instead of rule by military
> force, the West simply dominated by economic means instead.
We've already discussed colonialism in another thread. As I recall, you backed off when I started asking for further information for your beliefs. I also seem to recall you being caught out telling blatant lies to support your points. Of course, I may be entirely wrong as there were so many threads that you were being caught out telling lies in at that point that I may be getting one confused with another.
Shall I pop it and find out?
Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Yes Bell, we were. Along with France, we were the only colonial
> power
> who could lay claim to any sort of pre-eminence. Of course, the
> militaristic powers of Italy and Germany and Japan were also big
> powers, but we were marginally the bigger boys.
>
> No we were not.
Okay, as you've actually given some sort of justification behind this belief of yours, I'll give you credit and reply as I would to anyone else who goes to the trouble of explaining their beliefs.
>
> Britain's golden age of power ended in 1783. The Treaty of Paris
> forced Britain to recognise an independent America, such was the
> weakness of the British that American diplomats extracted many
> concessions from the British diplomats. From then on it was case of
> hanging on to what he had. In the late 19th Century parts of Africa
> were divided between several powers, pretty sure it was the Berlin
> Conference, Britain found itself vying like all the rest for pieces
> of the pie, so to speak. Belgium, under King Leopold II had already
> beaten Britain to it, as well as using Stanley for his own ends. This
> period also saw Britain forced to abandon slavery in the east, though
> it would continue in the west until the early 20th century. In 1899
> British forces in the Transvaal received an almight kicking from what
> was essentially a group of farmers - the British Army's Black Week -
> around 5 whole divisions of troops were halted, routed, or almost
> destroyed. The Boer War was not going our way, which was a pity
> because we'd actually laid the seeds of the conflict in the first
> place back in 1894.
>
> Eventually it took around 350 000 troops of the 'great' power to
> subdue roughly 60 000 farmers. Even then it took a further 3 years
> until 1902 when the Boer Republics eventually gave up.
Using that as a justification, that means that the USA's days as a superpower are numbered, are they not? After all, they lost horribly in Vietam, failed to do much in Somalia, and are looking increasingly inept in Iraq. So if a nation's army are the measure of how powerful they are, doesn't that mean that, using your logic, the influence of the US is on the wane.
Thank you for posting all of that, I did enjoy reading it. And I find I disagree with none of it.
However, I did say that we were the pre-eminent power prior to WWII. Whilst I accept that we were in no way the powerful empire we once were, we still wielded more influence on the world stage than any other single nation.
I'm afraid have you given me anything to back up your view that we were NOT the biggest of the world powers; you've certainly convinced me that we weren't BY FAR AND AWAY the main world player, but then I never actually said that we were, just that we were marginally bigger than the others. If you can give me any links, facts, or figures that show any other one nation having more influence on the world stage than us prior to WWII, I'd be grateful for them.
> Light wrote:
> Yes Bell, we were. Along with France, we were the only colonial
> power
> who could lay claim to any sort of pre-eminence. Of course, the
> militaristic powers of Italy and Germany and Japan were also big
> powers, but we were marginally the bigger boys.
>
> No we were not.
Okay, as you've actually given some sort of justification behind this belief of yours, I'll give you credit and reply as I would to anyone else who goes to the trouble of explaining their beliefs.
>
> Britain's golden age of power ended in 1783. The Treaty of Paris
> forced Britain to recognise an independent America, such was the
> weakness of the British that American diplomats extracted many
> concessions from the British diplomats. From then on it was case of
> hanging on to what he had. In the late 19th Century parts of Africa
> were divided between several powers, pretty sure it was the Berlin
> Conference, Britain found itself vying like all the rest for pieces
> of the pie, so to speak. Belgium, under King Leopold II had already
> beaten Britain to it, as well as using Stanley for his own ends. This
> period also saw Britain forced to abandon slavery in the east, though
> it would continue in the west until the early 20th century. In 1899
> British forces in the Transvaal received an almight kicking from what
> was essentially a group of farmers - the British Army's Black Week -
> around 5 whole divisions of troops were halted, routed, or almost
> destroyed. The Boer War was not going our way, which was a pity
> because we'd actually laid the seeds of the conflict in the first
> place back in 1894.
>
> Eventually it took around 350 000 troops of the 'great' power to
> subdue roughly 60 000 farmers. Even then it took a further 3 years
> until 1902 when the Boer Republics eventually gave up.
Using that as a justification, that means that the USA's days as a superpower are numbered, are they not? After all, they lost horribly in Vietam, failed to do much in Somalia, and are looking increasingly inept in Iraq. So if a nation's army are the measure of how powerful they are, doesn't that mean that, using your logic, the influence of the US is on the wane.
Thank you for posting all of that, I did enjoy reading it. And I find I disagree with none of it.
However, I did say that we were the pre-eminent power prior to WWII. Whilst I accept that we were in no way the powerful empire we once were, we still wielded more influence on the world stage than any other single nation.
I'm afraid have you given me anything to back up your view that we were NOT the biggest of the world powers; you've certainly convinced me that we weren't BY FAR AND AWAY the main world player, but then I never actually said that we were, just that we were marginally bigger than the others. If you can give me any links, facts, or figures that show any other one nation having more influence on the world stage than us prior to WWII, I'd be grateful for them.
Light wrote:
> Yes Bell, we were. Along with France, we were the only colonial power
> who could lay claim to any sort of pre-eminence. Of course, the
> militaristic powers of Italy and Germany and Japan were also big
> powers, but we were marginally the bigger boys.
No we were not.
Britain's golden age of power ended in 1783. The Treaty of Paris forced Britain to recognise an independent America, such was the weakness of the British that American diplomats extracted many concessions from the British diplomats. From then on it was case of hanging on to what he had. In the late 19th Century parts of Africa were divided between several powers, pretty sure it was the Berlin Conference, Britain found itself vying like all the rest for pieces of the pie, so to speak. Belgium, under King Leopold II had already beaten Britain to it, as well as using Stanley for his own ends. This period also saw Britain forced to abandon slavery in the east, though it would continue in the west until the early 20th century. In 1899 British forces in the Transvaal received an almight kicking from what was essentially a group of farmers - the British Army's Black Week - around 5 whole divisions of troops were halted, routed, or almost destroyed. The Boer War was not going our way, which was a pity because we'd actually laid the seeds of the conflict in the first place back in 1894.
Eventually it took around 350 000 troops of the 'great' power to subdue roughly 60 000 farmers. Even then it took a further 3 years until 1902 when the Boer Republics eventually gave up.
During the Indian Mutiny a similar pattern - we needed massive numbers of troops to subdue what were, in the terms of that period, natives. The only thing which held the Empire together - and before you dispute this it is referred to in many many texts, including those of Halford Mackinder who is seen by many as being one of the great founders of modern geopolitics - was the navy.
Even this was of little comfort by the start of the 20th Century because there is obviously only so much naval power of that time could do against land forces, and new technologies would soon make much of the British fleet obsolete. At the same time, other nations were beginning to gain industrial and ecnomic power, notably America and Germany. Whilst Germany was battered by WW1, America was not, though it did suffer a depression later.
Britain's will to govern by force ended in the early 1900's, World War 2 simply gave rise to a new form of colonialism only possible because of World War 2's effects.
> Now if you're going to actually disagree with that point, could you
> provide some reasons? If however you're going to make a single
> comment as a smokescreen for running away because you're too afraid
> to think for yourself, then at least have the guts to come clean
> about it.
>
> Sorry...'guts' and 'Belldandy' just don't go together in the same
> sentence, do they?
> Yes Bell, we were. Along with France, we were the only colonial power
> who could lay claim to any sort of pre-eminence. Of course, the
> militaristic powers of Italy and Germany and Japan were also big
> powers, but we were marginally the bigger boys.
No we were not.
Britain's golden age of power ended in 1783. The Treaty of Paris forced Britain to recognise an independent America, such was the weakness of the British that American diplomats extracted many concessions from the British diplomats. From then on it was case of hanging on to what he had. In the late 19th Century parts of Africa were divided between several powers, pretty sure it was the Berlin Conference, Britain found itself vying like all the rest for pieces of the pie, so to speak. Belgium, under King Leopold II had already beaten Britain to it, as well as using Stanley for his own ends. This period also saw Britain forced to abandon slavery in the east, though it would continue in the west until the early 20th century. In 1899 British forces in the Transvaal received an almight kicking from what was essentially a group of farmers - the British Army's Black Week - around 5 whole divisions of troops were halted, routed, or almost destroyed. The Boer War was not going our way, which was a pity because we'd actually laid the seeds of the conflict in the first place back in 1894.
Eventually it took around 350 000 troops of the 'great' power to subdue roughly 60 000 farmers. Even then it took a further 3 years until 1902 when the Boer Republics eventually gave up.
During the Indian Mutiny a similar pattern - we needed massive numbers of troops to subdue what were, in the terms of that period, natives. The only thing which held the Empire together - and before you dispute this it is referred to in many many texts, including those of Halford Mackinder who is seen by many as being one of the great founders of modern geopolitics - was the navy.
Even this was of little comfort by the start of the 20th Century because there is obviously only so much naval power of that time could do against land forces, and new technologies would soon make much of the British fleet obsolete. At the same time, other nations were beginning to gain industrial and ecnomic power, notably America and Germany. Whilst Germany was battered by WW1, America was not, though it did suffer a depression later.
Britain's will to govern by force ended in the early 1900's, World War 2 simply gave rise to a new form of colonialism only possible because of World War 2's effects.
> Now if you're going to actually disagree with that point, could you
> provide some reasons? If however you're going to make a single
> comment as a smokescreen for running away because you're too afraid
> to think for yourself, then at least have the guts to come clean
> about it.
>
> Sorry...'guts' and 'Belldandy' just don't go together in the same
> sentence, do they?
Plus your previous ideas about the end of colonialism. I suggest you email that post to your mate at whatever it is university...
If anything, the UN simply replaced the colonial powers in certain aspects but had none of the resources that the former powers had. It was a public face of neo-colonialism, but instead of rule by military force, the West simply dominated by economic means instead.
If anything, the UN simply replaced the colonial powers in certain aspects but had none of the resources that the former powers had. It was a public face of neo-colonialism, but instead of rule by military force, the West simply dominated by economic means instead.
Page: