Did Liberal elites ruined Britain as a hyperpower?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by NEO_CON, Oct 22, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The Weekly Standard?


    Sorry , laughing so hard I forgot to notice if there was any mention of us giving up large amounts of foreign possessions in return for lend-lease, or being taken to the cleaners for it?

    Perhaps they mentioned the massive debt we accrued under this scheme keeping the free world free till the US deigned to join the party?

    Perhaps they mentioned the extraordinary pressure put upon us by Truman et all to give up foreign lands?

    As I say , I was laughing so hard i couldn't read the page.

    The Weekly Standard. Standard for what exactly?
  2. "Will protestations of liberal elites become mainstream diffidence about America's place in the world? Will we, too, stop believing that America stands firm, as a great force for good - and then see our place in the world diminish?"

    Our "liberal elites," including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein, John Kerry, et al, are showing no "diffidence about America's place in the world" or the prudence of establishing it by picking fights with countries that have neither the means nor the inclination to attack the United States. Their only quarrel with the Bush Welfare/Warfare State is that the Republicans currently have the cushy posts and the best parking spots.

    So I guess the position of the USA as a "hyperpower" must be secure.
  3. A Standard for Grammar and syntax evidently...
  4. Check your grammar please!!!! Your question does not make sense, but I think I understand you - just.

    *** No! ***

    However, Britain was ruined as a 'hyperpower' by american greed and selfishness.

    The British Empirte was left to fight the Nazi menace alone. Between 1939 and 1942, the US deliberately sat back and refused to enter the war, milked Britain for every penny it could muster, forced it to mortgage itself up to the hilt, and closed it's eyes to genocide.

    Tell me NC, when do you think the US would have entered WW2 if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour? Also tell me how many Jews and other non-Aryans had to be gassed before Americans got upset enough to join the war to defeat Nazism?

    I ask YET again. NC, are you an iranian-american?
  5. Perhaps readers of the Weekly Standard also view with sorrow the role of British "liberal elites" in ending the slave trade so beloved of America.
  6. The article follows a standard format:
    1. Draw parallels between United States and random former "hyperpower" (UK, France, Holy Roman Empire, Rome, Greece, whatever).
    2. Draw veiled parallels between fall from greatness of former "hyperpower" and Clinton administration.
    3. Paint picture of decadent, out-of-touch liberal elites, preferably with pacifist tendencies.
    4. Draw attention to lack of patriotism.
    5. Make obligatory Churchill reference to paint picture of conservatives being the only people willing to stand against such weakness; they are, of course, ignored - for now.
    6. Elaborate how liberal elites gradually lose the plot, to the point that all is lost.
    7. Instead of seeing through metaphor, launch all-out attack on modern "liberals", in order to avoid subjects that might undermine the argument.
    8. Finally, warn that what happened in X could easily happen in the USA.

    It's from the Coulter school of journalism.

    It also shows how utterly self-centered the Yanks can be - and how often their "elites" are willing to ignore the supposed American beliefs in freedom and justice for all, etc. In this case, the author even contradicts modern trends among more conservative British historians to paint a more upbeat picture of the end of the British Empire.

    The British Empire came to an end because it was a colonial empire. America's wealth comes from within. British wealth and power came from without.
    By the 20th Century, British colonies in particular had been so exposed to modernity and democracy, that self-determination was a matter of when, not if. As other nations like France, Belgium and Japan showed, if you held on too long, violence was inevitable. The British simply used common sense and bugged out before things got too bad. It's a matter of self-determination and freedom from foreign rulers.
    Funnily enough, neo-cons could use this argument to reinforce their campaign for "freedom"...

    PS: Is the Weekly Standard another NewsMax-related website?
  7. I'll think you will find you are incredibly wrong. As was stated earlier. The US saw the oppotunity to end British Empire and secure it's own future by screwing us down with lend-lease and othe back room deals. By the end of WWII the UK was bankrupt and could no longer afford to run the empire, and coupled with agreements to hand back colonies brokered by the US and the loss of India. We had no resources, no capital and a completely trashed country. Things the US did not have to worry about.
  8. Which bit did the British Liberals get so wrong? Was it campagining against the slave trade or child labour? Was it their disgust at our government's policy of throwing civilians into concentration camps during the Boer War? Was it their horror of putting Indian mutineers across the mouths of cannons by way of capitol punishment? Was it campaigning against aparthied in South Africa? If only they had turned a blind eye against all these injustices the free world would be a better place would it? So which bit have the American (and British) neo-cons got so right? Starting an illegal war against an enemy who posed no threat? Supporting corrupt and violent regimes in Chile, Panama, the Philipines etc. Turning a blind eye every time the Israelis ignore UN resolutions but using similar non-compliance as an excuse for war in Iraq? By the way NWD, given the cost of the American deployment in Iraq I do not share your confidence that America's status as a hyperpower is secure.
  9. I think you'll find Neo-Con(artist), that the general feeling here is that it was America that ruined Britain as a world power, for it's own selfish economic and political ends. The "liberals" you blame (we, more accurately, call them socialists) may have contributed a bit but the die was already cast by the 1945 election and the following Labour govt did no more than slightly increase the rate of Imperial collapse to fund improvements at home.

    Th only way to prevent the ruin would have been for somebody to stand up to America and tell the to feck off when they ordered rapid decolonisation, debt repayment and the opening up of Imperial trade, but then how would America have reacted to that?
  10. Good list, but you forgot to mention "Choose history extremely selectively in order to further your tautological argument." It should figure around about No. 2.

    Neo, please stop wasting our time with this patent b0ll0cks that you're determined to push on us. Most people here are not at all interested in drinking the Kool-Aid and thankfully are able to think crticially about the world that you and your kind are screwing up.

    Here's a tip, expand your reading and viewing, as most others here do, in order to draw more information from a wider range of sources. THEN TRY AND FORMULATE YOUR OWN ANALYSIS. What you invariably seem to do is to immediately gravitate towards information that is consonant with your own belief system and then pontificate without ever fully coming to grips with what you're attempting to talk about. Of course, you have the right to your opinion and would be all well and good if you wanted to sit alone in your log cabin in Montana, but most of us come to the grown-up areas to exchange credible information, ask questions and debate the issues in an informed manner. Quite frankly, old chum, your ill-informed ramblings are starting to annoy me a tadge and if you continue in this manner, I will have no alternative but to draw the conclusion that you're doing it merely to insult our intelligence.
  11. I seem to remember reading that it will be 2014 before UK pays off it's WW II monetary debts to the US.
    Something says Brown in his early days as Chancellor inreased the ammount we paid and reduced our debt to the 2014 timescale.
  12. This article ignores the fact that it was the Liberal Party, not the Tories, who were the main driving force behind the acquisition, maintenance and operation of the British Empire. Rampant capitalism allied to respect for individual rights (i.e slaves, homosexuals etc) seems to sit easier with the Democrats or Moderate Republicans in the USA than with the Neo Cons. Not all redcoats burnt farms you know, neo_con :wink:
  13. The lend lease debt will be paid off by the end of 2006 according to Hansard:
    Thanks to a poster (pdf27) on another board (WWII in Colour) for this.

    (Edited for HTML)
  14. They fukcing should have done.