Author Topic: US, The next Great Brittain? (Read 613 times)

plumbob · « **on:** August 08, 2002, 02:46:54 AM »

Look at what GB did when they where teh greatest super power. They caused all sorts of problems. They started Isreal, South African Apartide, North Irish unrest, general poverty in africa, and several smaller problems in asia.

When GB was the worlds bully and where involved wiht EVERYTHING in the world they cause more problems than they solved.

IMO the US is starting to do the same thing, after WWII (possibly Korea) and the US changed its non-involvment policy, there have been more problems cause than solved by the US.

Isreal (again), Iraq, Cold War, Vietnam, Somalia, theres more that i cant think of at the moment. But if you look at the resemblance between GB and what the US is doing now, it makes you question if the US has the right idea or if they should just stay the hell out of world politics, save for when people like Hitler come around.

Dowding (Work) · « **Reply #1 on:** August 08, 2002, 07:55:14 AM »

First of all, it’s spelt Great Britain.

Secondly, you’re comparing apples and oranges. The Empire was created in an atmosphere of great competition between the major European nations; to sustain standard of living, wealth and rate of progress, they had to look elsewhere for the resources to make this achievable. The home nations were simply exhausted of any material wealth and the focus turned to other continents rich in minerals, gold and luxury commodities to supply the relatively civilised populace back in Europe. Imperialism was the means to an end and everyone, literally everyone, was at it. North America was colonised for this very reason.

The Empire was what it was because simply the British were the best at everything. She had the best army, best Navy and the pick of all the colonies in the world.

But the US came onto the scene with huge advantages; there was huge amounts of resources to be tapped into; living space was not a problem. It did not need to look elsewhere for the materials critical to the development of a nation in the industrial age – consequently Imperialism passed the US by. By the time the US became a world player, the Empire was waning; the resources needed to sustain it were much diminshed. From 1939 to 1941 the Empire (and GB herself) was bankrupted buying arms from the US. Four more years of war meant a completely exhausted home nation could no longer afford the upkeep of an Empire and national feeling in the colonies had grown to a point whereby independence was inevitable. The Empire fell apart.

To judge actions committed a hundred years ago by today’s standards, while completely ignoring the political and socio-economic atmosphere of that period, makes any conclusions irrelevant.

Like I said – apples and oranges.

Lastly, you are oversimplistic in your analysis of the Empire. The examples you quote are far more complicated than you describe. Choose one and explain why you think today’s situation is solely the responsibility of Great Britain.

ra · « **Reply #2 on:** August 08, 2002, 08:00:08 AM »

In the UK people are getting fatter, educational standards are declining, the crime rate is increasing. I'd say the UK is becoming the next US.

ra

Sikboy · « **Reply #3 on:** August 08, 2002, 08:02:22 AM »

I was hoping that this thread would be about the inevitable decline of US hegemeny. Instead it's a poorly laid out argument for US isolationism, that doesn't establish it's own contentions. Oh well.

-Sikboy

midnight Target · « **Reply #4 on:** August 08, 2002, 08:05:51 AM »

The US has been anti-imperialist from the beginning. The fact that we had abundant resources just allowed us to be true to our original ideals. (Manifest destiny is a whole other kettle of fish).

We have never simply conquered and kept land for ourselves.

Hortlund · « **Reply #5 on:** August 08, 2002, 08:07:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The US has been anti-imperialist from the beginning. The fact that we had abundant resources just allowed us to be true to our original ideals. (Manifest destiny is a whole other kettle of fish).

We have never simply conquered and kept land for ourselves.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA HAHAAA

Hortlund · « **Reply #6 on:** August 08, 2002, 08:07:44 AM »

Or wait....you're SERIOUS?

midnight Target · « **Reply #7 on:** August 08, 2002, 08:09:04 AM »

Not counting the Indians.....

Dowding (Work) · « **Reply #8 on:** August 08, 2002, 08:23:18 AM »

You didn't conquer, because you didn't need to. You had everything you needed right at home.

The very nations that might have taken the US by force in it's vulnerable early years (Britain and France) were too busy fighting huge, costly battles on the European continent and in India.

It really is that simple.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #9 on:** August 08, 2002, 08:40:16 AM »

Mexico!!!? They invaded we shoved their tulips back!
Spain? "Remember the Maine"

The US shrugged the crown off of the colonies in 1781, to do the same in 1812.

Masher

PS - Post WWII? - Vietnam goes back to the French, and they couldn't get the region under control. The US stepped in and the US's hands were tied.

Charon · « **Reply #10 on:** August 08, 2002, 08:47:08 AM »

Quote

Spain? "Remember the Maine"

Which blew up because of a coal bunker accident. Thank you Mr. Hurst for our new Spanish possessions. Then there was Panama (Bully!)

I feel we practiced our own form of colonialism post WW2 with the puppet dictatorships. No need to actually colonize the land when you control the government. Unfortunately, it overlooked the fact that just calling a government a democracy didn't make it one to the people living under the rule.

Charon

Masherbrum · « **Reply #11 on:** August 08, 2002, 08:55:48 AM »

At 9:40 on the evening of 15 February, a terrible explosion on board Maine shattered the stillness in Havana Harbor. Later investigations revealed that more than five tons of powder charges for the vessel's six and ten-inch guns ignited, virtually obliterating the forward third of the ship. The remaining wreckage rapidly settled to the bottom of the harbor. Most of Maine's crew were sleeping or resting in the enlisted quarters in the forward part of the ship when the explosion occurred. Two hundred and sixty-six men lost their lives as a result of the disaster: 260 died in the explosion or shortly thereafter, and six more died later from injuries. Captain Sigsbee and most of the officers survived because their quarters were in the aft portion of the ship.

Spanish officials and the crew of the civilian steamer City of Washington acted quickly in rescuing survivors and caring for the wounded. The attitude and actions of the former allayed initial suspicions that hostile action caused the explosion, and led Sigsbee to include at the bottom of his initial telegram: "Public opinion should be suspended until further report."

The U.S. Navy Department immediately formed a board of inquiry to determine the reason for Maine's destruction. The inquiry, conducted in Havana, lasted four weeks. The condition of the submerged wreck and the lack of technical expertise prevented the board from being as thorough as later investigations. In the end, they concluded that a mine had detonated under the ship. The board did not attempt to fix blame for the placement of the device.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coal Bunker? Hmm. Two choices here 1.) 5 tons of powder charges, not Coal. 2.) the "mine theory", not Coal.

Masher

Charon · « **Reply #12 on:** August 08, 2002, 09:27:19 AM »

Quote

After the disaster, U.S. newspapers were quick to place responsibility for the loss on Spain. In spite of the newspaper propaganda, an official court of inquiry was held by the U.S. Navy to determine the cause of the blasts. The Navy concluded that the ship was sunk by a mine which ignited the forward magazines, but stated that it could not fix responsibility upon any person or persons, including the government or military forces of Spain. Regardless of the reality of the situation, the loss of the USS MAINE had turned American popular opinion strongly in favor of war with Spain. Despite of his efforts to avoid war, President McKinley finally decided to militarily intervene in Cuba to end the ongoing unrest and "liberate" Cuba from Spanish rule. Later studies have indicated a strong possibility that the USS MAINE sunk as a result of a coal bunker fire adjacent to one of its ammunition magazines, and not a result of a Spanish mine.

Whatever.

Charon

Masherbrum · « **Reply #13 on:** August 08, 2002, 09:31:02 AM »

Some historians have disputed the findings in Rickover's book, maintaining that failure to detect spontaneous combustion in the coal bunker was highly unlikely. Yet evidence of a mine remains thin and such theories are based primarily on conjecture. Despite the best efforts of experts and historians in investigating this complex and technical subject, a definitive explanation for the destruction of Maine remains elusive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the last sentence and retract the Spain? - "Remember the Maine" part. Turned into a pissing contest inadvertantly. The rest of the original, is concrete though.

Masher

Sikboy · « **Reply #14 on:** August 08, 2002, 09:39:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Mexico!!!? They invaded we shoved their tulips back!

And the Poles invaded Germany to start WWII.

-Sikboy (who was happy to grow up in the conquested territory of California)