Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Nation
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Prestwick" data-source="post: 110752"><p>Right, obviously somebody needs to get a history lesson here. So lets go through it point by point.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Where is the evidence for that? Do you actually have any facts, figures or any other claptrap to back that up? Thought not. Do your research before opening your mouth next time. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Another overly simplified and ignorant view. Actually it was far more complicated than that as the 300 years of gradual British domination over South Asia showed. The Mughals, while being besieged on all sides and suffering from infighting was still a substantial power to be reckoned with. To take somewhere like India by force from the get go would have required substantial men and material. Much like say the United States needing 350,000 - 500,000 troops to pacify Iraq today. And not only that, if overtly threatened by military force, the Mughals could well have turned to the French for extra support. So actually, it was far from certain who would control South Asia.</p><p></p><p>And while it was made up of areas of the world which had not even conglomerated into modern nations, they were some of the most valuable areas of earth. There was an economic motive behind British expansion as well as a moral and prestige. We went where the trade was and we went with our own half baked and awfully self righteous ideas on how they should live and which god they should preach. Not as bad as the French or the Germans who beat and killed their natives and not as bad as the Belgians (who turned the Congo into one huge slave labour camp).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, utter crap with no historical facts or evidence to support this. We withdrew from Ireland after a sustained campaign in Ireland caused outcry in the UK about why we should be there in the first place. Home rule for Ireland was on the cards decades before the first shots were fired by the IRA or the Blacks & Tans. Gladstone was persuaded to back the idea as Prime Minister in the late 1880s and early 1890s and it was only a Tory House of Lords who prevented Ireland from having some kind of independence 20 or 30 years early.</p><p></p><p>There is no evidence to suggest that if Ireland had 60 Million people you would be far richer than us in the UK, first of all, you would have to make sure that the population in the UK wouldn't have increased by then and also you haven't accounted for the pressures of having 60 Million in an area smaller than England. Pressures of space, power, water and employment, the very basics would be put under serious pressure.</p><p></p><p>Such jingoistic and stupid statements only highlight that actually, its allot more complicated than you think.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, proof please? Have you been to the Library of Congress and researched this yourself? Most of them could have the blood of half a dozen nationalities in them as they are even more of a mongrel nation than us English! So be very careful when you say that because actually, I could stand up and say that almost all the US Presidents have English blood in them too!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Freed them from what exactly? Freed them to be put into virtual corporate slavery by the big American corporations which descended on South America in the late 19th century, freed them to work their lives for an absolute pittance, have no chance of seeing a doctor or forming a trade union and finally, die horrible deaths either at the mines or at home in poverty so awful that it'd make 19th century Cork look like Beverly Hills?</p><p></p><p>Or maybe you freed them to beat up on the indigenous population and segregate them from their lands, their property and their rights? Only in the last three years has Evo Morales, became one of South America's FIRST Native American Presidents for which he has had to fight every inch of the way to give his people a voice for the first time in Bolivia? Jesus christ mate, <u>open your eyes!</u></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nobody is suggesting that you haven't, so I don't really have anything to get over to begin with! :lol: If anything mate, Brits are richer than the Irish and Ireland isn't responsible for everything that has happened here on this earth. Get over it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Prestwick, post: 110752"] Right, obviously somebody needs to get a history lesson here. So lets go through it point by point. Where is the evidence for that? Do you actually have any facts, figures or any other claptrap to back that up? Thought not. Do your research before opening your mouth next time. Another overly simplified and ignorant view. Actually it was far more complicated than that as the 300 years of gradual British domination over South Asia showed. The Mughals, while being besieged on all sides and suffering from infighting was still a substantial power to be reckoned with. To take somewhere like India by force from the get go would have required substantial men and material. Much like say the United States needing 350,000 - 500,000 troops to pacify Iraq today. And not only that, if overtly threatened by military force, the Mughals could well have turned to the French for extra support. So actually, it was far from certain who would control South Asia. And while it was made up of areas of the world which had not even conglomerated into modern nations, they were some of the most valuable areas of earth. There was an economic motive behind British expansion as well as a moral and prestige. We went where the trade was and we went with our own half baked and awfully self righteous ideas on how they should live and which god they should preach. Not as bad as the French or the Germans who beat and killed their natives and not as bad as the Belgians (who turned the Congo into one huge slave labour camp). Again, utter crap with no historical facts or evidence to support this. We withdrew from Ireland after a sustained campaign in Ireland caused outcry in the UK about why we should be there in the first place. Home rule for Ireland was on the cards decades before the first shots were fired by the IRA or the Blacks & Tans. Gladstone was persuaded to back the idea as Prime Minister in the late 1880s and early 1890s and it was only a Tory House of Lords who prevented Ireland from having some kind of independence 20 or 30 years early. There is no evidence to suggest that if Ireland had 60 Million people you would be far richer than us in the UK, first of all, you would have to make sure that the population in the UK wouldn't have increased by then and also you haven't accounted for the pressures of having 60 Million in an area smaller than England. Pressures of space, power, water and employment, the very basics would be put under serious pressure. Such jingoistic and stupid statements only highlight that actually, its allot more complicated than you think. Again, proof please? Have you been to the Library of Congress and researched this yourself? Most of them could have the blood of half a dozen nationalities in them as they are even more of a mongrel nation than us English! So be very careful when you say that because actually, I could stand up and say that almost all the US Presidents have English blood in them too! Freed them from what exactly? Freed them to be put into virtual corporate slavery by the big American corporations which descended on South America in the late 19th century, freed them to work their lives for an absolute pittance, have no chance of seeing a doctor or forming a trade union and finally, die horrible deaths either at the mines or at home in poverty so awful that it'd make 19th century Cork look like Beverly Hills? Or maybe you freed them to beat up on the indigenous population and segregate them from their lands, their property and their rights? Only in the last three years has Evo Morales, became one of South America's FIRST Native American Presidents for which he has had to fight every inch of the way to give his people a voice for the first time in Bolivia? Jesus christ mate, [u]open your eyes![/u] Nobody is suggesting that you haven't, so I don't really have anything to get over to begin with! :lol: If anything mate, Brits are richer than the Irish and Ireland isn't responsible for everything that has happened here on this earth. Get over it. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Nation
Top