the british
-
mrh1000-1 — 18 years ago(February 29, 2008 11:22 AM)
Oh, get over yourself, will you? Now that you bring it up, I seem to recall a little country called India that you Brits decided to prop your feet up on for well over a century (after killing the people who didn't want you to, of course), so don't give me that holier-than-thou attitude like your country is so morally superior to ours. Not to mention your ancestors, who decided in the 5th-6th centuries that they liked England except for all those pesky Welsh people who were living there already (please remember this the next time you want to criticize Americans for taking land from the American Indians).
The OP is an obnoxious ass, but America is not the evil power you all seem to think it is. If you really think that, then I suggest you all study the history of EVERY NATION ON EARTH and realize that EVERYBODY sucks. Why can't we leave it at that?
The Empire was mainly based on trade, and we didn't massacre Indians, that happened in 1847 when we left and a civil war errupted in which a million were killed. The nation of Pakistan was then born.
America is not being the evil power you think it is, and Britain is?????????
Is this what you are trying to suggest. When you people start a thread like this don't be surprised when people become defensive. I didn't start a thread regarding how evil America is, but I will highlight cases in response to Americans with their Hollywood history accusing the rest of the world of being evil.
America even freely admits waterboarding and tortuting techniques being used against untried suspects in Guantanmo Bay. America does not adhere to either the Geneva Convention, which the American Government has said is outdated or other international laws. Finally as I already mentioned only a few decades ago American forces were using Napalm and Agent Orange against Vietnamese Villages.
Americans can hardly criticise other nations.
Even at home America imprisons more people than any other nation, and figures just released show 2.3 million in jail. The UK would have to imprison 460,000 people to match American rates. We actually have a UK Prison populastion of 90,000 one of the highest in Europe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7270607.stm -
Maegnas — 12 years ago(October 08, 2013 06:08 PM)
The Empire was mainly based on trade, and we didn't massacre Indians,
General Dyer waswhat? Chinese perhaps? American? Persian?
And I believe he did, in Amritsar, hand out chocolate chip cookies, right?
Cute and cuddly boyz!! -
Stevicus-2 — 18 years ago(February 29, 2008 04:15 PM)
I seem to recall the Vietnam War and Americans napalming women and children, what bravery.
I don't seem to remember a resounding US victory in that war, although I do remember the Americans scurrying on to helicopters as their embassy was finally stormed by the crowds.
America is now known as the worlds bully, what do you think is going on at Guatanamo Bay.
For an American to start a thread like this is laughable.
Well, to be honest, I was really just joking when I wrote that stanza from Johnny Horton's "The Battle of New Orleans."
But I do have to admit that the movie "In the Name of the Father" does rile up some rather raw emotions. It does cause people to get mad at the British legal system. Moreover, even if it may sound chauvinistic, an American might see a movie like this and be glad that we kicked the British out over 200 years ago. This is how threads like this get started on the IMDb message boards, and I agree that, in many ways, it
is
laughable.
But don't forget that Hollywood does a lot of trashing of America as well, so don't get the idea that it's all one-sided trashing of the whole world.
I don't know what Vietnam has to do with any of this discussion, though. The Americans were scurrying away on helicopters because they were ordered to do so by their civilian authorities. Even though the North Vietnamese broke the peace agreement, the Congress refused to allow funding for U.S. troops to return to enforce the peace terms. That wasn't a military defeat; that was a political forfeit.
Of course, there is a bit of a history behind that region and the war you're referring to, much of which involves Britain's other partner in crime, France. Anglo-French aggression in the early part of the 20th century indirectly led to the rise of both Hitler and Stalin, not to mention all the turmoil left over in the former colonial regions in Africa and South Asia. All because it was too much for Britain or France to accept peace without annexations or indemnities. President Wilson tried to get them to listen to reason, but they just wouldn't.
As a result, it was left to America to clean up all the mess that was left over. That's how we ended up in places like Vietnam and why our military is doing what it's doing in Guantanamo Bay.
Remember, we didn't ask for this, not really. We were just having a nice little time in our isolationist republic, when some other world powers decided they wanted to drag us into a war that we didn't want. Now that we're in it, you cry "foul"? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
It wasn't our president at the Munich Conference. You asked for us. Now you've got us. -
Gareth2061 — 18 years ago(February 29, 2008 06:16 PM)
"As a result, it was left to America to clean up all the mess that was left over. That's how we ended up in places like Vietnam and why our military is doing what it's doing in Guantanamo Bay.
Remember, we didn't ask for this, not really. We were just having a nice little time in our isolationist republic, when some other world powers decided they wanted to drag us into a war that we didn't want. Now that we're in it, you cry "foul"? Sorry, it doesn't work that way."
What a load of piss.
"If I'm laughing at what I think I am, its very funny" -
Gareth2061 — 18 years ago(March 01, 2008 09:44 AM)
Please ignore my double post.
Now that Ive read your post again I guess it could be taken as a statement about the end of Americas isolationist role in the world. Although its not 100% clear and could be taken as chauvinistic rhetoric, if I'm wrong I apologise.
Still, its redundant to compare or blame the actions of now to those that happened 100 years ago. Looking at every other country in the world and saying none of them have had their hands clean at some point or another makes no sense. That was then, this is now, we should have learnt from the mistakes and we should know better.
"If I'm laughing at what I think I am, its very funny" -
The_Crimson_Pig — 18 years ago(March 01, 2008 10:09 AM)
Ignoring the evidence in this thread that's up to 200 years old, I think it's ultimately pointless for an American to even challenge the British. We're on your beep side, the OP is an arrogant moron that has probably taken more from the American economy than he has put back into it and contributed nothing to America's world dominance.
It's also ridiculous to take pride in winning a war 200 years ago. I don't take pride in how big the British empire was, I had beep all to do with it so I'm not going to brag about it.
America maybe on top or second, instead of arguing whether or not you can take on your allies why don't you worry about whether or not China or Russia could turn you into communists?
Last Film Seen: Gangs of New York -
mrh1000-1 — 18 years ago(March 02, 2008 11:57 AM)
America imprisons more people than any other nationso what? Are you suggesting we imprison lots of innocent people for kicks and giggles? Those numbers are meaningless in terms of this argument. Maybe your country doesn't put ENOUGH people in jail. Who knows? There's no way to prove it either way.
And we don't abide by the Geneva Convention? What are you basing that on? I suppose you've been present during the interrogation of a lot of war criminals held captive by the U.S. government. Calling something outdated doesn't mean it's not abided by it means we'll abide by it, but we're not happy about the way it is in its current incarnation. The Army has to treat men they capture well, i.e. not beating them or harming them, because officers get thrown in jail for not doing so. As for captured terrorists? They're given much more accomadating treatment than they deserve. Guantanamo Bay is not the Hilton, and it's not supposed to be. These men are not soldiers they're violent criminals who think they're soldiers.
I know the British didn't massacre Indians; most of the killing happened much earlier, when they first took over. Or do you think that the British army just showed up in India one day and said, "Guess what? We're taking over," and the Indians all unanimously stood up and said, "Okay, fine with us." Granted, the killing resulted from a more conventional war (i.e. the fighting between the British and the Mahratta confederacy), but it was still a lot of killing and war that happened because the British wanted to occupy India. But I digress.
Like I said, every nation on earth is guilty of some atrocities, so the fact that all the blame gets heaped on the U.S. is ludicrous. And I never said that Britain was an evil power, I said that it's not a shimmering example of perfection. No country is.
Firstly the Geneva Convention stipulates that prisoners have basic right such as the right to due process, the right to be treated humanely (free from torture) and other such rights. America has not adhered to any of these rights.
So called 'Waterboarding' is a case in point.
Secondly America does imprison more people than any other nation, and the appaling conditions in US Jails including the torture and death of inmates was recently highlighted in a British 'Award Winning' TV Documentary - 'Americas Brutal Prisons' (Channel 4 - Dispatches - UK).
A 10 minute Clip of the 1 Hour Documentary - 'Americas Brutal Prisons'.
Channel 4 - Torture
http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/T/torture/cases.html
Article about the Documentary
http://www.frif.com/new2005/brut.html
There are lots of miscarriages of justice in America, and there have been numerous films and documentaries about them. However many states in America have the death penalty, so any miscarriage could have even more serious consequences.
Some interesting films about the US Justice System -
Muder on a Sunday Morning -
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/murder_sunday/
Fourteen Days in May -
http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/416995
The Hurricane - The Story of Boxer Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter' who was wrongly imprisoned -
http://www.imdb.com/board/10174856/
The Thin Blue Line (1988) - The true story of Randall Dale Adams, who was wrongly convicted of murdering Dallas, Texas police officer Robert Wood. -
http://www.imdb.com/board/10174856/
The Innocent Man - John Grisham's True Story of a US Miscarriage of Justice (which is to be made in to a film) -
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/books/09masl.html?fta=y
Also recent cases such as that of Kenny Richey which also highlighted inadequacies within the US Justice System -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7185719.stm
The fact that the system is also racially loaded, and that a black man is far more likely to be executed than a white man, for the same crime is also perverse to say the least.
Finally America seems to revel in cruel punishment bordering on torture, and not just in Guantanamo. Supermax prisons where inmates are given little human contact and eventually driven mad are one example. Even the methods employed in execution such as the electric chair are hardly civilised for a first world nation in the 21st Century. -
Stevicus-2 — 18 years ago(March 03, 2008 08:11 AM)
Nobody won the 1812 War.
It was a stupid war, like most wars and resulted in needless bloodshed, it's certainly nothing to take a pride in.
Well, the British did kidnap an estimated 10,000 American citizens and forced them to work on British ships (which was an existence not unlike that of a galley slave). In 1807, they fired on an American ship, the
Chesapeake
, right off the American coastline. The American public was angry enough to go to war right then and there, but Jefferson and the Congress decided to impose an embargo on Britain instead. Because of the incredible ease in smuggling things in and out of America, the embargo didn't work, but when it was found that the British were inciting the Native American tribes to attack American settlements and forts, that was the last straw.
The war was ended by treaty, and while it's true that nobody won the War of 1812, it did result in Britain leaving us alone. They didn't kidnap any more of our seamen after that.
The Battle of New Orleans was actually fought
after
the treaty was signed, so it had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the war. But it did have significance in that it enhanced American prestige by winning such a lopsided battle, and it also emboldened the U.S. to start settling further West, as well as giving President Monroe the teeth to impose the Monroe Doctrine. We felt a bit more sure of ourselves and our national status, along with our sense of "Manifest Destiny." -
mrh1000-1 — 18 years ago(March 03, 2008 09:05 AM)
Well, the British did kidnap an estimated 10,000 American citizens and forced them to work on British ships (which was an existence not unlike that of a galley slave). In 1807, they fired on an American ship, the Chesapeake, right off the American coastline. The American public was angry enough to go to war right then and there, but Jefferson and the Congress decided to impose an embargo on Britain instead. Because of the incredible ease in smuggling things in and out of America, the embargo didn't work, but when it was found that the British were inciting the Native American tribes to attack American settlements and forts, that was the last straw.
The war was ended by treaty, and while it's true that nobody won the War of 1812, it did result in Britain leaving us alone. They didn't kidnap any more of our seamen after that.
The Battle of New Orleans was actually fought after the treaty was signed, so it had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the war. But it did have significance in that it enhanced American prestige by winning such a lopsided battle, and it also emboldened the U.S. to start settling further West, as well as giving President Monroe the teeth to impose the Monroe Doctrine. We felt a bit more sure of ourselves and our national status, along with our sense of "Manifest Destiny."
The War of 1812 was really just a little side battle in the Napoleonic Wars between France and Britain. Because the United States had been providing a certain amount of support for the French, the British attempted to blockade American shipping and had, on occasion, impressed American seamen into the Royal Navy. The US finally became fed up and declared war on Britain on 18 June, 1812. Likely never having any intention to attack the British Home Islands directly, the American strategy was directed north towards the Canadas (Upper and Lower), the heart of British possessions in the Americas. The US was likely encouraged by the large population of American expatriates in the Canadas. The encouragement was misplaced, as these ex-Americans had moved north to escape the Revolution - making the choice to remain British. Having sacrificed so much in that initial choice, they were willing to fight their old homeland to remain United Empire Loyalists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1021294
The Americans thought the Canadians would side with them, but they didn't and remained loyal.
Britain was never really as committed as the Americans like to think, we made most of our money from the far east and America was not considered any where near as important. Even during the War of Independence many of the troops the British used were in fact paid German mercenaries, as British troops were committed elsewhere in the Empire. Whilst at the same time we were also fighting the French and defending a global empire.
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/americanrevolution/warindepend ence.html
The 1812 War was more to do with the French and Napoleon Bonaparte, who we later defeated. During both the 'War of Independence' and the 1812 War our main concern was in fighting the French.
The Whitehouse was burnt down and a few other famous incidents occurred during the 1812 War, but by and large it is a forgotten war, overshadowed by the Napoleonic Wars of the time. -
Stevicus-2 — 18 years ago(March 03, 2008 11:00 AM)
The War of 1812 was really just a little side battle in the Napoleonic Wars between France and Britain. Because the United States had been providing a certain amount of support for the French, the British attempted to blockade American shipping and had, on occasion, impressed American seamen into the Royal Navy. The US finally became fed up and declared war on Britain on 18 June, 1812. Likely never having any intention to attack the British Home Islands directly, the American strategy was directed north towards the Canadas (Upper and Lower), the heart of British possessions in the Americas. The US was likely encouraged by the large population of American expatriates in the Canadas. The encouragement was misplaced, as these ex-Americans had moved north to escape the Revolution - making the choice to remain British. Having sacrificed so much in that initial choice, they were willing to fight their old homeland to remain United Empire Loyalists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1021294
The Americans thought the Canadians would side with them, but they didn't and remained loyal.
Britain was never really as committed as the Americans like to think, we made most of our money from the far east and America was not considered any where near as important. Even during the War of Independence many of the troops the British used were in fact paid German mercenaries, as British troops were committed elsewhere in the Empire. Whilst at the same time we were also fighting the French and Spanish.
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/americanrevolution/warindepend ence.html
The 1812 War was more to do with the French and Napoleon Bonaparte, who we later defeated. During both the 'War of Independence' and the 1812 War our main concern was in fighting the French.
The Whitehouse was burnt down and a few other famous incidents occurred during the 1812 War, but by and large it is a forgotten war, overshadowed by the Napoleonic Wars of the time.
The U.S. was not an ally of Napoleon. In fact, we nearly went to war with France for much the same reason we went to war with Britain. We were neutral in the Napoleonic wars, but we felt we had good cause to declare war on Britain when we did.
The main focus for the U.S. was to stay independent. There were a lot of people worried that foreign powers would try to co-opt our government and make America a colony again, and we didn't want that.
I would tend to agree that the War of 1812 was probably a bigger deal for America than for Britain at the time. But it is regarded as a major step in establishing American paramountcy over the Western Hemisphere. In just a few short decades, our territory spanned the entire continent. By the end of the century, we were a world power. Of course, there wasn't much left of the world to colonize, so we grabbed a couple of Spain's colonies and called them our own. We also managed to hold hegemony over Spain's former colonies in Central and South America, even though those nations were nominally independent. Of course, Britain and France still held much of the world by then (and they were even friendly towards each other at that point). But then, the Germans got jealous about that and decided they wanted their own empire. After two world wars, the Germans didn't get their empire, and Britain and France lost theirs. -
mrh1000-1 — 18 years ago(March 04, 2008 04:03 AM)
The U.S. was not an ally of Napoleon. In fact, we nearly went to war with France for much the same reason we went to war with Britain. We were neutral in the Napoleonic wars, but we felt we had good cause to declare war on Britain when we did.
The main focus for the U.S. was to stay independent. There were a lot of people worried that foreign powers would try to co-opt our government and make America a colony again, and we didn't want that.
I would tend to agree that the War of 1812 was probably a bigger deal for America than for Britain at the time. But it is regarded as a major step in establishing American paramountcy over the Western Hemisphere. In just a few short decades, our territory spanned the entire continent. By the end of the century, we were a world power. Of course, there wasn't much left of the world to colonize, so we grabbed a couple of Spain's colonies and called them our own. We also managed to hold hegemony over Spain's former colonies in Central and South America, even though those nations were nominally independent. Of course, Britain and France still held much of the world by then (and they were even friendly towards each other at that point). But then, the Germans got jealous about that and decided they wanted their own empire. After two world wars, the Germans didn't get their empire, and Britain and France lost theirs.
France did not like America trading with Britain. Britain did not like America trading with France. America needed to trade so that it could grow and pay off its debts. America found itself in trouble with both Britain and France. Americans were divided on who to side with. Some felt they owed the French their country's freedom.
French warships began stopping US shipping and thus began a "Quasi-war" with France. It did not last long for the French government was itself in turmoil and could not firmly decide about the issue. Britain also began stopping US shipping. But they went a step further by taking the sailors along with the goods.
France's goverment finally stablized when an artillery officer named Napoleon Bonapart rose thru the ranks into government and then became Emperor of all France. Thomas Jefferson and Napoleon were contemporaries who came to power about the same time. Jefferson bought the huge middle section of North America from Napoleon, who needed the cash for his European wars. Napoleon may have felt if he ever wanted land in North America he could take it as he had in Europe.
America passed trade laws to hurt Britain, but most American businessmen felt the laws harmed America more. Thomas Jefferson's term as president ended and James Madison was elected. Calls for proper action continued and increased. Finally, after all else had failed, Madison declared war in June of 1812.
In the Spring of 1814, French Emperor Napoleon was defeated by the Allies in Europe. Britain, France's main enemy, had to devote most of their resources to this fight. Now they were free to turn much more military effort against America.
Britain's war with America was of secondary (if that much) importance to the Napoleon issue. It was Britain's war with Napoleon that caused the War of 1812; Britain needed more sailors to fight Napoleon, and kidnapped sailors on US ships to fill their navy. They focused on American sailors for several reasons; they spoke English, they may have been British run-aways, and made good sailors.
Frigates were the main ship in navies of the time. America had 12. Britain had about 400.
The 1812 War was the most unpopular war America ever fought, even surpassing the later war Vietnam in the 1960's, and it certainly was not some resounding victory for either side..
After the defeat of France, there was little need to continue the War as Britain no longer needed to search ships to enforce the Napoleonic blockades, and subsequently no longer needed to press gang Americans in to the Royal Navy in order to defeat the French.
If the war had continued then Britain would have been able to call upon the large forces it had devoted to fighting the French. However the war was the result of the Napoleonic Wars in the first place, and having defeated the French, peace was made between the US and Britain. -
Stevicus-2 — 18 years ago(March 03, 2008 07:47 AM)
Please ignore my double post.
Now that Ive read your post again I guess it could be taken as a statement about the end of Americas isolationist role in the world. Although its not 100% clear and could be taken as chauvinistic rhetoric, if I'm wrong I apologise.
Still, its redundant to compare or blame the actions of now to those that happened 100 years ago. Looking at every other country in the world and saying none of them have had their hands clean at some point or another makes no sense. That was then, this is now, we should have learnt from the mistakes and we should know better.
Well, to be honest, I was sort of joking. My comments were somewhat tongue-in-cheek, at least in the way I expressed them.
But my point was that America/Americans did not create the world situation. Sometimes, I get the impression that when people (particularly Europeans) talk about America, they speak as if our entire national existence is one big conspiracy theory, as if this is all something that we planned. But there's still a great deal of dissent in America. Many Americans are not happy with what their government is doing in their name, and they speak out about it.
Unfortunately, a lot of Americans are also easily led and lied to. They genuinely believe that America is like a knight in shining armor, freeing the world from tyranny and making it "safe for democracy." Just as the Brits were told that they were "civilizing" the world through their Empire.
I don't think we learned from our mistakes, and to be honest, they should have known better "back then," too. But it should also be noted that our current world situation is, in a very real sense, dealing with mistakes that were made decades or even centuries ago. Greed is still the overriding force in world politics, so in that sense, none of us have learned a damn thing. -
debrecenisrac38 — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 10:45 AM)
As individuals, no you have not, and nobody should blame individual Americans for it.
Sadly I have to agree with you, the people in key positions don't learn from previous mistakes, heavily evidenced by a great deal of complacency, like trusting and arming people who constantly turn on you. Drug cartels from the Iran-Contra Affair (because of the War on Drugs), the Mujahedeen (because of supporting Israel and local Afghan groups more loyal to surrounding countries, than Afghanistan aka The War on Terror).
It's not your entire national existence that is a conspiracy, not even your public foreign policies, rather for what goes on behind closed doors. I give this answer like we're still in 2008, so I won't talk about things we didn't know then, but what we did know was still damaging. For starters, only hubris can suggest to a group of people in the Pentagon and the White House, that it's wise to open a second front in Iraq, when the current war isn't even won in a country that could never be occupied by anyone. Furthermore, bombings are strategic, but far from surgical precision. It's obvious, that through the military presence, and the general ignorance shown toward locals, regardless where people live, they'll think all Americans are like that. It's only being made worse, when yur military doesn't do what they did in Vietnam, and pull out local helpers. Leaving them there to die antagonizes even the strongest of allies. The question is, how on Earth can soldiers, who've been to Vietnam simply forget, that a war can only be won with local support. The appointed prime minister of Iraq proved to be a puppet of Iran, and the other guy feeding intel was grossly corrupt, and a pathological liar. Smaller allies of the Axis powers made such rookie mistakes, a superpower shouldn't. Many people hate the American military presence, because America is not subject to the International Criminal Court, their punishment (and it does happen) rely on internal investigations, offering little ailment to those, who have been robbed and/or raped by American soldiers. Then there are companies like Blackwater, who have private interests. In actuality most of the time the actual military has to escort private soldiers doing the job they should be doing.
Yet none of it excuses British conduct in Northern Ireland, Europe's on War on Terror (along with ETA and the PLA), as the British military did little to not antagonize locals.
I live in the Gordius Apartment Complex, my interior designer was M.C. Escher. -
The_Proprietor — 17 years ago(April 08, 2008 08:20 PM)
by
Stevicus-2
But I do have to admit that the movie "In the Name of the Father" does rile up some rather raw emotions. It does cause people to get mad at the British legal system. Moreover, even if it may sound chauvinistic, an American might see a movie like this and be glad that we kicked the British out over 200 years ago. This is how threads like this get started on the IMDb message boards, and I agree that, in many ways, it is laughable.
But don't forget that Hollywood does a lot of trashing of America as well, so don't get the idea that it's all one-sided trashing of the whole world.
Seems the Americans of late are the proponents of getting involved in matters that don't concern them. The troubles in Northern Ireland being a prime example. Thanks to many 'Irish' Americans, courtesy of NORAID plenty of arms, munitions and finance made its way into the hands and pockets of the IRA. So that they could kill, maim and bomb their way where they saw fit. Sure the loyalist factions were/are just as bad but luckily they confined their actions to NI.
Let's not forget how Hollywood pictured the armed struggle as a fight for liberation before 9/11. Whilst these thugs were bombing women and children. For what? That's why they call you Americans Septics. "Just like a septic tank, no one likes them" heh.
If impersonating a Police Officer is an offence, shouldn't actors be imprisoned?