British PM: Britain is "still the greatest country on earth"

billybudd

summerskin wrote: »

But Britain didn't invade anywhere in WW2. How can that be similar to the Nazis?????

And the invading pre www1/2?

billybudd

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What is the difference between those missions and the ones in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq 1, Sierre Leone and Afghanistan?

We are not looking to control the worlds oil market?

billybudd

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As was pointed out earlier, if it hadn't been the British, it would have been the French, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch etc etc.

So then Nazi Germany had a right to invade, pillage and destroy?

Mickeroo

summerskin wrote: »

But Britain didn't invade anywhere in WW2. How can that be similar to the Nazis?????

I'm not talking about Britain's actions in WWII clearly. Maybe I picked up what billybud was saying wrong?

Fratton Fred

billybudd wrote: »

We are not looking to control the worlds oil market?

Yes, because Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia have so much oil.:rolleyes:

Mickeroo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As was pointed out earlier, if it hadn't been the British, it would have been the French, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch etc etc.

no argument from me there..

Fratton Fred

billybudd wrote: »

So then Nazi Germany had a right to invade, pillage and destroy?

You seriously need to go and read a book on the history of the world.

billybudd

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm not talking about Britain's actions in WWII clearly. Maybe I picked up what billybud was saying wrong?

No you didnt, i wasnt talking about GB involvment in WW1/2, but they used the same means when invading and becoming a colonial power.

Mickeroo

billybudd wrote: »

No you didnt, i wasnt talking about GB involvment in WW1/2, but they used the same means when invading and becoming a colonial power.

Ok, yeah thats what I thought.

billybudd

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You seriously need to go and read a book on the history of the world.

Why FF? what was the difference? if you can explain it to me then perhaps i can understand it.

9959

poeticseraphim wrote: »

........

The truth is the tories have this attitude of non apology to other countries...Labour and the Lib dems have a different tone.

...

I don't entirely disagree with your posts, in my humble, they're well-meant and well-written.
However.
Bloody Sunday Apology
"But what happened should never, ever have happened...and for that, on behalf of the government - and indeed our country - I am deeply sorry"
Prime Minister David Cameron (Conservative) June 2010

While I'm here, you state in a previous post: "Nothing wrong with patriotism..."

I believe there is something fundamentally wrong/dangerous with patriotism.
There's a very thin line between patriotism and nationalism, at times so thin it's hardly visible.
Whether it's the rabid Irish nationalism of the OP or the sickeningly racist English nationalism of the BNP.
Here's a quote from George Bernard Shaw:
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it"

Please don't take this as an attack on you, it's definitely not.
I wish you well.

Fratton Fred

billybudd wrote: »

No you didnt, i wasnt talking about GB involvment in WW1/2, but they used the same means when invading and becoming a colonial power.

Not generally.

Did Britain invade North America? did they invade India or Australia?

There were a lot less people in the world 300 years ago and it was quite common for nations to set up trading colonies in other places. Not even countries, just empty places with no one there. In the Caribbean most of the islands the British took over had already been stripped of their people by the Spanish and Portugese.

From then on, it was more about increasing influence, like in India. Most of the influence there came through treaties with local leaders and offers of protection if they came under the fold.

OK, the uprisings were put down violently, but there was no initial invasion as such, certainly not in the way we know it today and certainly not in the way Nazi Germany invaded it's neighbours.

billybudd

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, because Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia have so much oil.:rolleyes:

Oil pipes fred, oil pipes.

9959

Happyman42 wrote: »

If your level of interpretation stops at base and lowest common denominator reactions to posts, you can't be helped, I suppose.
I never indicated my favour or bias, as it has absolutely no relevance in the context of the thread, I was making a point about what the UN actually is.

Then why mention Israel?

billybudd

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not generally.

Did Britain invade North America? did they invade India or Australia?

There were a lot less people in the world 300 years ago and it was quite common for nations to set up trading colonies in other places. Not even countries, just empty places with no one there. In the Caribbean most of the islands the British took over had already been stripped of their people by the Spanish and Portugese.

From then on, it was more about increasing influence, like in India. Most of the influence there came through treaties with local leaders and offers of protection if they came under the fold.

OK, the uprisings were put down violently, but there was no initial invasion as such, certainly not in the way we know it today and certainly not in the way Nazi Germany invaded it's neighbours.

I suggest you read some books sir.

Fratton Fred

billybudd wrote: »

Oil pipes fred, oil pipes.

Oil Pies and lizard men Billy.

May be time for the tin foil hat.

billybudd

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oil Pies and lizard men Billy.

May be time for the tin foil hat.

Dont need a hat fred, my vision is better without one.

ejmaztec

billybudd wrote: »

We are not looking to control the worlds oil market?

We can't even control our own oil market.:(

billybudd

And Fred you dont see our peace keeping soldiers splashed across the daily mail for torturing and degrading Iraqi POW. now do you!

Happyman42

Playboy wrote: »

I didnt say these nations were only self-interested... I said they were first and foremost self interested. That doesnt mean they dont care about world peace or want stability. You are simplifying complex issues... foreign policy for a country of the size and stature of the UK is very different to the foreign policy of a country like Ireland. The UK do a lot of good in the modern world.. provide a lot of aid to countries, take in a lot of refugees and immigrants and fight for human rights and democracy. Are they perfect? No of course not but they are a hell of a lot better than the majority of countries of similar size and military capability.

Oh right, it's all too complex for us eejits. :rolleyes:

Here's all you need to know about their aspirations for 'world peace'.
The UN Security Council is controlled absolutely and by veto by 5 permanent members who also happen to be the 5 top arms exporting nations of the world who have variously armed and supported leaders and countries who they later came to describe as dictatorships, despots and then invaded or imposed sanctions on.

Too 'complex' for you?

Fratton Fred

billybudd wrote: »

And Fred you dont see our peace keeping soldiers splashed across the daily mail for torturing and degrading Iraqi POW. now do you!

You don't see Irish soldiers within 100 miles of a POW to be honest.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Oh right, it's all too complex for us eejits. :rolleyes:

Here's all you need to know about their aspirations for 'world peace'.
The UN Security Council is controlled absolutely and by veto by 5 permanent members who also happen to be the 5 top arms exporting nations of the world who have variously armed and supported leaders and countries who they later came to describe as dictatorships, despots and then invaded or imposed sanctions on.

Too 'complex' for you?

and then built imaginary oil pipelines?

billybudd

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You don't see Irish soldiers within 100 miles of a POW to be honest.

Thankfully Fred. we understand oppression. :pac:

billybudd

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and then built imaginary oil pipelines?

:pac: no pipe lines exist so?

Happyman42

9959 wrote: »

Then why mention Israel?

Ever heard of a little communication device called an 'example'?
My point was about the UN, the American vetoing of anything critical about Israel being an 'example' of how self interest is at the core of it's existence, not world peace.
I could also use other 'examples', the speed at which they reacted to the invasion of Kuwait and their speedy and decisive interevention in Libya but their appalling tawdriness in interveneing in less strategically important places, like Rwanda or Darfur.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and then built imaginary oil pipelines?

Are you seriously championing the UN? 5 of the most powerful countries in the world meet in secret and then present their findings as a done deal to the other bullied nations????
Have you no critical faculties at all, is that what happens when you sign up to and defend an imperialist ideology, you leave your critical faculties under the pillow? :rolleyes:

ejmaztec

billybudd wrote: »

Thankfully Fred. we understand oppression. :pac:

Now we only get oppressed by that shower in Leinster House, it must be time for a reset.

jlacey

They are good at talking themselves up, so we should too and punch above our weight

billybudd

ejmaztec wrote: »

Now we only get oppressed by that shower in Leinster House, it must be time for a reset.

Thats who i meant :P

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you seriously championing the UN? 5 of the most powerful countries in the world meet in secret and then present their findings as a done deal to the other bullied nations????
Have you no critical faculties at all, is that what happens when you sign up to and defend an imperialist ideology, you leave your critical faculties under the pillow? :rolleyes:

little man squeal

CRM Ireland

Rule Britannia....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z662wuyicbg

Fratton Fred

billybudd wrote: »

Thankfully Fred. we understand oppression. :pac:

you think you do.:rolleyes:

Jimoslimos

Fratton Fred wrote: »

From then on, it was more about increasing influence, like in India. Most of the influence there came through treaties with local leaders and offers of protection if they came under the fold.

So...kind of like a mafia/mobster protection racket set-up then?

billybudd

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you think you do.:rolleyes:

Was a joke Fred, but certainly my Grandparents did and those before.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ever heard of a little communication device called an 'example'?
My point was about the UN, the American vetoing of anything critical about Israel being an 'example' of how self interest is at the core of it's existence, not world peace.
I could also use other 'examples', the speed at which they reacted to the invasion of Kuwait and their speedy and decisive interevention in Libya but their appalling tawdriness in interveneing in less strategically important places, like Rwanda or Darfur.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you seriously championing the UN? 5 of the most powerful countries in the world meet in secret and then present their findings as a done deal to the other bullied nations????
Have you no critical faculties at all, is that what happens when you sign up to and defend an imperialist ideology, you leave your critical faculties under the pillow? :rolleyes:

so the UN is now a lapdog for the most powerful nations?

The biggest problem the UN has is that very few other other countries wants to put any skin in the game other than the US. Darfur being a good example.

The US has no interest there and to be honest is overstretched, so it comes down to others, like France, Germany and even little "We're the richest country in the world" Ireland.

But no, without US muscle nothing happens

Playboy

Happyman42 wrote: »

Oh right, it's all too complex for us eejits. :rolleyes:

Here's all you need to know about their aspirations for 'world peace'.
The UN Security Council is controlled absolutely and by veto by 5 permanent members who also happen to be the 5 top arms exporting nations of the world who have variously armed and supported leaders and countries who they later came to describe as dictatorships, despots and then invaded or imposed sanctions on.

Too 'complex' for you?

You are right... you are an an eejit. Arms = Power.... simple explanation as to why the top 5 arms exporting nations control the security council... because they are the most powerful countries in the world. You think the Irish wouldnt export arms internationally if it was a massive industry in this country and created wealth and jobs?

The UN might not be perfect but its the only thing we have. There are no real alternatives...

Look the Irish and the British are no better or worse than anyone else in the world... the only difference between the two is that one is larger and more powerful than the other. World politics always will and has always been about power... its not going to change anytime soon.

I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make anymore. You dont like the British and you think that as a nation they are evil war mongers and that our own Glorious nation would never do the things the British did if our roles were reversed?

History shapes peoples and countries... mostly you are part of a group that is oppressed or oppressing. Usually its the luck of your birth which determines which side you happen to be on... not your inherent characteristics as a people or ethnic group

Fratton Fred

Jimoslimos wrote: »

So...kind of like a mafia/mobster protection racket set-up then?

Not far off it, yes. Survival of the fittest and all that.

billybudd wrote: »

Was a joke Fred, but certainly my Grandparents did and those before.

Really? did they? or is that just your in built 800 years meter telling you they were.

ejmaztec

I think the Irish government quite likes the obsession that some people have with what Britain did or didn't do, because it takes the heat off what the homegrown Irish institutions have done to Ireland, particularly in recent years.

jasonmcco

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think the Irish government quite likes the obsession that some people have with what Britain did or didn't do, because it takes the heat off what the homegrown Irish institutions have done to Ireland, particularly in recent years.

You hit the nail on the head mate. The enemy was always within and not across the water.

billybudd

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not far off it, yes. Survival of the fittest and all that.



Really? did they? or is that just your in built 800 years meter telling you they were.

We just didnt know what was good for us Fred.

You shouldnt believe all your taught in a Portsmouth comphrehensive.

Fratton Fred

Playboy wrote: »

History shapes peoples and countries... mostly you are part of a group that is oppressed or oppressing. Usually its the luck of your birth which determines which side you happen to be on... not your inherent characteristics as a people or ethnic group

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/slavery/montserrat.htm

Fratton Fred

billybudd wrote: »

[/B]

We just didnt know what was good for us Fred.

You shouldnt believe all your taught in a Portsmouth comphrehensive.

aah, of course, what you're taught in "The best education system in the world" is bound to be unbiased and 100% accurate.

Spread

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It appears that Seanchai is telling us what we can and can't think, obviously.
British nationalism no more involves subjugating people than Irish nationalism does bombing pubs.

If the Brits had not colonised Ireland, exploiting and murdering the indigenous people ....... there would not have been any bombing.
Fred, it beats me why you stay on boards dot ie. Could you not join an all England forum where you can talk about the good old days when Britannia ruled the waves, immigrants knew their place, everyone read the Express/Torygraph/Mirror, watched the Queen's speech after Christmas Dinner and shook their heads in disgust at uprisings in the various colonies.
You - at your age - should be able to get a bit of perspective on history and realise that jingoism is used by the ruling class to ensnare their lessers.

Latchy

David Cameron as PM is about as convincing as a parachute with holes in it.

billybudd

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

Happyman42

Playboy wrote: »

You are right... you are an an eejit. Arms = Power.... simple explanation as to why the top 5 arms exporting nations control the security council... because they are the most powerful countries in the world. You think the Irish wouldnt export arms internationally if it was a massive industry in this country and created wealth and jobs?

The UN might not be perfect but its the only thing we have. There are no real alternatives...

Look the Irish and the British are no better or worse than anyone else in the world... the only difference between the two is that one is larger and more powerful than the other. World politics always will and has always been about power... its not going to change anytime soon.

I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make anymore. You dont like the British and you think that as a nation they are evil war mongers and that our own Glorious nation would never do the things the British did if our roles were reversed?

History shapes peoples and countries... mostly you are part of a group that is oppressed or oppressing. Usually its the luck of your birth which determines which side you happen to be on... not your inherent characteristics as a people or ethnic group

I'm sure the British, Americans etc would just love someone with your understanding nature as they bomb you into the acceptance of their gifts. :rolleyes:
Damm those ungrateful ingrates!

ejmaztec

Latchy wrote: »

David Cameron as PM is about as convincing as a parachute with holes in it.

He's the Enda Kenny of British politics, who wouldn't have been elected in a normal situation, but like here the economy was completely screwed during the previous administration and he got the job by default.

Fratton Fred

Spread wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It appears that Seanchai is telling us what we can and can't think, obviously.
British nationalism no more involves subjugating people than Irish nationalism does bombing pubs.

If the Brits had not colonised Ireland, exploiting and murdering the indigenous people ....... there would not have been any bombing. Fred, it beats me why you stay on boards dot ie. Could you not join an all England forum where you can talk about the good old days when Britannia ruled the waves, immigrants knew their place, everyone read the Express/Torygraph/Mirror, watched the Queen's speech after Christmas Dinner and shook their heads in disgust at uprisings in the various colonies.
You - at your age - should be able to get a bit of perspective on history and realise that jingoism is used by the ruling class to ensnare their lessers.

Love it.

I can't actually put up any sort of coherent points, so I'll just attack the poster.

billybudd

Fratton Fred wrote: »

aah, of course, what you're taught in "The best education system in the world" is bound to be unbiased and 100% accurate.

Who claims that?

mike65

300 posts! Imagine trying to drum up this much nonsense on a UK site about an Irish party political conference speech.