Originally Posted by eodmatt

In fact, and in contrast to most other nations colonisations, the British achieved a great deal with its colonies and most of them stand as monuments today, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, India. What have most of the failures got in common? ISLAM!

I would disagree and say most of the failures amongst ex-British colonies have in common their location in Africa.

Before you use the argument that it's not our fault because we can't be held responsible for what they've done with themselves now that we've left, I'd point out that Hong Kong, Singapore and India are all doing considerably better without us than with. So presumably their success is nothing to do with us either?

America, as an earlier poster said, is exporting its particular brand of culture because others want to adopt it. Whether that's due to any specific fondness for the trappings of Americana or through a triumph of marketing is another question. In any case, if you have very little already anything different is probably going to appeal.

Originally Posted by Domovoy

Originally Posted by eodmatt

Sneer if you wish at the achievements of countries like Australia etc. .

I don't think Australia, US or Canada can be used as examples of successful rule of Britain over its colonies, since the achieving parts of these countries has nothing to do with their indigenous people.

Oh I think they can. Settler states were very much part of the imperial project starting with the plantation of Ulster.

Indigenous people were occasionally targets of missionary zeal but more often a resource to be exploited just like a tea or poppy crop and sometimes they were regarded as dangerous pests interfering with trade.

Awful lot of strange fruit followed what Indians call The First War of Independence in 1857, probably numbered in the hundreds of thousand. The Whigish Raj was built on a foundation of terror and atrocity. The states that followed it in the bloody mess of Partition and genocide in Bangladesh. One has a psychotic officer class given to dreaming of winnable nuclear war.

The Septics also mutinied. They joined the old French enemy in part because The Crown they had been so loudly loyal too a few years before was far too respectful of treaties with the natives and was constraining their manifest destiny to roll west over the buggers. Unlike real Indians they were to thin on the ground to offer much resistance.

Picaresque folks in feather headdresses weren't the only targets. With the Peninsular War raging and Napoleon on his way to Moscow DC sneakily invaded Canada in 1812. It wasn't the first time but was the last. DC's public buildings including the Whitehouse were torched by redcoats. Canada has been a dull but generally well managed country ever since.

Eventually the Americans would turf the Mexicans out of their old possessions in California and Texas. In the sentimental fug of wagon trains and the old west it's often forgotten this was as nakedly imperial a venture as the scramble for Africa.

Uncle Sam then gazed out over the Pacific. The black ships would arrive off Yokosuka and crowbar open Japan's markets. Dubious wars would be fought in the Philippines and Cuba. The USMC has since charged ashore in many places but the heyday of nakedly enthusiastic US imperialism ended a century ago.

To an even greater extent than the American colonies Australia began as unpromising dumping ground for England's criminal classes and dissidents. Within a few generations the prison colony became a fine upstanding country of timidly law abiding hearty racists. Its success cannot be said to be by design, a eugenic experiment that disproved the heritability of criminal tendencies.

No!

The USA responds to 'threatening behaviour' - and thank goodness for that. Thanks Yanks.

Soviet Russia was: 'Hyper Aggressive, Super Militaristic and Imperialistic - despite having murdered it's own Imperial family!

The USA has pursued the ideal of 'Freedom'. Made mistakes maybe.

Soviet Russia pursued the goal of subjugation through evil, fear and conquest.

'Resident' - Bring back the Romanovs and re-enter the real world.

Ooops! So sorry! Comrade Putin (unreconstructed KGB bully) would never allow that.

Originally Posted by Goldbricker

Originally Posted by Billy_Boogers

Originally Posted by KGB_resident

Originally Posted by Khyros

While I certainly agree that occasionally our politicians get us into foriegn affairs better left avoided, the simple fact is that we are not imperialists because we LEAVE when the fighting is over or when the host nation asks us to.

Khyros, Cuba, for example, asks to leave its territory for a half century.

Ummm, I think that particular bit of Cuba is on a rental contract...

Indeed, Permanent rental agreement since 1934 and the rent checks are sent like clockwork.

Fido wont cash them.

Originally Posted by Khyros

Fidel cashed the very first check that arrived after he took power... ;)

Khyros, but you claimed that "we LEAVE when the fighting is over or when the host nation asks us to".

Cuba is demanding the withdrawal from Guantanamo during a half century.

As for so called "agreements" signed with puppets then it is a typical imperialistic trick.

By the way are you aware about annual payment for Guanatanamo? It's $2000 (2 thousands dollars).

Guantanamo is a selfevident example of imperialist habits of Washington.

Originally Posted by KGB_resident

Guantanamo is a selfevident example of imperialist habits of Washington.

Site Russian fascist writes...(ignoring the Balkans, E Europe and the Caucasus)

Originally Posted by KGB_resident

[
Khyros, but you claimed that "we LEAVE when the fighting is over or when the host nation asks us to".

Cuba is demanding the withdrawal from Guantanamo during a half century.

As for so called "agreements" signed with puppets then it is a typical imperialistic trick.

By the way are you aware about annual payment for Guanatanamo? It's $2000 (2 thousands dollars).

Guantanamo is a selfevident example of imperialist habits of Washington.

KGB fail - Guantanamo rental US$ 4,085.00 since 1934

Say how are the Kuriles & Kaliningrad (Koenigsburg)doing? whats the rent on them?

Originally Posted by Goldbricker

Originally Posted by KGB_resident

[
Khyros, but you claimed that "we LEAVE when the fighting is over or when the host nation asks us to".

Cuba is demanding the withdrawal from Guantanamo during a half century.

As for so called "agreements" signed with puppets then it is a typical imperialistic trick.

By the way are you aware about annual payment for Guanatanamo? It's $2000 (2 thousands dollars).

Guantanamo is a selfevident example of imperialist habits of Washington.

KGB fail - Guantanamo rental US$ 4,085.00 since 1934

Say how are the Kuriles & Kaliningrad (Koenigsburg)doing? whats the rent on them?

In the same fashion I could (but prefer not to) ask about the rent for Gibraltar, the Falklands, about the rental payments for British colonies (for India for example).

As I'm aware Cuba did not invaded the USA. But Hitler 'rented' significant parts of the Soviet union and killed millions.

As for Kaliningrad area then it would be logical to mention Poland that got the bigger part of East Prussia and also Silesia and Pommerania.

As for the Kuriles then Japan 'rented' South Sakhalin for 40 years (without payments of course). So the Soviet union simply paid by the same coin.

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

Returning to Guantanamo, the USA recognises it as a part of Cuba but using typical imperialist approach occupy it at will.

Originally Posted by lsquared

Soviet Russia pursued the goal of subjugation through evil, fear and conquest.

:D What a lot of bollox! :D

Want to talk about Imperialism, the Russians were at it long before Lenin. Subjecting once proud Poles and sweeping up native people as they drove to the South Caucasus and Siberia. Got so far east they wound up in Alaska which they ran as colony for over a century before selling out to the Septics in 1866.

Shame really, Alaska is a land of such natural resources.

The United States rules the world if you take a closer look, mostly by stealth and not by physical occupation for obvious reasons.
The United States has Britain by it's knees, for Example from the 1st Gulf War onwards Britain could not take part if the yanks pulled out of any conflict in the Middle East!
The bottom line being that nobody is going to argue with a country which has the most powerful military force on the face of the earth, and the yanks know it!