If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   This is how to be a superpower: Britain invaded 90% of the world   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 132
    More: Interesting, Luxembourg, Britain, United Nations member states, British rule, British Overseas Territories, other nations, Marshall Islands, incursions  
•       •       •

13464 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Nov 2012 at 5:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-04 11:27:16 PM

DigitalCoffee: They've gone from ruling 90% of the world to handing out ASBOs to pre-teens for climbing trees in the park. Pretty sad to see really.

/i blame the queen
//and i don't mean elton


You mean you blame Morrissey?
 
2012-11-04 11:42:39 PM
But do they have a flag?
 
2012-11-05 12:05:55 AM

xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.


And let's not forget all those other British colonies in Africa. You know, all those wonderful beacons of peace, democracy, freedom of speech and economic success. Places like Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, Uganda, Sierra Leone, etc... including the poster child of economic and social progress that is Zimbabwe...

...oh wait
 
2012-11-05 12:24:18 AM

capt.hollister: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

And let's not forget all those other British colonies in Africa. You know, all those wonderful beacons of peace, democracy, freedom of speech and economic success. Places like Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, Uganda, Sierra Leone, etc... including the poster child of economic and social progress that is Zimbabwe...

...oh wait


And what would they be today if they didn't have any attempt at some form of government structure?

...oh wait
 
2012-11-05 12:56:47 AM
Then, at the height of their global superpowers, Britain's Foreign Secretary and attendant office began fu**ing over the newly agreed upon Nation of Israel. The Brits simply redrew maps. Carved Lebanon out of Syria. Created the false kingdom of Jordan out of Israel's land. Created the cancerous nation of Iraq out of Israel's lands. Divided Israel again and again, like the Peel Commission, et al.

Side by side, step by step each time the British screwed over Israel, the British Empire shrank. Unti, it is today a joke. Hmmmm. Coincidence? Happenstance? Something prophetic, perhaps?

There's a critical lesson in this for Washington, especially Foggy Bottom, but those dumb fu**ers won't pay the least bit of attention.
 
2012-11-05 01:04:32 AM

Flint Ironstag: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

Well, it's a lot easier when you eradicate the natives.

In many places their success was working with the natives. India, for example, was a huge country and the British ruled it with seventy thousand people, soldiers and civil servants. They were always hugely outnumbered but managed to rule it for years, and left a legal system and civil service in place to this day. America poured huge numbers of troops, weapons and equipment into Vietnam but never got anywhere near to control.


Probably not a valid comparison

India was basically conquered by the para military wing of the London Stock Exchange (aka the East India Co) and was able to do so because the country was a patchwork of minor potentates living semi-peacefully, and the transition from trade to aggression happened over time.

In contrast the US walked into the middle of a civil war which had already been under way for a generation or more, and in which the opposition were ideologically opposed to them as well as economically.

There's a clue in the numbers to tell you that the situations fundamentally different.

British hugely outnumbered, but were able to rule by getting enough people on their side.

Americans had huge logistical advantages, but never had the support of enough of the people
 
2012-11-05 01:57:24 AM
Teacher: [jabbing at a map of the world, with the British Empire lands in pink] Pink. Pink. Pink. Pink. What are all the pink bits? Rowan.

Bill Rowen: They're ours, Miss.

Teacher: Yes. The British Empire. Arthur... what fraction of the earth's surface is British?

Arthur in Roger's Gang: Don't know, Miss.

Teacher: Anyone? Jennifer Baker?

Jennifer Baker: Two-fifths, Miss.

Teacher: Yes, two-fifths! Ours. That's what this war is all about. Men are fighting and dying to save all the pink bits for you ungrateful little twerps.
 
2012-11-05 02:02:37 AM

lohphat: capt.hollister: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

And let's not forget all those other British colonies in Africa. You know, all those wonderful beacons of peace, democracy, freedom of speech and economic success. Places like Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, Uganda, Sierra Leone, etc... including the poster child of economic and social progress that is Zimbabwe...

...oh wait

And what would they be today if they didn't have any attempt at some form of government structure?

...oh wait


No one knows because no African country was left uncolonised by the Europeans. It's hard, however, to argue that the former British colonies are doing less badly than the former French, German, or Portuguese colonies all of whom were also left with government structures in place. Admittedly, all of them are doing better than the former Belgian and Italian colonies.
 
2012-11-05 03:20:44 AM

capt.hollister: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

And let's not forget all those other British colonies in Africa. You know, all those wonderful beacons of peace, democracy, freedom of speech and economic success. Places like Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, Uganda, Sierra Leone, etc... including the poster child of economic and social progress that is Zimbabwe...

...oh wait


Oh wait you have no farking idea what you are talking about:

Kenya: Kenya's economy is market-based, with a few state-owned infrastructure enterprises, and maintains a liberalized external trade system. The country is generally perceived as Eastern and central Africa's hub for Financial, Communication and Transportation services. As at May 2010, economic prospects are positive with 4-5% GDP growth expected, largely because of expansions in tourism, telecommunications, transport, construction and a recovery in agriculture. These improvements are supported by a large pool of English speaking professional workers

Botswana: Botswana has had the highest average economic growth rate in the world, averaging about 9% per year from 1966 to 1999. Growth in private sector employment has averaged about 10% per annum over the first 30 years of independence. The relatively high quality of the country's statistics means that these figures are likely to be quite accurate. The government has consistently maintained budget surpluses and has extensive foreign exchange reserves.

Tanzania Significant measures have been taken to liberalize the Tanzanian economy along market lines and encourage both foreign and domestic private investment. Beginning in 1986, the Government of Tanzania embarked on an adjustment program to dismantle the socialist (Ujamaa) economic controls and encourage more active participation of the private sector in the economy. The program included a comprehensive package of policies which reduced the budget deficit and improved monetary control, substantially depreciated the overvalued exchange rate, liberalized the trade regime, removed most price controls, eased restrictions on the marketing of food crops, freed interest rates, and initiated a restructuring of the financial sector.

Ok, so none of those are world superpowers but they are hardly worst in the world. Now for the 3 countries where you may have some sort of a point:

Uganda Endowed with significant natural resources, including ample fertile land, regular rainfall, and mineral deposits, it is thought that Uganda could feed all of Africa if it was commercially farmed.[1] The economy of Uganda has great potential, and it appeared poised for rapid economic growth and development. However, chronic political instability and erratic economic management produced a record of persistent economic decline that has left Uganda among the world's poorest and least-developed countries.

Sierra Leone Sierra Leone is slowly emerging from a protracted civil war and is showing signs of a successful transition. Investor and consumer confidence continue to rise, adding impetus to the country's economic recovery. There is greater freedom of movement and the successful re-habitation and resettlement of residential areas.

and as for Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe

Guess what, thats from NOT following the way the British run things.  The ones that are successful are the ones that kept running things the way the Brits did after they got independence.
 
2012-11-05 03:41:30 AM

Greymalkin: The ones that are successful are the ones that kept running things the way the Brits did after they got independence.


THIS
 
2012-11-05 04:05:04 AM

Blairr: And Israel is a very nice place, on par with any Western nation.


Israel is an apartheid shiathole, and comparing it with the western nations is an insult to all western nations.

/hasbarahbots in 3... 2... 1...
 
2012-11-05 05:29:56 AM

Lsherm: GAT_00: Lsherm: Pales in comparison to Rome. The British are the sweat on the balls of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire invaded a much smaller percent of the world. Contrary to popular opinion, there is more to the world than North America and Europe.

Difference of degrees. The Roman Empire invaded almost the whole of the known world at the time. Britain just branched out into new territories, and they only had the means because of leftovers from the RE.


Yeah, and then they discovered that the Germanic tribes were leaving what is now Sweden, and that the Germanic tribes were kinda better at taking any part of the world they knew of (which also included England, that's why they're Germanic now, and not Celts):

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/ambush.html farking the Romans up so bad they never recovered.
 
2012-11-05 06:16:30 AM

capt.hollister: Places like Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, Uganda, Sierra Leone, etc... including the poster child of economic and social progress that is Zimbabwe...

...oh wait


Congratulations, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about!
 
2012-11-05 07:04:38 AM

cloud_van_dame: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful.

There are advantages to speaking English when it is the global lingua franca.

Also, Brits put in railroads, schools and hospitals. Not all colonial powers did this.


And some, like the Portguese, frequently demolished any infrastructure before they left (particularly in Africa), if I remember correctly.
 
2012-11-05 08:13:58 AM
kg2095: The British attempted to wipe out every single native in Tasmania (Australian state).

And they have in a way wiped them out from mainland Australia as well - their culture and identity has been almost completely destroyed with the possible exception of some who live their traditional lives in the hot, dusty desert known as the outback.


Yes true, that happened. But it wasn't on the orders of London, it's what happens when you export everyone you don't like the look of to the other side of the world without thinking about the consequences.
Destroying their culture bit London probably wouldn't have minded too not the rest.
This was in the days of wooden sailing ships carrying letters written on paper, men in Whitehall had very little idea of what was happening in Tasmania and even less interest.
 
2012-11-05 08:17:41 AM
The fked up bits of the former British Empire are often to do with hasty short term decisions. There was actually a lot of "Fark it this is complicated shiat let's just wing it" hidden behind the fine words.
 
2012-11-05 08:26:14 AM
And now their guilt is preventing them from stopping the colonization from within by islam... sad.
 
2012-11-05 08:27:43 AM

Blairr: way south: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building.

[dl.dropbox.com image 400x353]

If Britain was good at nation building then she would still have a few more nations under her belt.
What they were good at was spreading influence with the power of their Navy. But even with that they left a trail of chaos around the globe.

/Israel alone should be proof that the Queen knew fark all bout making nations.
/Africa never did recover from colonization, and probably won't within our lifetimes.

...The Commonwealth? And Israel is a very nice place, on par with any Western nation.


That's like complimenting someone who built a lovely ranch style house underneath an erupting volcano.
While i support the israel that exists, Putting a nation of Jews in the middle of a backwater that sympathized with nazis in the previous war was an extreme example of poor planning.

/location, location, location.
/many of the places they also chose to civilize already had civilization.
/it's an incomplete view to suggest the British improved them.
 
2012-11-05 08:27:45 AM

Uncle Tractor: Blairr: And Israel is a very nice place, on par with any Western nation.

Israel is an apartheid shiathole, and comparing it with the western nations is an insult to all western nations.

/hasbarahbots in 3... 2... 1...


You need to quit huffing paint
 
2012-11-05 08:38:19 AM
We have NO dangerous animals in this country. you know why? WE KILLED EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.

Think about that...
 
2012-11-05 08:39:55 AM

Joe Blowme: Uncle Tractor: Blairr: And Israel is a very nice place, on par with any Western nation.

Israel is an apartheid shiathole, and comparing it with the western nations is an insult to all western nations.

/hasbarahbots in 3... 2... 1...

You need to quit huffing paint


Wow, your well reasoned response showing the inaccuracies in the previous post has radically changed my view on this topic. Keep up the good work.
 
2012-11-05 08:47:32 AM

dready zim: We have NO dangerous animals in this country. you know why? WE KILLED EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.

Think about that...


It would appear you just imported more dangerous animals from the former colonies and now they are breeding you out. Very sad for a once great and proud nation.
c481901.r1.cf2.rackcdn.com
Link
Link
 
2012-11-05 10:20:13 AM

dready zim: We have NO dangerous animals in this country. you know why? WE KILLED EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.

Think about that...


When you live in a country smaller than the state of Louisiana that is probably not as hard as it sounds.
 
2012-11-05 10:56:27 AM

crab66: dready zim: We have NO dangerous animals in this country. you know why? WE KILLED EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.

Think about that...

When you live in a country smaller than the state of Louisiana that is probably not as hard as it sounds.


That would be a country nearly twice the size of Louisiana. Try closer to Michigan.
 
2012-11-05 11:00:16 AM
And yet every where they go the people there eventually want to kick the wankers out.
 
2012-11-05 11:53:44 AM

way south: Putting a nation of Jews in the middle of a backwater that sympathized with nazis in the previous war was an extreme example of poor planning.


Has anyone considered that England's plan for the state of Israel was an intentional plan born out of anti-semitism to make their new homeland a nightmare?

Why be accused of anti-semitism when someone else can do it for you without lifting a finger?
 
2012-11-05 01:35:59 PM

lohphat: Has anyone considered that England's plan for the state of Israel was an intentional plan born out of anti-semitism to make their new homeland a nightmare?


I'm more partial to the thought of Israel being created to lure the jews out of Europe. Think of it as a gentler, kinder "final solution." After all, it was the combination of holocaust imagery and the creation of Israel that made christians "love" jews all of a sudden. The UN should have given the ashkenazim a chunk of Germany instead. Schleswig-Holstein, for example.

/not a christian
 
2012-11-05 02:39:38 PM

Uncle Tractor: lohphat: Has anyone considered that England's plan for the state of Israel was an intentional plan born out of anti-semitism to make their new homeland a nightmare?

I'm more partial to the thought of Israel being created to lure the jews out of Europe. Think of it as a gentler, kinder "final solution." After all, it was the combination of holocaust imagery and the creation of Israel that made christians "love" jews all of a sudden. The UN should have given the ashkenazim a chunk of Germany instead. Schleswig-Holstein, for example.

/not a christian


Yes. "O hai guise! Here's a plot of land -- waaaay over there -- where you can build a homeland...and we'll help you get started!"
 
2012-11-05 02:57:53 PM
lohphat: Has anyone considered that England's plan for the state of Israel was an intentional plan born out of anti-semitism to make their new homeland a nightmare?

Why be accused of anti-semitism when someone else can do it for you without lifting a finger?

Have you considered that it wasn't "England's" plan at all? Maybe Britain had qualms about the the fact that the Holy Land already had inhabitants but being next to bankrupt after fighting two enormous wars against the Germans inside of fifty years they had to defer to the next super power. You want to lay blame for the way Israel turned out, look to them because it was never part of British plans for, what was at the end of the day, a protectorate.
 
2012-11-05 04:07:48 PM

ethics-gradient: You want to lay blame for the way Israel turned out


I don't have a horse in the race other than my tax dollars.

But it seems interesting that the "solution" to European Jewery was to offer them a place to go after the war.
 
2012-11-05 06:14:23 PM

Spiralmonkey: Tom_Slick: JasonOfOrillia: How the hell did Sweden avoid invasion? They were a major European power at one point, the Brits should have wanted to give them a spanking at some point.

They worked it out through arranged marriages not military actions.

This. King Carl Gustaf is the great great grandson of Queen Victoria.


So are most of Europe's remaining royal families. Why'd the Swedes end up being favorite cousins?
 
2012-11-06 06:52:47 AM

Joe Blowme: dready zim: We have NO dangerous animals in this country. you know why? WE KILLED EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.

Think about that...

It would appear you just imported more dangerous animals from the former colonies and now they are breeding you out. Very sad for a once great and proud nation.
[c481901.r1.cf2.rackcdn.com image 283x400]
Link
Link


I wonder what it must be like to be both so utterly ignorant and incorrect on a subject and yet still be so obviously terrified by it? I bet you have nightmares after watching Tim Burton films, don't you? Now get your mummy to plug your night-light in and read you a story. Adults are talking.
 
Displayed 32 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report