Real World Event Discussions
450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us .
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, May 22, 2009 14:59
VIEWED: 29463
PAGE 39 of 46
Monday, May 18, 2009 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Cit, I won't repost your excellent long post. I guess I agree with most of it, but do think US modern expansion has also been about resources, oil and other fossil fuels would be one example, but also about opening new markets, as you infer.
I also think that Britain did leave its stamp of culture on its colonies. India has a whole era of Raj architecture, particularly the administrative buildings which is very British. You introduced English as the administrative language and language of the educated to most of your colonies. Aspiring classes adopted British manners, fashions and accent, even sending their kids away to British schools to be more British.
Sure, there was cultural bleed, but largely in it's colonies Britain adapted local rule to a British flavor of what came before, that is you had a British Raj of India, not a governor. India didn't get absorbed by Britain, it didn't become completely anglicised, it became British Administered India. This is uniquely different to territorial empires, Gaul wasn't merely administered by Rome, it was Roman. California isn't Administered by Washington, it's every bit as American as New England. I think that's a fairly big difference.
Now sure America has switched from territorial expansion to more gun boat diplomacy like that of Commodore Perry's 1850's trips to Japan, but even that is rather different to European Colonialism. European Colonialism saw the vassalisation of a foreign nation as the first step in colonisation. Especially Britain which depended heavily on the strategy of divide and conquer (take one local belligerent under your influence, get them to fight the other guy, then take over both when war has crippled them). Making a state your vassal was the first step to the goal of colonisation for the European powers, while America's end goal is to make them a vassal. But while America is trying to open markets, albeit with preferential trade agreements, the European powers were trying to close them.
I just find the reasons behind European and American expansion to be almost polar opposites, while the tactics for creating and holding that expansion are similarly unalike.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 18, 2009 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Banned by who? "Restricted" by who?
Restricted is a information classification, denoting only people with security clearance of Restricted and above can be given unrestricted access to that information or area. Restricted is actually not very high at all, MOD cleaners have to have Restricted level clearance. Of course any secure information or area is subject to need to know, if you don't need to know, then it doesn't matter how high your clearance or how low it's classification, if you don't need to know, you don't get to know. But that would be true of how many paper clips the MOD buys if it was secure information, if it has a security classification, it's automatically need to know.
As for Nuclear Technology being restricted, I highly doubt it. Restricted is the lowest tier of Military security clearance in the UK, denoting "Information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which would be UNDESIRABLE for the UK and it's interests".
I would suspect that Nuclear Weapons being "disclosed" without authorisation would be a little more than undesirable. The classification for UK nuclear weapons and capability would actually fall under Secret and Top Secret.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 18, 2009 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Banned by who? "Restricted" by who?
Restricted is a information classification, denoting only people with security clearance of Restricted and above can be given unrestricted access to that information or area. Restricted is actually not very high at all, MOD cleaners have to have Restricted level clearance. Of course any secure information or area is subject to need to know, if you don't need to know, then it doesn't matter how high your clearance or how low it's classification, if you don't need to know, you don't get to know. But that would be true of how many paper clips the MOD buys if it was secure information, if it has a security classification, it's automatically need to know.
As for Nuclear Technology being restricted, I highly doubt it. Restricted is the lowest tier of Military security clearance in the UK, denoting "Information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which would be UNDESIRABLE for the UK and it's interests".
I would suspect that Nuclear Weapons being "disclosed" without authorisation would be a little more than undesirable. The classification for UK nuclear weapons and capability would actually fall under Secret and Top Secret.
Oh, I totally get that, Cit - I was being a bit snarky to finn's claims, and trying to point out that maybe, just maybe, the whole world really isn't required to do as we say, not as we do.
I do find it odd, though, and more than a bit ironic: Here we are telling the entire WORLD what they can and can't do, yet we're still discussing whether or not we're an "empire".
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 18, 2009 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, I totally get that, Cit - I was being a bit snarky to finn's claims, and trying to point out that maybe, just maybe, the whole world really isn't required to do as we say, not as we do.
I thought so, but I'm a bit perturbed at how Finn seems to be confusing internal information security with international weapons bans, and also claiming that nuclear technology would have the lowest level of Security protection.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 18, 2009 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Few empires have been as brutal as that one, which surprisingly only lasted a few years anyway. Maybe you should think about the British Empire, which did a whole lot of building, roads and transport,public building, established justice and democratic government systems, education and so on its empire building.
The British Empire was the exception...and its early history showed it traveling along that same old tyrannical path. But for the Liberal revolution...they'd have likely done much of the same.
Most empire had the brutality of the Nazis. Rome killed a lot of folks, the Soviets killed by the tens of millions, the Mongols were not know for tea and biscuits, I think one guy had an affinity for mountains of skulls, Microsoft...
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 18, 2009 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Rome and the US have conquered territory and then absorbed them , while Britain conquered territory and administered it.
Yeah, that's exactly what's happened. Only, it's not remotely true.
Wow. Just wow.
Do you ever get tired of being so wrong for so long, Rappy?
I don't see the distinction.
British policy until last century was to "make the world England".
The US has its share of imperial history. But it was a late comer to a game that Europe, especially England, had already mastered.
England's biggest distinction from traditional empires is the relative ease and peaceful nature of much of its decolonization. Although the effectiveness of the effort can be argued since successful 19th and 20th Century decolonization in places like India, Australia, and Canada are offset by most of Africa.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 18, 2009 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The British Empire was the exception...and its early history showed it traveling along that same old tyrannical path. But for the Liberal revolution...they'd have likely done much of the same.
Most empire had the brutality of the Nazis. Rome killed a lot of folks, the Soviets killed by the tens of millions, the Mongols were not know for tea and biscuits, I think one guy had an affinity for mountains of skulls, Microsoft...
2009.
What Liberal revolution are you referring to? I must have skipped class the day they taught that one.
Most European countries were empires of varying sizes until the the late 19th Century. Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Spain all had territories. Hell, even Italy attempted to colonise Ethiopia (and did so briefly). They've all left their various legacies, which you do when you manipulate power for your own ends.
As for the Romans, you've made me do it...
eg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 18, 2009 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not sure about Hawaii, the annexation to a territory was made by vote rather than conflict wasn't it? I believe the legality is questioned, because the vote only took place in the US Government, so it could just be the case that the US voted to annex Hawaii, then when they turned up in Hawaii to tell the natives they just shrugged their shoulders and said whatever.
We did kind of overthrow their government...just a little.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 18, 2009 1:49 PM
Quote:Nuclear technology is marked “Restricted Data” by the US and NATO. The UK sometimes has a different marking for it, but it amounts to the same thing.
Originally posted by citizen:
As for Nuclear Technology being restricted, I highly doubt it. Restricted is the lowest tier of Military security clearance in the UK, denoting "Information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which would be UNDESIRABLE for the UK and it's interests".
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, May 18, 2009 1:53 PM
Quote:You need to read posts more carefully.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, I totally get that, Cit - I was being a bit snarky to finn's claims, and trying to point out that maybe, just maybe, the whole world really isn't required to do as we say, not as we do.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME