What would a Russia vs United States of America war look like?

[Ray]

Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them

New evidence of British colonial atrocities has not changed our national ability to disregard it

Members of the Devon Regiment round up local people in a search for Mau Mau fighters in Kenya in 1954.

There is one thing you can say for the Holocaust deniers: at least they know what they are denying. In order to sustain the lies they tell, they must engage in strenuous falsification. To dismiss Britain's colonial atrocities, no such effort is required. Most people appear to be unaware that anything needs to be denied.

The story of benign imperialism, whose overriding purpose was not to seize land, labour and commodities but to teach the natives English, table manners and double-entry book-keeping, is a myth that has been carefully propagated by the rightwing press. But it draws its power from a remarkable national ability to airbrush and disregard our past.

Last week's revelations, that the British government systematically destroyed the documents detailing mistreatment of its colonial subjects, and that the Foreign Office then lied about a secret cache of files containing lesser revelations, is by any standards a big story. But it was either ignored or consigned to a footnote by most of the British press. I was unable to find any mention of the secret archive on the Telegraph's website. The Mail's only coverage, as far as I can determine, was an opinion piece by a historian called Lawrence James, who used the occasion to insist that any deficiencies in the management of the colonies were the work of "a sprinkling of misfits, incompetents and bullies", while everyone else was "dedicated, loyal and disciplined".

The British government's suppression of evidence was scarcely necessary. Even when the documentation of great crimes is abundant, it is not denied but simply ignored. In an article for the Daily Mail in 2010, for example, the historian Dominic Sandbrook announced that "Britain's empire stands out as a beacon of tolerance, decency and the rule of law "¦ Nor did Britain countenance anything like the dreadful tortures committed in French Algeria." Could he really have been unaware of the history he is disavowing?

Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.

Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.

Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.

No matter. Even those who acknowledge that something happened write as if Elkins and her work did not exist. In the Telegraph, Daniel Hannan maintains that just eleven people were beaten to death. Apart from that, "1,090 terrorists were hanged and as many as 71,000 detained without due process".

The British did not do body counts, and most victims were buried in unmarked graves. But it is clear that tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of Kikuyu died in the camps and during the round-ups. Hannan's is one of the most blatant examples of revisionism I have ever encountered.

Without explaining what this means, Lawrence James concedes that "harsh measures" were sometimes used, but he maintains that "while the Mau Mau were terrorising the Kikuyu, veterinary surgeons in the Colonial Service were teaching tribesmen how to deal with cattle plagues." The theft of the Kikuyu's land and livestock, the starvation and killings, the widespread support among the Kikuyu for the Mau Mau's attempt to reclaim their land and freedom: all vanish into thin air. Both men maintain that the British government acted to stop any abuses as soon as they were revealed.

What I find remarkable is not that they write such things, but that these distortions go almost unchallenged. The myths of empire are so well-established that we appear to blot out countervailing stories even as they are told. As evidence from the manufactured Indian famines of the 1870s and from the treatment of other colonies accumulates, British imperialism emerges as no better and in some cases even worse than the imperialism practised by other nations. Yet the myth of the civilising mission remains untroubled by the evidence.

"¢ A fully referenced version of this article can be found at George Monbiot

Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[HMS Astute]

Do you mean to say people living in the US must not criticize American policies or show appreciation or approval of any other countries. Why ?

it is quite odd to criticise and constantly bash the country which you "chose" to immigrate and live. if i strongly dislike china, and bash their people, policy, government, living standard and wealth etc. then i would not "choose" to live there at the first place, because i regard this country inferior to other countries i admire.

 

[Ray]

The British Colonialisation of India is regarded by many as a war between a highly superior Western Power and the many smaller kingdoms of the Indian Subcontinent. One that went on till the time the British finally left the subcontinent in 1947. One by one it defeated them all and some it pressured into accepting the British takeover with the threat of losing their kingdoms if they failed to oblige. During this time the British imposed themselves on the weaker people of what is now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and looted and pillaged the region of its extraordinary wealth. Before the arrival of the British, India was known far and wide as the richest civilisation of the world. To achieve their goal of stealing India's wealth they carried out unspeakable human rights violations with rapes, beatings, torture and slavery widespread all the while holding a tight control of the media. Much of what went on was unreported to the press. Today, this part of British history is also carefully hidden from British school history curriculums and the right winged British media. The story of benign imperialism, whose overriding purpose was not to seize land, labour and commodities but to teach the natives English, table manners and double-entry book-keeping, is a myth that has been carefully propagated by the rightwing press. The fact that the British victory over Indian kingdoms was as a result of wars has been denied to avoid the classifications of these crimes to be listed as war crimes.

 

[Ray]

it is quite odd to criticise and constantly bash the country which you "chose" to immigrate and live. if i strongly dislike china, and bash their people, policy, government, living standard and wealth etc. then i would not "choose" to live there, because i regard this country inferior to other countries i admire.

I find it odd that you criticise the very country on whose wealth your Empire rested.

You lost India and the Empire crumbled like a pack of cards so much so you had to suffer the ignominy at the hand of the Chinese.

Beijing says UK 'insignificant' despite PM's soft diplomacy on China visit

"Moreover, Britain is no longer any kind of 'big country,' but merely a country of old Europe suitable for tourism and overseas study, with a few decent football teams."
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/business/As-Cameron-visits--China-paper-criticises-Britain_15569532

 

[HMS Astute]

I find it odd that you criticise the very country on whose wealth your Empire rested.

didn't know russia played a huge role during 18th/19th century and helped build the world's largest empire in human history. thanks for the info, though.

 

[asianobserve]

There can be no war between Russia and the US. Both have nukes.

True.

The West has very little natural resources and so are dependent from non Western sources.

I think this is not very accurate. The West have a lot of natural resources but in many cases there are plenty of restrictions on their exploitations. The US for example has just become the biggest oil producer in the World. A lot of EU countries can actually produce oil and gas if only they are not too environmentally restrictive.

But you know what I have in mind? I think after exploiting their own resources during the Industrial Revolution and early 20th century Western countries have come to the conclusion that natural resources are not infinite and that eventually they will run out. So it's better to exploit other countries' natural resources first before using going back to their own. Of course this is only my wild idea.

The West however has technology. Even that is on the downswing, what with China having stolen most of it and now will be in a position to use it to ride the waves in the non western world.

True.

Given the imperialist and colonial history and the atrocities and arrogance the colonies and even non colonies, who have been interfered with, like China, these countries are not really comfortable with the West.

Please explain why a lot of Chinese want to migrate to the West. The same thing with Indians.

More so, the attitude that the West is the sole morals keeper and all they do is to save mankind and freedom, does not actually wash. It is taken to be arrogant hyperbole since much of their action turns out to be immoral when analysed (as what is happening in the Middle East to include the sack of Iraq and Afghanistan).

At least there's some semblance of moral rules under them. Just imagine a World dominated by Russia or China. Everyone is free to do what they like because there's no hypocrisy! No thanks. I can live with hypocrisy.

While the erstwhile colonies and those slighted will not side with Russia, yet, they will be more sympathetic to the Russian cause.

Just look at the countries lining up to support Russia in Ukraine...

I am personally more favourable to the West, but then the cavalier manner in which the West imposes itself on others without cause is what rankles.

Well they are really not innocent. But who is? Each country have their own interest to promote and the current dominant powers have theirs too. If India becomes the No. 1 power in the World I'm sure it too will be accused of some degree of hypocrisy.

The British Parliament wants to discuss human rights in Kashmir, when it had already endorsed that the issue is bilateral between India and Pakistan.

Pray sir, who gave you the right to intervene? Are you still our colonial masters imagining we, the natives, are running around the bush naked with a bone through our noses scampering like frenzied savages with spears in our hands?

All politics is local. I'm sure there are local pressures to that measure. But you know what Human Rights is good. It is good for Kashmir as it is good for Tibet, if you know what I mean.

Pray, kind sir, be good enough to discuss in your Parliament the atrocities and indignities you heaped on the natives of your colonies.

In Malaysia we are not bitter about the British period. In fact it is widely believe here that we owe in some degree our success to out education and civil service foundation that the British left.

In fact if you look at the World map, the most economically successful countries at present are former colonies of the British Empire (not all colonies though).

 

[pmaitra]

didn't know russia played a huge role during 18th/19th century and helped build the world's largest empire in human history. thanks for the info, though.

Don't worry, Mt Blencathra has been bought off by an Indian. Once your supply of the mountainous green stuff depletes, you will regain your senses, and begin understanding the posts you are quoting.

 

[Razor]

it is quite odd to criticise and constantly bash the country which you "chose" to immigrate and live. if i strongly dislike china, and bash their people, policy, government, living standard and wealth etc. then i would not "choose" to live there at the first place, because i regard this country inferior to other countries i admire.

How do you know he has immigrated ?
How do you know the reasons he chose to go to the US for ? Maybe he has gone to the US because there are better research facilities, what relevance does better research facilities with US policies ? Maybe he wants to make more money. If he had gone to the US for some research and then said the research facilities in the US suck in comparison to Indian research facilities and then continued to live in the US then what you said would begin to make sense.
But then it would still have no relevance to the matter of the thread except that it helps hide your loss of face.

Also you have avoided answering the other questions I posted earlier.

Do you mean to say people living in the US must not criticize American policies or show appreciation or approval of any other countries. Why ?
Is the US a police state ? Is he breaking any law ?

Also how relevant is his location to the points being made in the discussion ?
Are you trying to divert attention away from the fact that you have nothing else to say ?

PS: Russia is the leader of Muslim world ?? What do you smoke ?

You can answer this if you want.
Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing pmaitra's location or visa status anymore. It has no relevance to topic. You can discuss it with your pals here.

 

[pmaitra]

it is quite odd to criticise and constantly bash the country which you "chose" to immigrate and live. if i strongly dislike china, and bash their people, policy, government, living standard and wealth etc. then i would not "choose" to live there at the first place, because i regard this country inferior to other countries i admire.

It is quote odd that a person who "chooses" to live in Britain, a country that lost 450,900 in WWII, constantly lends his vocal support for the Nazi-Fascists in Ukraine, thereby insulting the memories of 450,900 of his own countrymen.

I extend he same question to @asianobserver, as to why he insults the sacrifices of 420,000 Americans in WWII on a daily basis, and yet, keeps up this façade of "pro-Americanism." Or is it because it is a new trend in the US government circles, such as John McCain, Vuctoria Nuland, et al.?

 

[asianobserve]

It is quote odd that a person who "chooses" to live in Britain, a country that lost 450,900 in WWII, constantly lends his vocal support for the Nazi-Fascists in Ukraine, thereby insulting the memories of 450,900 of his own countrymen.

I extend he same question to @asianobserver, as to why he insults the sacrifices of 420,000 Americans in WWII on a daily basis, and yet, keeps up this façade of "pro-Americanism." Or is it because it is a new trend in the US government circles, such as John McCain, Vuctoria Nuland, et al.?

Now you're entering a new level of confusion. Why is supporting Ukraine in the crisis with Russia insulting the lives of allied soldiers killed in WW2?

 

[pmaitra]

Now you're entering a new level of confusion. Why is supporting Ukraine in the crisis with Russia insulting the lives of allied soldiers killed in WW2?

Absolutely not. You are a blind supporter of the Nazi Fascist sympathizers in the US government.

You insult the sacrifices of those Americans who fought the Nazis. You do it on a daily basis. You are not alone. So does McCain. So does Kerry. So does the US government, that defends a person who reiterated the ideology of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

You are all a façade. Nothing more.

You are not pro-American. You are pro-evil. That's how I see it.

You are also anti-American because your attitude is just the opposite of what the US Constitution says, that all men are created equal. Which is why, you cry hoarse when the Malaysian Airliner was shot down, but try to justify the people getting slaughtered in E. Ukraine.

I am not surprised that you kept repeating the word "hypocrite" so many times in the past several days.

 

[HMS Astute]

if you don't like anything about the country you chose to immigrant and live, feel free to gtfo of there and move somewhere you admire and are truly proud of, eg russa. lol. simple as that.

 

[Razor]

my statement is simple. if you don't anything about the country you chose to immigrant and live, feel free to gtfo of there and move somewhere you admire and are truly proud of, eg russa. lol

My statement is also simple: It's none of your fcuking business and there is zilch you can do about it. Keep to the topic.

 

[Mad Indian]

if you don't like anything about the country you chose to immigrant and live, feel free to gtfo of there and move somewhere you admire and are truly proud of, eg russa. lol. simple as that.

Indians would get out of the west the moment they recover back all the wealth that had been stolen from us by the colonial dogs. You can speed up the process by giving it back yourself:thumb:

PS: May be UK deserves pakistanisation just for their attitude

 

[HMS Astute]

Indians would get out of the west the moment they recover back all the wealth that had been stolen from us by the colonial dogs. You can speed up the process by giving it back yourself:thumb:

PS: May be UK deserves pakistanisation just for their attitude

There wasn't as much theft as you would like to try and paint. You're confusing Empires as it was the Spanish who were into the "loot and pillage" end of the market which is why their colonial power fell on it's face so rapidly. The whole reason behind the British Empire was to start trading links. This then developed into building infrastructure and thus creating more wealth for business export and for those who worked and lived around it, native or otherwise. If Britain had just helped itself and moved on (much like the majority of other European imperial powers) then you would see far more of the disastrous effects today. As it is some of Britains previous colonies are some of the most successful countries in the world - India is an up and coming economic giant, there's Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a little country that's done quite well for itself called the United States of America. British Empire built so many infrastructures, including roads, bridges, railways, and buildings in it's colonies. Empire opened the doors of modernity to India All that is best about India - its tolerance, freedom and engagement with the world has flourished due to the structures and ideas it inherited from British rule. , Indians have built upon much of what Britain introduced them to - the English language, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and the protection of individual rights - is an admission of the crucial role this country played in their history. May be you can speed up the process by giving all those back yourself? :thumb:

Designed by the prominent British architect Herbert Baker.

 

[Ray]

I think this is not very accurate. The West have a lot of natural resources but in many cases there are plenty of restrictions on their exploitations. The US for example has just become the biggest oil producer in the World. A lot of EU countries can actually produce oil and gas if only they are not too environmentally restrictive.

But you know what I have in mind? I think after exploiting their own resources during the Industrial Revolution and early 20th century Western countries have come to the conclusion that natural resources are not infinite and that eventually they will run out. So it's better to exploit other countries' natural resources first before using going back to their own. Of course this is only my wild idea.

Sahle Oi

Conventional Oil

THE OIL WORLD MAP
This is an interactive map in Flash which shows the 30 top countries with the most oil reserves as reported by the ASPO statistics. Moving the mouse over any of the marked countries shows this data:
(a) ranking, (b) name, (c) total of present reserves+discoveries, (d) present reserves and expected future discoveries in brackets, (e) how long their oil would last if the world was using only it*, and (f) the year their production peaked/is expected to peak.
Ranking is based on total reserves (known and future); the length of time also uses this figure.

Note: the map only indicates conventional oil because, with unconventional oils, the production rate is more important than the reserves (see Unconventional Oils). It is misleading to directly compare a conventional oilfield in Saudi Arabia, for instance, with the tar sands fields in Canada.

Environmental issue is the standard fig leaf. The actual reason is 'strategic reserves'.

Indeed, you are right. Get the others oil reserve down so as to make them economically moribund after a sudden boom!

Please explain why a lot of Chinese want to migrate to the West. The same thing with Indians.

Better opportunities.

In the imperial days, even third rate characters came to the colonies to better their lot, since the colonies were where the pot of gold lay at the end of the rainbow. The west, at least a few years back, gave better education, job employment and so people left for western shores. Now, with the US economy tottering, the exodus is less, at least for India. Europe still beckons with low skilled workers since the Europeans want to lord over but are shy to dirty their hands with blue collar jobs. Further, the third world labour can be exploited with low wages, giving the white entrepreneurs a fat profit.

The Chinese are moving out (though a Chinese poster would be able to explain way better) is because the competition is way to high in China with their Gaokao (National Higher Education Eaamination). It is easier to enter a Western University. Further, there are those who have made dubious fortunes as oligarchs who are afraid that they will be nabbed. And so they go.

At least there's some semblance of moral rules under them. Just imagine a World dominated by Russia or China. Everyone is free to do what they like because there's no hypocrisy! No thanks. I can live with hypocrisy.

Morals?

Come again!

You are a victim of propaganda that has been so well purveyed like butter over bread. If there were morals, would they do the atrocities they did in the colonies or the US in countries that they regime changed?

The missionaries came to 'save the souls' of the heathens and the harangue was taken to be true. But now with education and realisation one realises that the 'morals' are but a hoax, so much so a Bishop (Christian, if you will) called Desmond Tutu was constrained to state = When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.

So, that much for the morals and those who believe it are duly brainwashed.

If they had morals, then two Indian officials who did crimes during the CWG should have been hauled over the coals as all in India was expecting it to happen, more so when a British commentator stated that 'In Great Britain, law is supreme and rank and position does not affect the dispensation of justice'! What happened, within the day, they were released because of 'lack of evidence'. If there was no evidence, then why arrest them in the first place? Could it be political pragmatism that ruled the morals?

Much that I could be a Macaulay's legacy, I have the brains to sift the wheat from the chaff and not get bowled over by flim flam.

Just look at the countries lining up to support Russia in Ukraine..

.

Has anyone spoken against Russia?

Well they are really not innocent. But who is? Each country have their own interest to promote and the current dominant powers have theirs too. If India becomes the No. 1 power in the World I'm sure it too will be accused of some degree of hypocrisy.

Of course any country will support its interest and promote it.

However, they should not pose to be 'purer than the snow of Mt Etna' when they are upto their dirty tricks, with their media and propaganda machine howling blue murder!

All politics is local. I'm sure there are local pressures to that measure. But you know what Human Rights is good. It is good for Kashmir as it is good for Tibet, if you know what I mean.

Of course.

Then be upfront.

You say they have high morals.

Is this morality or hypocrisy?

What about Human Rights in Britain, past & present?

Do they debate that? Or are they to sit in Judgement over others.

Their attitude is well covered by an Indian proverb - Sau chuhe khake billi haj ko chali?. It means having devoured 100 rats, the cat goes for pilgrimage!

In Malaysia we are not bitter about the British period. In fact it is widely believe here that we owe in some degree our success to out education and civil service foundation that the British left.

That is the goodness of Orientals.

We overlook the atrocities and only look to the good done by people.

Same is applicable in India and elsewhere.

However, when one wants to ride the high horse on morality, then the bitterness and irony surface to remind them that they do not have the moral rights to pose as the Worlds Moral Keeper.

In fact if you look at the World map, the most economically successful countries at present are former colonies of the British Empire (not all colonies though).

Successful?

In what way?

You think Malaysia is successful? Think again. You are a strife ridden country. Religious intolerance is rising, but you can to nothing since the Chinese overwhelm your economy!

 

[Mad Indian]

There wasn't as much theft as you would like to try and paint. You're confusing Empires as it was the Spanish who were into the "loot and pillage" end of the market which is why their colonial power fell on it's face so rapidly. The whole reason behind the British Empire was to start trading links. This then developed into building infrastructure and thus creating more wealth for business export and for those who worked and lived around it, native or otherwise. If Britain had just helped itself and moved on (much like the majority of other European imperial powers) then you would see far more of the disastrous effects today. As it is some of Britains previous colonies are some of the most successful countries in the world - India is an up and coming economic giant, there's Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a little country that's done quite well for itself called the United States of America. British Empire built so many infrastructures, including roads, bridges, railways, and buildings in it's colonies. Empire opened the doors of modernity to India All that is best about India - its tolerance, freedom and engagement with the world has flourished due to the structures and ideas it inherited from British rule. , Indians have built upon much of what Britain introduced them to - the English language, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and the protection of individual rights - is an admission of the crucial role this country played in their history. May be you can speed up the process by giving all those back yourself? :thumb:

Lol. Freedom and shit. Where did you get that shit? From your ass? We had to fight for our fuking freedom with blood and sacrifice ass hole just like the rest of the world The only infrastructure developed were those that helped you loot our country faster. The only reason all the countries in the third world are so poor and third worldy are because of the european dogs who colonized them and who now have the guts to call them the third world.

This is also why these allied dogs who have killed far more and far wide than the Nazis ever did are the worst of the scum in this world. But of course havibg a big PR helped these dogs hide their shit in the name of civilisation. The bigest irony today is the British dogs talking about atrocity of the Nazi regime. Atleast the germans apologized and were truly sorry for their crimes.

As I said the british dogs deserve to be treated as scum and deserve evry bit of pakistanisation there is. I hope pakistanis out breed and conquer them. Now that would be the day I would believe god really exists.

 

[Razor]

Lol. Freedom and shit. Where did you get that shit? From your ass? We had to fight for our fuking freedom with blood and sacrifice ass hole just like the rest of the world The only infrastructure developed were those that helped you loot our country faster. The only reason all the countries in the third world are so poor and third worldy are because of the european dogs who colonized them and who now have the guts to call them the third world.

This is also why these allied dogs who have killed far more and far wide than the Nazis ever did are the worst of the scum in this world. But of course havibg a big PR helped these dogs hide their shit in the name of civilisation. The bigest irony today is the British dogs talking about atrocity of the Nazi regime. Atleast the germans apologized and were truly sorry for their crimes.

As I said the british dogs deserve to be treated as scum and deserve evry bit of pakistanisation there is. I hope pakistanis out breed and conquer them. Now that would be the day I would believe god really exists.

Truth in poetic form.
Completely agree on the third world part, Nazi part. But the Britainistan part maybe a little too much. There doesn't seem to be any recovery from Islamization. I don't know if anybody should be left to that fate.

 

[HMS Astute]

Lol. Freedom and shit. Where did you get that shit? From your ass? We had to fight for our fuking freedom with blood and sacrifice ass hole just like the rest of the world The only infrastructure developed were those that helped you loot our country faster. The only reason all the countries in the third world are so poor and third worldy are because of the european dogs who colonized them and who now have the guts to call them the third world.

This is also why these allied dogs who have killed far more and far wide than the Nazis ever did are the worst of the scum in this world. But of course havibg a big PR helped these dogs hide their shit in the name of civilisation. The bigest irony today is the British dogs talking about atrocity of the Nazi regime. Atleast the germans apologized and were truly sorry for their crimes.

As I said the british dogs deserve to be treated as scum and deserve evry bit of pakistanisation there is. I hope pakistanis out breed and conquer them. Now that would be the day I would believe god really exists.

not surprised why china was not totally colonized and why it is now more advanced, powerful and stronger than india. mate.

 

[Ray]

There wasn't as much theft as you would like to try and paint. You're confusing Empires as it was the Spanish who were into the "loot and pillage" end of the market which is why their colonial power fell on it's face so rapidly. The whole reason behind the British Empire was to start trading links. This then developed into building infrastructure and thus creating more wealth for business export and for those who worked and lived around it, native or otherwise. If Britain had just helped itself and moved on (much like the majority of other European imperial powers) then you would see far more of the disastrous effects today. As it is some of Britains previous colonies are some of the most successful countries in the world - India is an up and coming economic giant, there's Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a little country that's done quite well for itself called the United States of America. British Empire built so many infrastructures, including roads, bridges, railways, and buildings in it's colonies. Empire opened the doors of modernity to India All that is best about India - its tolerance, freedom and engagement with the world has flourished due to the structures and ideas it inherited from British rule. , Indians have built upon much of what Britain introduced them to - the English language, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and the protection of individual rights - is an admission of the crucial role this country played in their history. May be you can speed up the process by giving all those back yourself? :thumb:

You are a victim of British historical manipulation.

Thieves you were and of that there is no doubt.

Oliver Twists turning:

"I am monarch of all I survey,
My right there is none to dispute,
From the centre all round to the sea,
I am lord of the fowl and the brute.
O solitude! Where are the charms
That sages have seen in thy face?
Better dwell in the midst of alarms,
Than reign in this horrible place."


"• William Cowper, The Poetical Works Of William Cowper

Beggars to upstarts and living of the riches of others!