1
   

Why Did America Attack Iraq?

 
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 05:16 am
dlowan wrote:
I'm in. Do we attack at dawn?

Laughing

Yep. Heres the plan. Soon as you emerge from the warren, its only a small(ish) hop to the Falklands Islands. Couple more NW and you're in N America. Meanwhile I've arrange for the Canajuns to form a pincer move from the north. It'll be over by Christmas, honest.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 01:48 pm
I vote we paint the White House pink...ok?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 06:08 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
The British Empire is not and will never be a footnote in history. We founded the modern world.

Before we can consider the origins of the modern world we need, I suggest, to define the modern world.


Which you failed to do.

Britain was the first country to industrialise. The British Empire was truly global in reach. We spread the English language and British law and commercial trade practices around the world. Like it or hate it, globalisation, international banking, modern capitalism as we know it started with Britain and its Empire. Therein is Britain's claim to have founded the modern world imo.


Everyone has such thin skin around here. I absolutely agreed with your primary assertion that the British Empire will never be considered a footnote in history, but I contended that your claim, on behalf of the UK, to being the fount of modernity was arguable. Do you really believe it is not? Such absolute assurance in one's statements is remarkable, if not admirable.

You used the term "modern world," Steve and therefore I thought it might be most appropriate for you to offer a definition.

If the accepted definition of modernity is industrialization, then I suppose you are right, however, if I remember my history (and no doubt Setanta will correct me if I err here) the Modern World is defined by considerably more than industrialization. In fact, as I recall, the Industrial Revolution, which it can easily be argued the Brits took the lead with, is but one of three revolutions which are generally considered to have given birth to the Modern World. The other two, of course, are the French Revolution, and the American Revolution.

The French and Americans were far more responsible than the British for putting an effective end to absolute monarchies. If one owns a widget making empire, perhaps industrialization is a greater force in the Modern World than democratization, but I think a fair argument can be made that, at least, a parity of effect exists.

The ascendency of English to the status of lingua franca is a dubious hallmark of the Modern World, but, to the extent that it is of any significance to post 18th century history, it is impossible to ignore the role America has played in it achievement.

Personally, I have a tremendous respect for English Common Law, however to suggest that it is a notable feature of the Modern World is quite arguable. A far more Modern body of law is the Napoleonic Code, and the fact that the British Empire imposed a form of law with origins in the Feudal Age on conquered and colonized lands is not a mark of modernity.

As for Englands impact on modern commerce, well I'll leave that to Setanta to debate.

I am an unabashed anglophile, and an admirer of the aggregate accomplishments of the British Empire, but to cite it as the founder of the Modern World is simply not accurate, and the claim that it is, is certainly difficult to tolerate from someone who consistently seeks to put the American Empire in its place.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 06:08 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
The British Empire is not and will never be a footnote in history. We founded the modern world.

Before we can consider the origins of the modern world we need, I suggest, to define the modern world.


Which you failed to do.

Britain was the first country to industrialise. The British Empire was truly global in reach. We spread the English language and British law and commercial trade practices around the world. Like it or hate it, globalisation, international banking, modern capitalism as we know it started with Britain and its Empire. Therein is Britain's claim to have founded the modern world imo.


Everyone has such thin skin around here. I absolutely agreed with your primary assertion that the British Empire will never be considered a footnote in history, but I contended that your claim, on behalf of the UK, to being the fount of modernity was arguable. Do you really believe it is not? Such absolute assurance in one's statements is remarkable, if not admirable.

You used the term "modern world," Steve and therefore I thought it might be most appropriate for you to offer a definition.

If the accepted definition of modernity is industrialization, then I suppose you are right, however, if I remember my history (and no doubt Setanta will correct me if I err here) the Modern World is defined by considerably more than industrialization. In fact, as I recall, the Industrial Revolution, which it can easily be argued the Brits took the lead with, is but one of three revolutions which are generally considered to have given birth to the Modern World. The other two, of course, are the French Revolution, and the American Revolution.

The French and Americans were far more responsible than the British for putting an effective end to absolute monarchies. If one owns a widget making empire, perhaps industrialization is a greater force in the Modern World than democratization, but I think a fair argument can be made that, at least, a parity of effect exists.

The ascendency of English to the status of lingua franca is a dubious hallmark of the Modern World, but, to the extent that it is of any significance to post 18th century history, it is impossible to ignore the role America has played in it achievement.

Personally, I have a tremendous respect for English Common Law, however to suggest that it is a notable feature of the Modern World is quite arguable. A far more Modern body of law is the Napoleonic Code, and the fact that the British Empire imposed a form of law with origins in the Feudal Age on conquered and colonized lands is not a mark of modernity.

As for Englands impact on modern commerce, well I'll leave that to Setanta to debate.

I am an unabashed anglophile, and an admirer of the aggregate accomplishments of the British Empire, but to cite it as the founder of the Modern World is simply not accurate, and the claim that it is, is certainly difficult to tolerate from someone who consistently seeks to put the American Empire in its place.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 06:08 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
The British Empire is not and will never be a footnote in history. We founded the modern world.

Before we can consider the origins of the modern world we need, I suggest, to define the modern world.


Which you failed to do.

Britain was the first country to industrialise. The British Empire was truly global in reach. We spread the English language and British law and commercial trade practices around the world. Like it or hate it, globalisation, international banking, modern capitalism as we know it started with Britain and its Empire. Therein is Britain's claim to have founded the modern world imo.


Everyone has such thin skin around here. I absolutely agreed with your primary assertion that the British Empire will never be considered a footnote in history, but I contended that your claim, on behalf of the UK, to being the fount of modernity was arguable. Do you really believe it is not? Such absolute assurance in one's statements is remarkable, if not admirable.

You used the term "modern world," Steve and therefore I thought it might be most appropriate for you to offer a definition.

If the accepted definition of modernity is industrialization, then I suppose you are right, however, if I remember my history (and no doubt Setanta will correct me if I err here) the Modern World is defined by considerably more than industrialization. In fact, as I recall, the Industrial Revolution, which it can easily be argued the Brits took the lead with, is but one of three revolutions which are generally considered to have given birth to the Modern World. The other two, of course, are the French Revolution, and the American Revolution.

The French and Americans were far more responsible than the British for putting an effective end to absolute monarchies. If one owns a widget making empire, perhaps industrialization is a greater force in the Modern World than democratization, but I think a fair argument can be made that, at least, a parity of effect exists.

The ascendency of English to the status of lingua franca is a dubious hallmark of the Modern World, but, to the extent that it is of any significance to post 18th century history, it is impossible to ignore the role America has played in it achievement.

Personally, I have a tremendous respect for English Common Law, however to suggest that it is a notable feature of the Modern World is quite arguable. A far more Modern body of law is the Napoleonic Code, and the fact that the British Empire imposed a form of law with origins in the Feudal Age on conquered and colonized lands is not a mark of modernity.

As for Englands impact on modern commerce, well I'll leave that to Setanta to debate.

I am an unabashed anglophile, and an admirer of the aggregate accomplishments of the British Empire, but to cite it as the founder of the Modern World is simply not accurate, and the claim that it is, is certainly difficult to tolerate from someone who consistently seeks to put the American Empire in its place.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 06:10 pm
Sorry for the multiple postings - Not sure how that happened.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 06:19 pm
Setanta wrote:



Steve's statement is reasonable, and Finn, as usual, offers vague partisan invective and nothing of substance to refute Steve's statement.


Good gosh Setanta but you do have quite the hard on for me. Cool

Partisan invective? Rolling Eyes

You know, aloe and human urine is said to be an effective remedy for the venom of hornets and jellyfish, perhaps you should try it yourself since the sting of Finn seems to be having such a lasting effect on you. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 07:16 pm
You flatter yourself--i was just taking note of your typical lack of substance.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 07:20 pm
Welcome back Set :-o
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 07:22 pm
Cheers, Boss . . .


Say, have i ridiculed you and belittled you for your religious devotion lately?

I'm always here for you, you know . . .
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 07:23 pm
Thanks for the offer, Set. I'm trying to let the wounds heal before I volunteer for whipping boy....
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 07:26 pm
'K . . . i just want to help, Boss . . .
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 08:49 pm
Just picking up on Finn's point re the British Empire. I'd like to suggest ("suggest" and not "argue" because I'm not at all sure of my ground) that post Waterloo that Britain - and in particular during the entire reign of Queen Victoria - established itself as the dominant power in the world.

Now whether or not that's sufficient to support Steve's claim of modernity I'm not sure. But the Victorian age was quite remarkable for its adoption of technology and furthering industry (I'm not even going to talk about the social costs of that though).

On the common law. I find myself in agreement with Finn. The civil law of European countries (what I know of it anyway) seems much more progressive. If you were going to design a modern criminal justice system that met the needs of both the state and the people you wouldn't use the common law. Having said that I've spent my entire working life enveloped in it so I have an emotional attachment to it which is of course totally irrational.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 02:35 am
Lol! That's cos it's waaaaay tooscary to think of rescinding it and starting from scratch...
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 03:20 am
The Brits did think of it, in fact I think an official report suggested that it could be adopted (the criminal law anyway). A bloke called Ludovic Kennedy (former BBC newsreader) has written a couple of books and produced a couple of television series suggesting that the European system (especially the French system) should be adopted as it's less open to manipulation by investigators (Kennedy pointed the finger at the police in some cases).
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 07:42 am
McTag wrote:
Quote:
Yes one of our experiments, the USA, is not turning out so well.


Do I need to remind you that the experiment saved your and Britons ass in WW2 and western Europe during the cold war. As for bush he will eventually be swept into the dustpan of history.
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 06:43 pm
Not soon enough for our safety and sanity here in the US of A.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 06:57 pm
au1929 wrote:
McTag wrote:
Quote:
Yes one of our experiments, the USA, is not turning out so well.


Do I need to remind you that the experiment saved your and Britons ass in WW2 and western Europe during the cold war. As for bush he will eventually be swept into the dustpan of history.


You took your time getting into WW2 au - we needed a hand earlier than D-Day you know Razz
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2005 07:17 am
goodfielder
And you got it well before D day. If the Europeans did not spawn people like Hitler and Stalin you would not need the failed experiment to save your bacon.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Nov, 2005 08:05 am
au1929 wrote:
goodfielder
And you got it well before D day. If the Europeans did not spawn people like Hitler and Stalin you would not need the failed experiment to save your bacon.


I dont believe for one moment that America became involved in WW2 other than to address American geo-political imperatives. America never declared war on Hitler anyway, it was the other way round. You didn't get involved to save France or Norway or Poland or Ukraine. Sure British and American interests co-incided once the US was engaged. But how would an invasion of western europe be launched had not Britain held out against nazi Germany? Of course we appreciate what you did, and the Russians and the Canadians, Indians etc etc. We were allies, and still are. McTag was only joking anyway.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/27/2022 at 02:40:15