I fear we have a hardcore Anglophile on our hands.Originally Posted by sean '90
As long as his Anglophilia is borne of the Beatles rather than the Spice Girls, I can roll with it.
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- Savannah, GA
- Posts
- 1,450
I fear we have a hardcore Anglophile on our hands.
As long as his Anglophilia is borne of the Beatles rather than the Spice Girls, I can roll with it.
CynicHero '86, just curious, are you a neo-con, 'cause talking about the effective annexation of Latin America and most of Africa makes it sound like you are. And ,btw, we'd face ONE HELL OF AN INSURGENCY!
My anglophilia is, indeed , based off of Britain's wonderful music, but also because that is where constitutional government originated, and without their colonization of the Eastern Seaboard, America wouldn't even exist, nor would our saecular path be recognizable to us.
The Spice Girls were British
No, I'm actually opposed to bush's war in iraq because it has strained and streached our resources with excessive commitment to the persian gulf instead of using the force nessesary to destroy bin laden's forces in the afghan/pakistan border region.
Also Neocons generally oppose centralized effective government except in the case of hypercentralization of resources in the hands of corporate elites. I however support a different view; for america's internal policies, we should embrace the concept of centralized government that in which the government would be remote from the affairs of everyday people but at the same time would not be. In the case of an anglophone union the traditional states and provinces would still exist as political units but would be divided into smaller units of what i call regional governments. The regional governers as well as the regorganized state and provincial governers will answer directly to the central government and keep tabs on local matters.
Take heart. Rumour has it that a SG reunion is in the making.My anglophilia is, indeed , based off of Britain's wonderful music, but also because that is where constitutional government originated, and without their colonization of the Eastern Seaboard, America wouldn't even exist, nor would our saecular path be recognizable to us.
The Spice Girls were British
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King
I don't like your idea b/c you would probably have the British monarchy abolished, and I am a staunch monarchist and will never consent to see Her Majesty deposed. And your, 'annex South America and Africa', if attempted, that would make Iraq seem like a cakewalk!
Why should I take heart
Well technically the proposal would not be annexation, but rather using force to establish compliant governments in those regions. The incorporation of latin america and africa would model that of the soviet occupation of eastern europe.
Last edited by Cynic Hero '86; 08-01-2007 at 04:31 AM.
The nations of Europe have never developed an policy of assimilation although they had immigrants coming into those countries before From Italy, Belgium, Poland and Spain in the case of France, From Poland in the case of Germany, From Ireland in the case of Britain.
The ethnic groups various European nations are having trouble with are Muslim. The Islamic world has been stubbornly resisting westernization, because the Western and Islamic civilizations have been in conflict with each other for centuries and traditionally the Islamic world has seen the west as inferior infidels.
In the USA the pew research center estimated 2.35 million Muslims, one third of whom are African American converts. The number of Muslims who aren't African American converts is around 0.5% of the population.
In Australia and Canada they are around 2%, In many western European countries they are like 5-10% of the population. In Europe a lot of the Muslim population are very disadvantaged economically, i.e lots of welfare dependency and unemployment. Which contributes to the conflict, it happens to a lesser extent in Australia, among the Muslim Lebanese population who inhabit the South-western suburbs of Sydney.
However as I said earlier the views of many Muslims of Western Civilization is a major reason behind the conflict.
"The f****** place should be wiped off the face of the earth".
David Bowie on Los Angeles
Remanding true to the Quran means you have to spread the rule of Islamic law throughout the world, by violence if it must. You have to treat women and disbelievers as second class citizens.
For the Muslim world to modernize, it has to betray the principles of orthodox Islam and transform things very basic like family and gender relations.
Not to mention admitting a very hated rival is superior to them.
"The f****** place should be wiped off the face of the earth".
David Bowie on Los Angeles
CynicHero '86
Based on this post, it sounds as if you believe the USSR's policies in Eastern and Central Europe would be a good idea for America to follow? Do you? Methinks creating puppet states 'd be highly unpopular in Latin America and Africa. Not to mention completely contrary to American traditions. Not that those matter, apparently.
Hey, how do I get the eye-rolling smilies to actually roll their eyes?
If someone could go onto the Wikipedia entry for the German Empire, then scroll down to the section 'Constituent states of the empire', and post the top map of the Empire shown there. I can show and tell you how I'd like to see the Empire constituted in its modern resurrection. Hate to ask one of y'all to do this, but I don't know how to post things like that on here.
My rationale for the policies mentioned earlier is simple: The formation of an anglophone union would unite the anglo-american world under one nation, one culture, one language, one ideology. The conquest of latin america and africa would have two benefits, first the securing of new industrial and mineral wealth for our nation and people, second it would provide the manpower nessesary for america to succeed in the greatest task our nation has ever faced; the conquest of china. China has been growing in an exponential rate, and may very well one day be in the position to challenge us in a hegemonic war. In order to forestall this future threat we will need the manpower of latin america at our back, and the resources of africa in order to wage a land war against the chinese. Diplomacy should bring japan and south korea at our side. Also a successful conquest would ensure american prosperity for many generations to come. China would provide the resources to ensure a healthy future for our people.
Yep, you're off of your meds again.
I am simply suggesting a possible course of action that our nation could take in the future. Many have voiced doubts about how our economy could continue to sustain itself. Many others see potiental rivals as threats and not as possible partners.
You're NUTS!!!!!!
That's all I have to say.
No to American imperialism!!It makes me angry!
Ancient Mesopotamia, by Don Nardo
There are important lessons-general enough to be relevant to the present-from otherwise dissimilar historical periods.
"Lasting more than four centuries, the dynasty of the Kassite rulers turned out to be the longest and most stable that Babylon had ever experienced....
"Part of the reason for this stability was that Babylon's rulers did not waste their resources trying to create a huge empire beyond Mesopotamia's borders. In fact, the new international situation they faced made such a course very daunting, expensive, and risky. The powerful states of Mitanni and Hatti controlled Assyria and the onads north and west, and in the southwest, the Egyptians had recently burst out of their own homeland and taken control of Palestine. All of these foreign powers posed a serious threat to Babylonian territory and interests; moreover, each had developed the capability of moving armies quickly over long distances. As Leick puts it, 'a new era was beginning which drew the world of the whole ancient Near East closer together. This was not least due to technological changes in warfare.'....
"...three major military innovations...First came the widespread domestication of the horse, which was more often harnessed to chariots than ridden. Second was the perfection of woodworking techniques that allowed the construction of wheels with spokes and the manufacture of lightweight chariot bodies. The combination of faster draft animals and lighter vehicles made it possible to launch attacks by massed chariots on the battlefield. Thus, Babylonia, Mitanni, Hatti, and Egypt all developed chariot corps capable of charging and breaking up infantry formations....
"The third military innovation was a deadlier version of the simple bow. Called the composite bow, it was made by combining various separate materials to create a bow of greater elasticity and power...this was far superior to the performance of an ordinary bow. 'The effective development of the practical composite bow,' historian Trevor Watkins writes, 'introduced a rapid fire missle delivery system necessary for mounting on the fast new chariots.'"
As I have posted in the past, Babylon had a golden era. While their cousins the Assyrians chose an agressive, militaristic path to ruin, the Babylonians enjoyed peace and prosperity. (For about three centuries). The Babylonians weren't simply isolationist-they engaged in far flung trade. With their prosperity, they rebuilt and embellished cites. They displayed a significant degree of creativity.
While the Babylonians kept a low profile in international politics, their culture was was highly esteemed by the neighboring nations.
Someone please do this for me. You've got simple directions.
This period in Babylon is roughly comparable to the early Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire initially conserved its resources, built up a slender store of energy-to expend it in a dubious quest to reconquer the old Roman Empire.
The modern West has been compared to the Hellenistic Age. Nevertheless, the lesson is general enough to apply to the present. Imperialism has become-in cold blooded practical terms-a dubious proposition (unless you are a war profiteer) for the imperialist. Guerilla warfare has made it so. Wars against major powers will likely escalate to WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), devestating the aggressor.
The fading ability to dominate the rest of the world, however, need not mean the decline of the West. We might learn from the foreign policy of ancient Babylon, and build a brilliant future of peace, prosperity, and creativity.
Another policy of preventing national and economic collapse would be to increase the size of the armed forces. Many economic and social problems would be solved by maintaining a active duty force of 10-15 million troops and a reserve force of another 30 million. My proposal also includes the formation of a paramilitary internal security division which would field an additional 2-3 million troops.
The policy of forming links with latin america, africa, the anglosphere, and spain/portugal was actually mentioned by the geopolitical strategist Ralph Peters. While most of His ideas, particularly those regarding the Mideast are completely insane,; I do agree with him on the issue of that america should shift it's strategic focus away from Europe and the Mideast and toward latin america, africa and the far east.
Bad idea. I suggest you read Civilization: A New History of the Western World by Roger Osborne. Osborne states that the devastation wrought by the two world wars was the result of an increasing militarization of the state that started with the Napoleonic Wars.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
