@33guyfawkes If the British Empire wasn't powerful we'd all be speaking French or Spanish right now. We'd commenting about the oppressive nature of those Empires if ever we'd won our independence. lol If not, we'd probably be commenting in Spanish or French about how great the Spanish or French Empires were.
@UnitedKingdomify i agree that all empires are bad however, why not speak both english or spanish or even french? whats the problem? when did intelligence become a bad thing? its less evil than conquest or colonization which benefits a few not the many! besides the english hate the french because they ARE french haha
@alinsatx I only meant that if the British hadn't been powerful we'd have been conquered by, probably the French, post-Battle of Trafalgar (if the British had lost it) meaning French would very likely have been our first language. Got nothing against languages, lol, I speak English and German. {xD
I like the Spanish. But the French, pfft, they're just so... frickin' French. {=|
@UnitedKingdomify what all forget is that when you conquer to absord, at the end of the conflict, you may have to feed the ones you conquered ! therein lies the uk, same as the usa , unable to manage what they wanted. best to mind ones own business and support your own land and people, but no one has yet learned that. if that was done all cultures would be welcomed as freinds and guests NOT dependants! but the people we keep in power know how to use all of us for their own gain
alina, you are correct in your words of wisdom. America was a far happier land when it was an Isolationist country. When te US was self sufficient in everything and interracted with the rest of the world only when it was to sell its excess goods.
Damn these global elites past and present. The dignity of entire nations and peoples are sacrificed for greed and gluttony.
@suryavajra i do agree however, we as sheep keep re electing the all the bad ones. think what our countries would be, had our founders, of any nation, NOT had the courage and moral constitution to actually declare freedom and independance! we would all be slaves still, or are we still? all nations need leaders with a real conviction to help their people not just their bank accounts !!
Well remember alinsatx. the Anti-federalists and the Confederation of States has been airbrushed out of American history. Even when they are mentioned, they are usually portrayed as being foolish and out of touch.
Our country has essentially become what the High Federalists wanted it to be.
@suryavajra exactly ! we are stupid enough to follow what they tell us and accept it as the only option.they also know exactly how to use religion as well, to manipulate the masses.thomas jefferson said it correctly " an entity that controls all of the money, poses a bigger threat to ones liberty and freedom than a standing army from the enemy" benjamin franklin , i think, " this system and concept of a republic will only work with a moral and honest people:..keywords moral and honest !!!!
@suryavajra outstanding..diehards here..4th generation. will take my grandsons to fedex this year to their 1st game!! i make at least 1 maybe 2 games a year to see them, moreso when we have the friggin cryboys, hate them !! maybe one day we see a game and share a few beers and be unpolitically correct. that crap gets old also.i rather just say what you think and discuss !!
@suryavajra well i tell ya coach shanahan is smart . patience wait and see. that game may happen.no way the cryboys coaching staff compares to the skins ! we stay in touch, pick a game and maybe we plan to meet for a game...
Sounds awesome! Don't know if I'll be in D.C any time soon though, as I am living in Indiana. But I definitely wanna catch a Redskins game!
Well what I really like about the Redskins is that back in the '80s they experimented with some really cool formations. Trips and Three Tight End sets...
@suryavajra easy. get free aire maybe we set a cool sports bar there, wear our colors and raise a little hell seeing a game...course in the 80s we had RIGGOOOO. dam we could use riggins now ! and a few others from that time..
@suryavajra i read where coach is planning a move, a big one towards that. we do need a QB really bad. manning has been mentioned but i dont see that happening unless Indy comes up with added drafts or players. our QB sucks then again so did 49's smith for years until now. i think coach has one in mind and will trade up for him. redskins report likes that QB from baylor and so does coach. i also see a wide receiver being signed on, possibly the one from chargers thats a free agent.
Living in Indy, there are some growing signs that Manning might be planning on some kinda move. Irsay has indicated the team is moving in a new direction and Manning is not comfortable with the old personnel forced to leave.
@suryavajra i read the same story and manning and our coach seem to be on the same track so far. i dont see it happening unless concessions are added both ways. i think we will draft up and try the manning, if we do as a separate deal. thats why i think that receiver from either the colts or chargers will be a part of, as they are free agents.so far shanahan has been pretty good at drafting pieces overall..
these wankers seem to forget that it took TWO bloody World Wars (thank you German Bastards) to knock us down as the World Power.
To put things in perspective look at how 9/11 took a toll on the US economy.
Now imagine the severity of bombings during the Battle of Britain.
It was like we had our 9/11 everyday only our 'terrorists' had Luftwaffe bombers (not civilian jets) and Fighter/dive bombers (that shreiking hellish cursed banshee "Ju-Junkers Stuka") arrgh!!!
@Dansito123 yeah ok idiot. you cant even bring yourself to argue what im "wrong" about. you clearly are a 13 year old child still drinking his mothers milk.
The British Empire just changed its names, They are now known as the Commonwealth or Queens realm, Britain,Canada,Australia,N.Z.N.I,etc,etc all have the same Queen & head of state. However a new ages and a new name, Just when people go bankrupt they start a new business anouther name same shit lol.
@suryavajra What you dont think so? The Queen is the head of state & queen of many nations from around the world. The Queens Realm & Commonwealth, Just research! The Queen has Armies & territory from around the world. Also the NATO Alliance AKA Britain its former Colonies & Europe. The British have family from the world, We all look out for each other and WE ARE UNITED!
@suryavajra I notice you are from the US? Look into your short history! Also the U.K-Canada,Australia,N.Z,etc,etc we are all Family. The Queens Realm! You should research the relations and history of the Empire and modern relations. We still stand united and have same the Queen, As you would say in the states commander and chief. Also the U.S is loyal to the Queens and her Realm. The Empire still stands just under anouther name and part of an Alliance-NATO. Research!
@suryavajra Yes, Remember it was the British Goverment who gave the 13 Colonies(US) Independance. The King wanted to carry on the war. US is part British from laws,culture,language,democracy,etc. However today the US is loyal to the Queen & Realm and her agenda. The Former Empire, Still stands they have the same Queen and head of state. The Empire has gone, But the Commonwealth and Queens Realm will stand for a thousands years.
Bull crap. The US was formed in opposition to British poltical system. The establishment of the US government was truly revolutionary back then as it is now. The Empire, soon followd by the Commonwealth, has gone the way of the dodo...lol!
@suryavajra Gone? The Queens Realm/Commonwealth still stands united. We all have the same Queen & commander and chief. The US revolution was for Greed & Profit, It was the British Goverment who gave the US "Independence" the day the real American people lost their Freedom, The Natives!!! The US and British are very much the same in everyway, You just cant hide your British roots. The language gives it away too much, The Culture,laws,agendas,life,etc...
@suryavajra The American Revolution was all about greed, There was no tyranny in the 13 Colonies. The British refused to let the Colonial immigrants expand into American Native nations, The Britsh started to tax the Colonials immigrants. Remember Britain was broke from the first global war, George Washington in British Uniform started that war. You do realise in America they tax immigrants the same as the British did & do, The Americans lost ther Freedom & occupation thats tyranny!
5.British soldiers quartered among colonials without permission ever asked of the families.
6. Colonials NOT accepted as officers in the REGULAR British army because they were born in America.
7. Mercenaries hired from Germany and garrisoned in America.
8. Delegations of colonials begging for the King and Parliament to see reason were rebuffed time and time again with all pleas for compromise completely rejected.
@suryavajra Yes, The US-Revolution was 100% about Greed & Profit.
There was no British tyranny in the 13 Colonies, The tyranny came after the Revolution.
You want to talk about tyranny in America? Look what the US-Colonials did to the American Natives? Now thats Tyranny! The Brits were far too soft on the Revolt, They never even thought it was threat till France & Spain joined Global war spreaded. I take it because of a conflict that happend late 1700's you hate the British?
There was NO Tyranny in the 13 Colonies, The US-Revolution was out of Greed. The real losers were the American Natives, They lost everything after the Revolution. So you hate the Empire, Because of the US-Revolution?
@suryavajra NO, Its you who seems to deny basic history:
The US-Revolution was about Greed & profit, So much for Tyranny.
Also the American Natives lost their Freedom after the Relations, Look what happend? I would call that Tyranny & mass genocide. You want to talk about tyranny, Ever since the soft British attitue towards the 13 Colonies, British rule in Asia,Africa became very brutal at times, All revolts were crushed and wiped out, It was tyranny & savage.
It was about liberty and indepence. The overthrow of a distant decadent regime and the push for independence and self rule can be nothing other than a good thing.
@suryavajra Look mate, Its a well known fact the US-Revolution was about Greed & profit,There was no British tyranny in the 13 Colonies as US-propaganda makes out.
Yes,The Colonial Immigrants got greedy makes Alliances with France & Spain so they could create their Goverment & States on British & American lands spread of Global war
The real losers of the Revolution was the American Natives, R.I.P the Braves!
What if the Muslim hordes start a revolution in the US over REAL tyranny
It's nt a fact, it's your subective opinion, right there. Do pick up real book and learn the facts about British tyranny that led to principled men saying enough is enough and fight a war for independence. It's self evident truth that the Revolution was about Liberty and Freedom.
I'm afraid that it is you who do not know what it means, for you have never had it directed at you. You have not ever been subjected to a foreign ruler, hence you have the luxury to sound like a preachy sanctimonious blowhard.
@suryavajra Way to completely avoid every other point the guy made. The whole 'tyranny' thing was patriotic propaganda to get extra support, it was massively exaggerated. As far as I'm concerned though it was about national identity, colonial citizens had come to identify themselves as a nation, as Americans, in their own right, which is fair enough. And that is just part of a modernising world, hence Canada, Australia etc
alpha, prove me wrong on the prison ships and the military tribunals for civilians in Nova Scotia. Prove me wrong on Royal governors granted authorities ABOVE and BEYOND elected colonial legislatures. Prove me wrong on East India Company exempted on taxes.
@suryavajra That's called corruption, welcome to the world of politics. My point is not that bad things didn't happen, but that the empire was portrayed as being inherently evil, when it wasn't. It's not like the US government hasn't been without its fair share of corruption over the years. As for slavery, that was a practice used across the world, INCLUDING the US. Don't forget that Britain abolished slavery years before the US did. You are pretty obnoxious about this, prove this prove that...
Not evil, alpha. But filled with hubris. The idea that they could do no wrong and could do to people whatever they wanted. My opinion is that if the Empire offered 1/3 of what the colonists asked for, there never would of been a war. And you guys would of still held sway over North America. But no...someone had to get all pig headed. So a War was what happened.
@suryavajra You say "you guys" as if this applies to me and any other Brits in the comments. You are aware this happened hundreds of years ago right? At any rate yes, the empire did not meet up to its promises. I also think though its because Americans had come to identify themselves as Americans rather than Brits - although the first colonists were British nationals (among others), this was several generations down the line.
Well we are talking about the past, right there...lol! You mention the Amercans were conditioned under propaganda but you fail to provide anything to back up your claim. Whereas what I said about colonials being systematically tyrannized is documented and did actually happen.
How the British could make guys who fought for them just a dozen years earlier into enemies who would fight against them for independence is one of the biggest political blunders in their history.
@suryavajra It's not a blunder to draw from the wealth of your colonies to fund a war against other imperial powers who're doing the same. The taxes levied against colonists were also opposed by British people on the mainland. lol
S'not cheap fighting other great European powers that not only threaten your colonies but threaten the heart of your Empire. The American Revolution wouldn't have been nearly as effective if France wasn't also a global power harrying the British Empire.
@suryavajra It was a war that also ruined France. The Spanish and the Dutch came out all right, but still, not as well as the British Empire which, in losing America, looked to other colonies like Australia, and survived a period of calamitous debts due to the wars.
British Empire didn't do at all bad considering the odds stacked against 'em.
@suryavajra What Foreign ruler? King George was the King of the 13 Colonies and the Empire, The Colonials immigrants were just guest in his Colonies.
Look at the American Natives? The US-Colonials subjected them to immigrant foreign ruler and the holocaut regime, Indian removal and plunder and US expansion,extermination.
PLEASE REMEMBER IT WAS THE BRITISH WHO SETTLED AND LAID CLAIM TO THE 13 COLONIES The "Americans" were immigrants who got greedy from great lives.
Washington at the end of the day was a Virginian and an American. He was the patriot. Y'all were over in North America fighting for a Hanoverian King.
@suryavajra George Washington was a war wonger, He started the first global conflict.
Washington then betrayed his King and Mother-Country and started a immigrant revolution over Greed and started yet anouther global war, Between British and France-Spain. Washington was no patriot, Was got rich and powerful from the cowardice actions he made, The Revolution was all about greed.
INFACT, The immigrants in the 13 Colonies had 10x better lives than the Britons. and were 10x rich
@suryavajra we didnt surrender the land the only reason we give america independence was because france spain and netherlands offerd to give britian land at the time US was not important to britian the over 2 major wars was in india and europe britian even stopped supplys and troops going to the US and anyway without france US would of lost just like thay did in 1812 when britian burned the white house down
@suryavajra hahahah dont be stupid now US neally lost the war it was only because of france that you stood a chance and britian was fighting france spain netherlands and over countrys at the same time in europe and india
even france and spain couldnt invade britian so US would of stood no chance
you do no britian won in nealy every battle before france joined US was out of supplys aswell before france spain and netherlands helped but britian gained land in the war
@suryavajra yes only because france sent them loads of men and supplys france did most of the fighting near the end
it was only because the wars in india and europe was alot more impotent and britian only had a small forces and its less experienced men in US thay even stopped supplys going to US and even pulled men out to go and fight in europe and thats the only reason US started winning
You're merely repeating what you said before. look dude, facts are there were Englishmen who were sympathetic to the ideals of the Revolution. Why would we need to invade when your own people only needed a nudge in the right direction? lol!
@suryavajra you wouldnt need try invade because that would just be stupid US wouldnt of stud a chance france and spain tryed and britian defeated them both
US was nobody then without france in hte war US would of lost
I wouldn't need to invade, because there are a lot of likeminded people in your own country and your own Empire who would pretty much agree with the values of the American Revolution aand want those for their own countries.
@Dansito123 All the patents come from America and are American inventions idiot. that is the fact and does not matter what you say because you are clearly an idiot.
@Dansito123 Are you f-ing joking kid? computers, plastics, HELL the light bulb, cell phone, Nuclear power/anything nuclear. the air plane, and the radio just to name a few. All of those thing are recognized to be invented here in America by the world community and paper work backing those up. go Google the damn subject and stop TROLLING you nationalist ass monkey foreigner.
@Dansito123 LOL. yeah i guess America making the 20th and 21st centuries possible is nothing. What world are you from and more of an important question is where the hell do you get your news "Russia today??". You are laughable kid.
If you call oppressing, killing and depriving people of five continents their independence and their rights an accomplishment, than that really shows us what you believe in, don't it? lol!
War, destruction, chaos. Given to humanity by the Europeans. WW1,WW2, Vietnam, afghanistan, iraq and many more to this very day. But no more as these hyenas are losing grip! Forever. China is born. Britain will never awaken or france. Time out!
@salahuddin786 Dude, don't be a ranting and raving hater. It makes it so much harder for the decent anti-Imperialists out there to logically state their case and NOT be associated with a bunch of jihadi loons..lol!
Thank God for the Satan Hitler of a Christain in name nation brings down the Greater Satan Britain....so as to release the Nations of the World who had splendid civilizations.......but as Hitler did not fully destroy the European Zionist Jews these rats then spread to USA to bring birth to the biggest Satan ever known ...... who itself is now on the verge of collapse......
The Brits only spread Racism, Division and Drugs to kill and maim people and to loot and plunder - it was the Greater Satan who was pulled down by the Great Satan Hitler.......because of Hitler the innocents of the World were relaesed from this Evil Empire.....
"We are British. Fuck Britain! Fuck our history! We were eeeevvvvvil. We enslaved the entire world! Fuck our own country. We need multiculturalism because our own culture is too bad!"
I think the documentary lays it out a little strong, for my taste. However, the process of Imerialism where the ew exploit the many is not a social, politica or economic good. The British Empire is dead. Thank goodness. Live in your Britain in peace.
@suryavajra No, I don't want a discussion. I fundamentally love my country and I believe the ills of the British Empire were minute compared to the benefits it brought to the colonies. You fundamentally hate the empire. We will never find common ground. This cannot be anything other than an argument, so I'm ending it.
@suryavajra I'm not afraid of anyone's views. I have already heard your view. I don't know where you're getting a lot of your information from, but it's bollocks. I don't want to sit here and read misleading comments. For example, I believe you are telling people that Britain set out to kill every single Boer during the South African war, by creating concentration camps. I think you say that we deliberately starved the Indians, or that we enslaved millions of people.
are you arguing that the the Concentration Camps never were there or that there was no mass starvation or famine in India while the British were completely in charge?? Or that that Britain did not profit enormously from the slave trade or even indentured servitude in which the latter continued on after slavery was abolished?
@suryavajra Nobody argues that the concentration camps weren't there. But of course, anyone who isn't a hysterical child knows that there is a difference between a concentration camp and a death camp.
There was mass starvation in India. But I suppose it's what you define as bad, wanting something like that to happen, or letting it happen because the government was afraid to defy what they percieved to be god's will imposing a natural disaster.
@suryavajra Let's take a look at India. Their share of the global economy shrank dramatically under the Raj. But the truth is, the Indian economy was not going to compete with modern industrial economies in the 19th century anyway.
It was Britain's fault for not intervening in the famines, we didn't start them. The aristocrats in the house of commons thought that they were defying god's will by intervening.
And you know Liberal Knight. Those and that inability to grant India Dominion status and autonomous government at the same time that Australia, Canada and South Africa were granted the same status, pretty much turned Congress Party which was a pro-Royal, Pro-Dominion party into a pro-independence party.
As for the economy, let's take a look back. In the year 1700, there were three main centers of economic power.
Europe, Mughal controlled India and China under the Qing Dyansty, All of them had incredible wealth, and the preconditions for economic take off. India alone controlled 22% of the world economy at that time.
My point about the economy is this. India has the requisites for take off. Large labor pool, lots of capital, etc. The British however in their policies, pretty much doomed India to economic decline.
@suryavajra Talks were going on to give India dominion status, prime minister Stanley Baldwin made attempts to grant India home rule, but these plans were postponed when WW2 broke out.
The world economy transformed completely after 1800 (because of Britain). India was going to decline regardless of who was ruling it. The Mughals, btw, were not Indian, they were no better than the British were as far as oppression is concerned.
The Mughals became an Indian Dynasty after the first two Emperors, and while they were oppressive and brutal their status an Indian dynasty is undeniable. As for decline, there was nothing to suggest that this should of been the case at all. India was a strong economy which unlike the East Asian Empires did not attempt to close itself off from the West.
As for Home Rule, it was nothig more than talk. While others got it without any talk or protracted negotiations.
@suryavajra You are, quite simply, a liar. The debate about whether to grant India dominion status during the 1930s dominated all other debates, except the economic debate. I can't believe you have the arrogance to suggest that you know more about my country's history than I do. You just want to paint a bad picture of Britain, by smearing lies around. That is why I cannot talk to you.
Who's Lying?? All the other Dominions got their autonomy and self rule without a debate. Why should there have even been a debate as to whether or not Indians have the right to rule themselves??
Why are you trippin dude?? What's the matter? You throwing a hissy fit....
@suryavajra Yes, because we were racist. We believed that asians and blacks would take longer to be able to govern themselves. But you obviously don't realise that the aim of the empire was for every colony to become self governing, the government did not like owning vast territory when they could already control overseas trade.
I think the aim of the Empire was to control these territories in order to secure the tax revenue for the British government, natural resources to power Britain's own industires, the market to dump British manufactured goods, and the manpower to fight in Brtain's wars.
@suryavajra I'm sorry, but that's wrong, I don't know where you are getting your information from.
Tax revenue was nothing compared to the wealth generated by trade we controlled. When we lost the American revolution, we actually gained considerably more tax revenues because we no longer had to administrate that territory but we could still control most trade from there. This lead to Adam Smith arguing in wealth of the nations that trade generated more revenue that direct taxation.
@suryavajra The British Empire was a new kind of empire... it was decided by men like Robert Walpole and Adam Smith that it would be an empire of trade and personal liberty, rather than the empires of conquest like Rome or Persia.
Yes, Loyalty. Over 100,000 Indians voluntered (yes voluntered, they were not conscripted) to fight in both of the world wars. The dominions helped us on the battle fields of France. It is hard for YOU to image loyalty to Britain, but there was plenty of it.
@suryavajra That proves your ignorance. The difference between an empire like the Mongolian empire and the British empire is too great for words to describe.
In the Mongol empire, you were massacred by the hordes and your culture wiped out for the sake of territorial conquest. In the British Empire, regardless of race, you always had freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and whilst foreign culture was seen as inferior, it was tolerated. The British Empire was trade related.
Not true. Gandhi spent many years in a jail cell for exercizing his freedom of speech. He was beaten by batons for daring to want what others took for granted. Some basic self rule and dignity.
@suryavajra Ghandi only wanted Indian independence after WW1. Before that, he supported British colonization in Africa, saying that 'the greatest race in Africa is the white man', and calling on Britain to stamp out local culture. He recruited thousands of Indians at the outbreak of WW1. And if a Native American had demanded self rule and dignity in America, they wouldn't have been beaten up, they would have been massacred.
you are correct. But only after the British refused to pay back loyalty with loyalty. They turned their backs on him, so he realized that the British really were not going to grant Dominion status. So he went pro-independence.
The Indian reformers who were pro-Imperials became die hard nationalists in learning certain painful lessons. One of which being that no matter how loyal you are to Britain, Britain would not be loyal to you.
However Gadhi's actions in SA were wrong. If anything any freedom loving person would support Zulu and Boer independence against British aggression. He probably regretted that later in his ife.
@suryavajra I agree. The British government did not act reasonably regarding India. I would have granted India dominion status in 1900, if it were up to me.
But it does go to show, it's not everyone VS the British as you like to think. Not all empire is bad. Rome was a marvelous empire. I am glad they invaded & enslaved Britain. We did well to be enslaved by those civilized people. In time, people will see how much India and others have benefited. Once the shock has worn off.
@suryavajra Everything "TheLiberalKnight" has said is perfectly accurate, the British Empire was based on wealth and trade, not on futile conquest and winning battlefield glories. You obviously have some sort of hatred of Britain so may I recommend taking a look at your own nation? America was far worse than Britain ever was, at least in the Empire other races were tolerated, in America they were butchered until there was hardly anything left.
Ofcourse it was based on battlefied victories. Why else were British forces stationed from Khartoum to New Dehli then?? Why did the Empire in addition to figtng major conflicts fight many small wars in the Indian sub continent?? Why garrison places if it was only about trade?? Why administrate countries and deny their sovereignty if it was about freedom?
@suryavajra Saying the Empire was built around winning glory on the battlefield is ridiculous, thats something more in line with the US. The Empire was based on money, the Royal Navy controlled the seven seas and every major trade route all over the globe. When nations became a hindrance or too much effort to handle, we cut them loose, Canada in 1867 for example. We were reluctant Empire builders, thats a fact, but it was evidently a job we took seriously.
Actually the Empire by that definition, the Empire was based on sea power and the British Navy being larger than the next two or three navies combined. Still based on military power and the exercize of force.
As for Canada, you didn't cut them loose so long as you granted them Dominion status to avoid another Americn Revolution to prevent against a another losing war against descendents of British settlers.
@suryavajra Sea power was necessary in order to secure the trade routes around the world. Thats not the same as conquest or winning battlefield glories. During Britain's Imperial century (1815 - 1914) the only wars Britain fought were either putting down rebellions or attempting to curtail rivals (Crimea). They did not start wars over land or boundaries like the petty squables that defined continental European powers
@suryavajra Where is your evidence about us attempting to prevent another revolution in Canada? Thats obvious conjecture. Canada was granted Dominion status by Britain because it became too much of a hindrance financially, and too expensive to maintain and defend.
"another losing war against descendents of British settlers" - Obvious American bias there, do you think your own nation has never been Imperialistic? The War of 1812, Mexican - American War, Spanish - American War?
@suryavajra No of course, stealing half a country was never an Imperialistic goal, how silly of me. James K. Polk didn't even give an excuse, its pretty obvious reaching the pacific was the goal.
What about 1812? The U.S attempting to seize control of a lightly defended Canada?
Or the Spanish - American war? Which resulted in the US seizing control of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, and then having to fight wars to stamp out resistance in each.
My friend. let me speak from the perspective of a Californian. We were part of the Spanish Empire and part of Mexico. Under the Mexican Constitution of 1824, we has a lot of freedom and autonomy. But in the 1830s, a military dictator by the name of Santa Anna revoke the Contitution. In response many Mexican provinces seceded, not just California and Texas but such states as Yucatan.
The Mexican Army went in and crushed the insurrections in the south and brought Yucatan back by the sword. Texas and California still held out. Indeed in California both the Anglo-Whites and the Hispanic Californios wanted to leave Mexico and form their own Republic. Don't you see?? In the beginning Texas and California were fighting in the name of freedom and the 1824 Constitution. Look at the Alamo flag. Green White and Red with 1824 written in the middle.
so that tells you all you need to know. Noe as the Mexican Army was moving into crush Texas and California the idea was hatched to seek refuge with the United States to protect them against the dictator, Santa Anna. In exchange California and Texas becamse American states.
@suryavajra Im aware of what was going on at the time, but in response, does the internal troubles of another nation justify the United States invading and forcibly annexing half of said nation?
@suryavajra "I've heard South Africa wants to join America, so lets go and get them, but while we're there, why not take everything from Egypt downwards just to be sure?".
@suryavajra Oh I see, so America was only acting in the Mexican people's interest when they invaded their country. I understand now that they were only concerned with freedom and democracy, like they always have been. :D
the british empire was evil! my country(ireland) was repressed by it for over 700 years!
33guyfawkes 1 week ago
@33guyfawkes If the British Empire wasn't powerful we'd all be speaking French or Spanish right now. We'd commenting about the oppressive nature of those Empires if ever we'd won our independence. lol If not, we'd probably be commenting in Spanish or French about how great the Spanish or French Empires were.
In short... all Empires were evil.
UnitedKingdomify 1 week ago
@UnitedKingdomify i agree that all empires are bad however, why not speak both english or spanish or even french? whats the problem? when did intelligence become a bad thing? its less evil than conquest or colonization which benefits a few not the many! besides the english hate the french because they ARE french haha
alinsatx 3 days ago
@alinsatx I only meant that if the British hadn't been powerful we'd have been conquered by, probably the French, post-Battle of Trafalgar (if the British had lost it) meaning French would very likely have been our first language. Got nothing against languages, lol, I speak English and German. {xD
I like the Spanish. But the French, pfft, they're just so... frickin' French. {=|
lol {=D
UnitedKingdomify 3 days ago
@UnitedKingdomify what all forget is that when you conquer to absord, at the end of the conflict, you may have to feed the ones you conquered ! therein lies the uk, same as the usa , unable to manage what they wanted. best to mind ones own business and support your own land and people, but no one has yet learned that. if that was done all cultures would be welcomed as freinds and guests NOT dependants! but the people we keep in power know how to use all of us for their own gain
alinsatx 3 days ago
@alinsatx
alina, you are correct in your words of wisdom. America was a far happier land when it was an Isolationist country. When te US was self sufficient in everything and interracted with the rest of the world only when it was to sell its excess goods.
Damn these global elites past and present. The dignity of entire nations and peoples are sacrificed for greed and gluttony.
suryavajra 3 days ago
@suryavajra i do agree however, we as sheep keep re electing the all the bad ones. think what our countries would be, had our founders, of any nation, NOT had the courage and moral constitution to actually declare freedom and independance! we would all be slaves still, or are we still? all nations need leaders with a real conviction to help their people not just their bank accounts !!
alinsatx 2 days ago
@alinsatx
Well remember alinsatx. the Anti-federalists and the Confederation of States has been airbrushed out of American history. Even when they are mentioned, they are usually portrayed as being foolish and out of touch.
Our country has essentially become what the High Federalists wanted it to be.
suryavajra 2 days ago
@suryavajra exactly ! we are stupid enough to follow what they tell us and accept it as the only option.they also know exactly how to use religion as well, to manipulate the masses.thomas jefferson said it correctly " an entity that controls all of the money, poses a bigger threat to ones liberty and freedom than a standing army from the enemy" benjamin franklin , i think, " this system and concept of a republic will only work with a moral and honest people:..keywords moral and honest !!!!
alinsatx 1 day ago
@alinsatx
Yes, morality, honesty and transparency. I think people can forgive mishaps, bumps and bad news from time to time. They cannot forgive deceit.
suryavajra 1 day ago
@suryavajra by the way although the raiders are ok its Hail to the Redskins for me!! haha
alinsatx 1 day ago
@alinsatx
I actually love the Red Skins!!!! Raiders are my hometown team but love the Red Skins and especially have deep respect for Joe Gibbs!
suryavajra 1 day ago
@suryavajra outstanding..diehards here..4th generation. will take my grandsons to fedex this year to their 1st game!! i make at least 1 maybe 2 games a year to see them, moreso when we have the friggin cryboys, hate them !! maybe one day we see a game and share a few beers and be unpolitically correct. that crap gets old also.i rather just say what you think and discuss !!
alinsatx 1 day ago
@alinsatx
Oh yeah, nothing like those Cowboys Redskins games!! I really want to see them meet in the playoffs and dare we say the NFC Championships??
But yeah, would love to see the Red Skins play.
So do you follow college?
suryavajra 1 day ago
@suryavajra well i tell ya coach shanahan is smart . patience wait and see. that game may happen.no way the cryboys coaching staff compares to the skins ! we stay in touch, pick a game and maybe we plan to meet for a game...
alinsatx 1 day ago
@alinsatx
Sounds awesome! Don't know if I'll be in D.C any time soon though, as I am living in Indiana. But I definitely wanna catch a Redskins game!
Well what I really like about the Redskins is that back in the '80s they experimented with some really cool formations. Trips and Three Tight End sets...
suryavajra 1 day ago
@suryavajra easy. get free aire maybe we set a cool sports bar there, wear our colors and raise a little hell seeing a game...course in the 80s we had RIGGOOOO. dam we could use riggins now ! and a few others from that time..
alinsatx 1 day ago
@alinsatx
'80s were the THE time for professional and college sports.
So are you guys keeping with the same QB?? I hear that maybe the Redskins might be going second round in the draft?
suryavajra 1 day ago
@suryavajra i read where coach is planning a move, a big one towards that. we do need a QB really bad. manning has been mentioned but i dont see that happening unless Indy comes up with added drafts or players. our QB sucks then again so did 49's smith for years until now. i think coach has one in mind and will trade up for him. redskins report likes that QB from baylor and so does coach. i also see a wide receiver being signed on, possibly the one from chargers thats a free agent.
alinsatx 1 day ago
@alinsatx
Living in Indy, there are some growing signs that Manning might be planning on some kinda move. Irsay has indicated the team is moving in a new direction and Manning is not comfortable with the old personnel forced to leave.
suryavajra 1 day ago
@suryavajra i read the same story and manning and our coach seem to be on the same track so far. i dont see it happening unless concessions are added both ways. i think we will draft up and try the manning, if we do as a separate deal. thats why i think that receiver from either the colts or chargers will be a part of, as they are free agents.so far shanahan has been pretty good at drafting pieces overall..
alinsatx 1 day ago
THE BRITISH POSSESSIONS IS CREATION OF REPTILIAN ANGLO-PHILES.
. THE FALL OF BRITISH POSSESSIONS IS CREATION OF REPTILIAN ZIONISTS.
unfukkkmee 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCOTTISH INDEPEDENCE NOW.
WELSH INDEPEDENCE NOW
unfukkkmee 3 weeks ago
FREEDOM TO DHEKELIA. FREEDOM TO AKROTIRI
FIRE TO ANGLO-BARBARIANS
unfukkkmee 3 weeks ago
Leur empire ne s'est pas effondré, il a seulement changé de visage.
yvonkcaouette 3 weeks ago
ILS SONT TROP MISÉRABLES !!!!
yvonkcaouette 4 weeks ago
@yvonkcaouette
I remember you! lol!
suryavajra 4 weeks ago
@suryavajra ?
yvonkcaouette 3 weeks ago
@yvonkcaouette
you were on the old Canada anthem page fighting against those English Canadians.
suryavajra 3 weeks ago
@suryavajra ...possible.
yvonkcaouette 3 weeks ago
@usterdboy
What can I say, I was born and raised in Northern Cali. You can't escape your roots...lol! But we have one thing in common. The Chargers suck. lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra true. plus the British suck
usterdboy 1 month ago
@suryavajra Les "Chargers" d'mes fesses ?
yvonkcaouette 3 weeks ago
@yvonkcaouette
Chargers?? The football team??
suryavajra 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
suryavajra 1 month ago
I want the english to come and colonialize the world! rule britannia!
Slamdumb020 1 month ago
@Slamdumb020 Ahahahhaahahah..trop drôle.
yvonkcaouette 3 weeks ago
@Slamdumb020 Angliches Angliches Angliches !!!
Quand les peuples vont se réveiller de l'Histoire...ILS VONT VOUS COURIR APRÈS AVEC DES HACHES !!!
yvonkcaouette 2 weeks ago
I think the finest irony here is that the people talking rubbish about Britain are doing it in OUR language, and with that I rest my case.
lotsofcooki3s 1 month ago
@lotsofcooki3s
these wankers seem to forget that it took TWO bloody World Wars (thank you German Bastards) to knock us down as the World Power.
To put things in perspective look at how 9/11 took a toll on the US economy.
Now imagine the severity of bombings during the Battle of Britain.
It was like we had our 9/11 everyday only our 'terrorists' had Luftwaffe bombers (not civilian jets) and Fighter/dive bombers (that shreiking hellish cursed banshee "Ju-Junkers Stuka") arrgh!!!
alikos88 1 month ago
Comment removed
yvonkcaouette 3 weeks ago
@lotsofcooki3s Nan...tu te trompes l'Angliche!
yvonkcaouette 3 weeks ago
@Dansito123 yeah ok idiot. you cant even bring yourself to argue what im "wrong" about. you clearly are a 13 year old child still drinking his mothers milk.
usterdboy 1 month ago
Every fucking video you get an American talking shit!
Stevie0Lad 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stevie0Lad Every fucking video you get a limey cock sucker talking shit. so real stfu and your welcome for youtube bitch
usterdboy 1 month ago
The British Empire just changed its names, They are now known as the Commonwealth or Queens realm, Britain,Canada,Australia,N.Z.N.I,etc,etc all have the same Queen & head of state. However a new ages and a new name, Just when people go bankrupt they start a new business anouther name same shit lol.
martynrobin121 1 month ago
@martynrobin121
I don't think so Martynrobin....
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra What you dont think so? The Queen is the head of state & queen of many nations from around the world. The Queens Realm & Commonwealth, Just research! The Queen has Armies & territory from around the world. Also the NATO Alliance AKA Britain its former Colonies & Europe. The British have family from the world, We all look out for each other and WE ARE UNITED!
martynrobin121 1 month ago
@martynrobin121
Dude. we are not family....lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
Imagen if the British empire comeback :L
01PERKSY011 1 month ago
@01PERKSY011
No thanks...lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra I notice you are from the US? Look into your short history! Also the U.K-Canada,Australia,N.Z,etc,etc we are all Family. The Queens Realm! You should research the relations and history of the Empire and modern relations. We still stand united and have same the Queen, As you would say in the states commander and chief. Also the U.S is loyal to the Queens and her Realm. The Empire still stands just under anouther name and part of an Alliance-NATO. Research!
martynrobin121 1 month ago
@martynrobin121
Yes, I am an American. But remember, America was established in a Revolution against your Royals.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra Yes, Remember it was the British Goverment who gave the 13 Colonies(US) Independance. The King wanted to carry on the war. US is part British from laws,culture,language,democracy,etc. However today the US is loyal to the Queen & Realm and her agenda. The Former Empire, Still stands they have the same Queen and head of state. The Empire has gone, But the Commonwealth and Queens Realm will stand for a thousands years.
martynrobin121 1 month ago
@martynrobin121
Bull crap. The US was formed in opposition to British poltical system. The establishment of the US government was truly revolutionary back then as it is now. The Empire, soon followd by the Commonwealth, has gone the way of the dodo...lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra Gone? The Queens Realm/Commonwealth still stands united. We all have the same Queen & commander and chief. The US revolution was for Greed & Profit, It was the British Goverment who gave the US "Independence" the day the real American people lost their Freedom, The Natives!!! The US and British are very much the same in everyway, You just cant hide your British roots. The language gives it away too much, The Culture,laws,agendas,life,etc...
martynrobin121 1 month ago
@martynrobin121
Where do you get this stuff?? lol!
The American Revolution was all about freedom and liberty. Y'all were fighting on the side of tyranny.
And no, I have no British roots...lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra The American Revolution was all about greed, There was no tyranny in the 13 Colonies. The British refused to let the Colonial immigrants expand into American Native nations, The Britsh started to tax the Colonials immigrants. Remember Britain was broke from the first global war, George Washington in British Uniform started that war. You do realise in America they tax immigrants the same as the British did & do, The Americans lost ther Freedom & occupation thats tyranny!
martynrobin121 1 month ago
@martynrobin121
There was plenty of tyranny.
1. Unjust taxation. Colonial businesses taxed into oblivion, but East India Company NOT taxed.
2.Colonials were tried for crimes in Nova Scotia in front of military tribunals after being tortured and starved on giant prison ships in NY Harbor.
3.elected Colonial legislatures stripped of their power in favor of Royal Governors APPOINTED by a distant king.
4. Native American tribes ENCOURAGED by the King to attack colonial settlements.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@martynrobin121
5.British soldiers quartered among colonials without permission ever asked of the families.
6. Colonials NOT accepted as officers in the REGULAR British army because they were born in America.
7. Mercenaries hired from Germany and garrisoned in America.
8. Delegations of colonials begging for the King and Parliament to see reason were rebuffed time and time again with all pleas for compromise completely rejected.
there's your causes for Revolution.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra Yes, The US-Revolution was 100% about Greed & Profit.
There was no British tyranny in the 13 Colonies, The tyranny came after the Revolution.
You want to talk about tyranny in America? Look what the US-Colonials did to the American Natives? Now thats Tyranny! The Brits were far too soft on the Revolt, They never even thought it was threat till France & Spain joined Global war spreaded. I take it because of a conflict that happend late 1700's you hate the British?
martynrobin121 3 weeks ago
@martynrobin121
You did not even read what I wrote...lol!
suryavajra 3 weeks ago
@suryavajra YES, I did read your comment:
There was NO Tyranny in the 13 Colonies, The US-Revolution was out of Greed. The real losers were the American Natives, They lost everything after the Revolution. So you hate the Empire, Because of the US-Revolution?
martynrobin121 3 weeks ago
@martynrobin121
you are denying actual history, my friend. Shaaaaaame.....
suryavajra 3 weeks ago
@suryavajra its funny if the 13 colonies rebelled today america would invade them and steal their recources....karma...funni thing.
numba1danman 3 weeks ago
@numba1danman
How so? The so-called thirteen colonies are integral states..lol!
suryavajra 3 weeks ago
@suryavajra NO, Its you who seems to deny basic history:
The US-Revolution was about Greed & profit, So much for Tyranny.
Also the American Natives lost their Freedom after the Relations, Look what happend? I would call that Tyranny & mass genocide. You want to talk about tyranny, Ever since the soft British attitue towards the 13 Colonies, British rule in Asia,Africa became very brutal at times, All revolts were crushed and wiped out, It was tyranny & savage.
martynrobin121 3 weeks ago
@martynrobin121
It was about liberty and indepence. The overthrow of a distant decadent regime and the push for independence and self rule can be nothing other than a good thing.
suryavajra 3 weeks ago
@suryavajra Look mate, Its a well known fact the US-Revolution was about Greed & profit,There was no British tyranny in the 13 Colonies as US-propaganda makes out.
Yes,The Colonial Immigrants got greedy makes Alliances with France & Spain so they could create their Goverment & States on British & American lands spread of Global war
The real losers of the Revolution was the American Natives, R.I.P the Braves!
What if the Muslim hordes start a revolution in the US over REAL tyranny
martynrobin121 2 weeks ago
@martynrobin121
It's nt a fact, it's your subective opinion, right there. Do pick up real book and learn the facts about British tyranny that led to principled men saying enough is enough and fight a war for independence. It's self evident truth that the Revolution was about Liberty and Freedom.
suryavajra 2 weeks ago
@suryavajra You dont even know what the word tyranny means.
There was NO British tyranny in the 13 Colonies, The British were too soft.
Do immigrants in the US have to pay taxes, YES. Do they get a say how the Taxes are spent, NO! The Corrupt Goverment decides same as always.
The Colonials immigants, Were living better lives than the Britons in the Mother-Country, plus the Colonials were making endless profit.
George Washington was just a war monger who betrayed his colours.
martynrobin121 2 weeks ago
@martynrobin121
I'm afraid that it is you who do not know what it means, for you have never had it directed at you. You have not ever been subjected to a foreign ruler, hence you have the luxury to sound like a preachy sanctimonious blowhard.
suryavajra 2 weeks ago
@suryavajra Way to completely avoid every other point the guy made. The whole 'tyranny' thing was patriotic propaganda to get extra support, it was massively exaggerated. As far as I'm concerned though it was about national identity, colonial citizens had come to identify themselves as a nation, as Americans, in their own right, which is fair enough. And that is just part of a modernising world, hence Canada, Australia etc
alphaprawns 1 week ago
@alphaprawns
alpha, prove me wrong on the prison ships and the military tribunals for civilians in Nova Scotia. Prove me wrong on Royal governors granted authorities ABOVE and BEYOND elected colonial legislatures. Prove me wrong on East India Company exempted on taxes.
suryavajra 1 week ago
@suryavajra That's called corruption, welcome to the world of politics. My point is not that bad things didn't happen, but that the empire was portrayed as being inherently evil, when it wasn't. It's not like the US government hasn't been without its fair share of corruption over the years. As for slavery, that was a practice used across the world, INCLUDING the US. Don't forget that Britain abolished slavery years before the US did. You are pretty obnoxious about this, prove this prove that...
alphaprawns 1 week ago
@alphaprawns
Not evil, alpha. But filled with hubris. The idea that they could do no wrong and could do to people whatever they wanted. My opinion is that if the Empire offered 1/3 of what the colonists asked for, there never would of been a war. And you guys would of still held sway over North America. But no...someone had to get all pig headed. So a War was what happened.
suryavajra 1 week ago
@suryavajra You say "you guys" as if this applies to me and any other Brits in the comments. You are aware this happened hundreds of years ago right? At any rate yes, the empire did not meet up to its promises. I also think though its because Americans had come to identify themselves as Americans rather than Brits - although the first colonists were British nationals (among others), this was several generations down the line.
At any rate, its all in the past isn't it
alphaprawns 1 week ago
@alphaprawns
Well we are talking about the past, right there...lol! You mention the Amercans were conditioned under propaganda but you fail to provide anything to back up your claim. Whereas what I said about colonials being systematically tyrannized is documented and did actually happen.
How the British could make guys who fought for them just a dozen years earlier into enemies who would fight against them for independence is one of the biggest political blunders in their history.
suryavajra 1 week ago
@suryavajra It's not a blunder to draw from the wealth of your colonies to fund a war against other imperial powers who're doing the same. The taxes levied against colonists were also opposed by British people on the mainland. lol
S'not cheap fighting other great European powers that not only threaten your colonies but threaten the heart of your Empire. The American Revolution wouldn't have been nearly as effective if France wasn't also a global power harrying the British Empire.
*shrug*
UnitedKingdomify 1 week ago
@suryavajra It was a war that also ruined France. The Spanish and the Dutch came out all right, but still, not as well as the British Empire which, in losing America, looked to other colonies like Australia, and survived a period of calamitous debts due to the wars.
British Empire didn't do at all bad considering the odds stacked against 'em.
UnitedKingdomify 1 week ago
@suryavajra What Foreign ruler? King George was the King of the 13 Colonies and the Empire, The Colonials immigrants were just guest in his Colonies.
Look at the American Natives? The US-Colonials subjected them to immigrant foreign ruler and the holocaut regime, Indian removal and plunder and US expansion,extermination.
PLEASE REMEMBER IT WAS THE BRITISH WHO SETTLED AND LAID CLAIM TO THE 13 COLONIES The "Americans" were immigrants who got greedy from great lives.
martynrobin121 1 week ago
@martynrobin121
Washington at the end of the day was a Virginian and an American. He was the patriot. Y'all were over in North America fighting for a Hanoverian King.
suryavajra 2 weeks ago
@suryavajra George Washington was a war wonger, He started the first global conflict.
Washington then betrayed his King and Mother-Country and started a immigrant revolution over Greed and started yet anouther global war, Between British and France-Spain. Washington was no patriot, Was got rich and powerful from the cowardice actions he made, The Revolution was all about greed.
INFACT, The immigrants in the 13 Colonies had 10x better lives than the Britons. and were 10x rich
martynrobin121 1 week ago
@martynrobin121
"Washington was no patriot, Was got rich and powerful from the cowardice actions he made"
THAT'S why he refused to become Emperor when it was offered to him.
You are a clueless plebe, commit suicide. Communications blocked.
jigglypiggly 6 days ago
@suryavajra you do no britian still owns US monarchy could control or claim the USA if they wanted
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc
Bull crap...lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra yes thay do look it up britian owns the land read the treaty
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc
I think you ought to read the treaty. They surrendered all the land forever and ever....lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra we didnt surrender the land the only reason we give america independence was because france spain and netherlands offerd to give britian land at the time US was not important to britian the over 2 major wars was in india and europe britian even stopped supplys and troops going to the US and anyway without france US would of lost just like thay did in 1812 when britian burned the white house down
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc
now you're just sputtering. You lost fair and square. Just be glad we did not make more of an effort to export the revolution to Britain.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra hahahah dont be stupid now US neally lost the war it was only because of france that you stood a chance and britian was fighting france spain netherlands and over countrys at the same time in europe and india
even france and spain couldnt invade britian so US would of stood no chance
you do no britian won in nealy every battle before france joined US was out of supplys aswell before france spain and netherlands helped but britian gained land in the war
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc
Are you kidding?? The US got stronger, as the war went on longer and longer...lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra yes only because france sent them loads of men and supplys france did most of the fighting near the end
it was only because the wars in india and europe was alot more impotent and britian only had a small forces and its less experienced men in US thay even stopped supplys going to US and even pulled men out to go and fight in europe and thats the only reason US started winning
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc
You're merely repeating what you said before. look dude, facts are there were Englishmen who were sympathetic to the ideals of the Revolution. Why would we need to invade when your own people only needed a nudge in the right direction? lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra you wouldnt need try invade because that would just be stupid US wouldnt of stud a chance france and spain tryed and britian defeated them both
US was nobody then without france in hte war US would of lost
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc
I wouldn't need to invade, because there are a lot of likeminded people in your own country and your own Empire who would pretty much agree with the values of the American Revolution aand want those for their own countries.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra wot
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc
that's right...lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
@Dansito123 Are you fucking kidding me idiot. go to any website and it'll dispute your stupid ass
usterdboy 1 month ago
@usterdboy
take it easy usterdboy, try not to blow a gasket there...lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra raiders blow. suck tebow balls
usterdboy 1 month ago
@Dansito123
my fault.
harrikelm 1 month ago
@Dansito123
the germans invented the first computer...
harrikelm 1 month ago
@Dansito123 All the patents come from America and are American inventions idiot. that is the fact and does not matter what you say because you are clearly an idiot.
usterdboy 1 month ago
@Dansito123
It wa relatively violent. They just knew how to cover it up...lol~
suryavajra 1 month ago
@Dansito123 stfu kid if the world went by you the f-ing Greeks invented the first computer.
usterdboy 1 month ago
@Dansito123 where was the patent at idiot???? America stfu kid. You clearly are some nationalist shit rag.
usterdboy 1 month ago
@Dansito123 Are you f-ing joking kid? computers, plastics, HELL the light bulb, cell phone, Nuclear power/anything nuclear. the air plane, and the radio just to name a few. All of those thing are recognized to be invented here in America by the world community and paper work backing those up. go Google the damn subject and stop TROLLING you nationalist ass monkey foreigner.
usterdboy 1 month ago
@Dansito123 LOL. yeah i guess America making the 20th and 21st centuries possible is nothing. What world are you from and more of an important question is where the hell do you get your news "Russia today??". You are laughable kid.
usterdboy 1 month ago
@Dansito123
If you call oppressing, killing and depriving people of five continents their independence and their rights an accomplishment, than that really shows us what you believe in, don't it? lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
Britain fucked uped the world and themselves
bboychi1 1 month ago
War, destruction, chaos. Given to humanity by the Europeans. WW1,WW2, Vietnam, afghanistan, iraq and many more to this very day. But no more as these hyenas are losing grip! Forever. China is born. Britain will never awaken or france. Time out!
salahuddin786 1 month ago
AMERICA!!!!!!!
usterdboy 1 month ago
The monarchy is NOTHING but a fantasy now.....it is controlled by the Corporations.....
I am no subject to these losers....I have more regal blood than these hybrid fucking relations who suffer probably from dysfunctional penises.......
I aint their subject....as they are not blue blooded.....
Fuck the monarchy
salahuddin786 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@salahuddin786 Dude, don't be a ranting and raving hater. It makes it so much harder for the decent anti-Imperialists out there to logically state their case and NOT be associated with a bunch of jihadi loons..lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
Thank God for the Satan Hitler of a Christain in name nation brings down the Greater Satan Britain....so as to release the Nations of the World who had splendid civilizations.......but as Hitler did not fully destroy the European Zionist Jews these rats then spread to USA to bring birth to the biggest Satan ever known ...... who itself is now on the verge of collapse......
salahuddin786 1 month ago
Comment removed
suryavajra 1 month ago
@salahuddin786 you are a stupid shit idiot.
usterdboy 1 month ago
The Brits only spread Racism, Division and Drugs to kill and maim people and to loot and plunder - it was the Greater Satan who was pulled down by the Great Satan Hitler.......because of Hitler the innocents of the World were relaesed from this Evil Empire.....
salahuddin786 1 month ago
Britain today ONE TO ONE could not even challenge say Afghanistan - its 90,000 troops would be slaughtered in a mere 365 days on a full scale War....
Britain is a brken nation with fuck all today
salahuddin786 1 month ago
I HATE these documentaries.
Content of documentary:
"We are British. Fuck Britain! Fuck our history! We were eeeevvvvvil. We enslaved the entire world! Fuck our own country. We need multiculturalism because our own culture is too bad!"
These documentaries are... disgusting.
Long live Imperii Britannic!
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
I think the documentary lays it out a little strong, for my taste. However, the process of Imerialism where the ew exploit the many is not a social, politica or economic good. The British Empire is dead. Thank goodness. Live in your Britain in peace.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra Ceasefire to our argument, agree?
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
Well I'd like to have a discussion. Whether we agree or diagree, let's do so as gentlemen. Fair?
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra No, I don't want a discussion. I fundamentally love my country and I believe the ills of the British Empire were minute compared to the benefits it brought to the colonies. You fundamentally hate the empire. We will never find common ground. This cannot be anything other than an argument, so I'm ending it.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
why are you so afraid of hearing views that are different to yours??
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra I'm not afraid of anyone's views. I have already heard your view. I don't know where you're getting a lot of your information from, but it's bollocks. I don't want to sit here and read misleading comments. For example, I believe you are telling people that Britain set out to kill every single Boer during the South African war, by creating concentration camps. I think you say that we deliberately starved the Indians, or that we enslaved millions of people.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
are you arguing that the the Concentration Camps never were there or that there was no mass starvation or famine in India while the British were completely in charge?? Or that that Britain did not profit enormously from the slave trade or even indentured servitude in which the latter continued on after slavery was abolished?
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra Nobody argues that the concentration camps weren't there. But of course, anyone who isn't a hysterical child knows that there is a difference between a concentration camp and a death camp.
There was mass starvation in India. But I suppose it's what you define as bad, wanting something like that to happen, or letting it happen because the government was afraid to defy what they percieved to be god's will imposing a natural disaster.
I am delighted with our record on slavery.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
I'm not saying the Brits were genocidal. But the policies were pretty bad.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
And at the end of the day, things didn't balance out. The price in lost lives to these policies was too high a burden. And the benefits too few.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra Let's take a look at India. Their share of the global economy shrank dramatically under the Raj. But the truth is, the Indian economy was not going to compete with modern industrial economies in the 19th century anyway.
It was Britain's fault for not intervening in the famines, we didn't start them. The aristocrats in the house of commons thought that they were defying god's will by intervening.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
And you know Liberal Knight. Those and that inability to grant India Dominion status and autonomous government at the same time that Australia, Canada and South Africa were granted the same status, pretty much turned Congress Party which was a pro-Royal, Pro-Dominion party into a pro-independence party.
As for the economy, let's take a look back. In the year 1700, there were three main centers of economic power.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra
Europe, Mughal controlled India and China under the Qing Dyansty, All of them had incredible wealth, and the preconditions for economic take off. India alone controlled 22% of the world economy at that time.
My point about the economy is this. India has the requisites for take off. Large labor pool, lots of capital, etc. The British however in their policies, pretty much doomed India to economic decline.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra Talks were going on to give India dominion status, prime minister Stanley Baldwin made attempts to grant India home rule, but these plans were postponed when WW2 broke out.
The world economy transformed completely after 1800 (because of Britain). India was going to decline regardless of who was ruling it. The Mughals, btw, were not Indian, they were no better than the British were as far as oppression is concerned.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
The Mughals became an Indian Dynasty after the first two Emperors, and while they were oppressive and brutal their status an Indian dynasty is undeniable. As for decline, there was nothing to suggest that this should of been the case at all. India was a strong economy which unlike the East Asian Empires did not attempt to close itself off from the West.
As for Home Rule, it was nothig more than talk. While others got it without any talk or protracted negotiations.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra You are, quite simply, a liar. The debate about whether to grant India dominion status during the 1930s dominated all other debates, except the economic debate. I can't believe you have the arrogance to suggest that you know more about my country's history than I do. You just want to paint a bad picture of Britain, by smearing lies around. That is why I cannot talk to you.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
Who's Lying?? All the other Dominions got their autonomy and self rule without a debate. Why should there have even been a debate as to whether or not Indians have the right to rule themselves??
Why are you trippin dude?? What's the matter? You throwing a hissy fit....
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra Yes, because we were racist. We believed that asians and blacks would take longer to be able to govern themselves. But you obviously don't realise that the aim of the empire was for every colony to become self governing, the government did not like owning vast territory when they could already control overseas trade.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
I think the aim of the Empire was to control these territories in order to secure the tax revenue for the British government, natural resources to power Britain's own industires, the market to dump British manufactured goods, and the manpower to fight in Brtain's wars.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra I'm sorry, but that's wrong, I don't know where you are getting your information from.
Tax revenue was nothing compared to the wealth generated by trade we controlled. When we lost the American revolution, we actually gained considerably more tax revenues because we no longer had to administrate that territory but we could still control most trade from there. This lead to Adam Smith arguing in wealth of the nations that trade generated more revenue that direct taxation.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
If that's the case, why even have an Empire?? LOL!! Yet the British had one until WW2. I think you contadict yourself, dude....lol!
Oh and Loyalty?? Riiiiiiight, that's why all those territories were making a bee line for the door after the war, hey? lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra The British Empire was a new kind of empire... it was decided by men like Robert Walpole and Adam Smith that it would be an empire of trade and personal liberty, rather than the empires of conquest like Rome or Persia.
Yes, Loyalty. Over 100,000 Indians voluntered (yes voluntered, they were not conscripted) to fight in both of the world wars. The dominions helped us on the battle fields of France. It is hard for YOU to image loyalty to Britain, but there was plenty of it.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
Empire is an Empire. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.....lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra That proves your ignorance. The difference between an empire like the Mongolian empire and the British empire is too great for words to describe.
In the Mongol empire, you were massacred by the hordes and your culture wiped out for the sake of territorial conquest. In the British Empire, regardless of race, you always had freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and whilst foreign culture was seen as inferior, it was tolerated. The British Empire was trade related.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
Not true. Gandhi spent many years in a jail cell for exercizing his freedom of speech. He was beaten by batons for daring to want what others took for granted. Some basic self rule and dignity.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra Ghandi only wanted Indian independence after WW1. Before that, he supported British colonization in Africa, saying that 'the greatest race in Africa is the white man', and calling on Britain to stamp out local culture. He recruited thousands of Indians at the outbreak of WW1. And if a Native American had demanded self rule and dignity in America, they wouldn't have been beaten up, they would have been massacred.
Make an interesting reply, or I won't respond.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
you are correct. But only after the British refused to pay back loyalty with loyalty. They turned their backs on him, so he realized that the British really were not going to grant Dominion status. So he went pro-independence.
The Indian reformers who were pro-Imperials became die hard nationalists in learning certain painful lessons. One of which being that no matter how loyal you are to Britain, Britain would not be loyal to you.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
However Gadhi's actions in SA were wrong. If anything any freedom loving person would support Zulu and Boer independence against British aggression. He probably regretted that later in his ife.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra I agree. The British government did not act reasonably regarding India. I would have granted India dominion status in 1900, if it were up to me.
But it does go to show, it's not everyone VS the British as you like to think. Not all empire is bad. Rome was a marvelous empire. I am glad they invaded & enslaved Britain. We did well to be enslaved by those civilized people. In time, people will see how much India and others have benefited. Once the shock has worn off.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@suryavajra Everything "TheLiberalKnight" has said is perfectly accurate, the British Empire was based on wealth and trade, not on futile conquest and winning battlefield glories. You obviously have some sort of hatred of Britain so may I recommend taking a look at your own nation? America was far worse than Britain ever was, at least in the Empire other races were tolerated, in America they were butchered until there was hardly anything left.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275
Ofcourse it was based on battlefied victories. Why else were British forces stationed from Khartoum to New Dehli then?? Why did the Empire in addition to figtng major conflicts fight many small wars in the Indian sub continent?? Why garrison places if it was only about trade?? Why administrate countries and deny their sovereignty if it was about freedom?
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra Saying the Empire was built around winning glory on the battlefield is ridiculous, thats something more in line with the US. The Empire was based on money, the Royal Navy controlled the seven seas and every major trade route all over the globe. When nations became a hindrance or too much effort to handle, we cut them loose, Canada in 1867 for example. We were reluctant Empire builders, thats a fact, but it was evidently a job we took seriously.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275
Actually the Empire by that definition, the Empire was based on sea power and the British Navy being larger than the next two or three navies combined. Still based on military power and the exercize of force.
As for Canada, you didn't cut them loose so long as you granted them Dominion status to avoid another Americn Revolution to prevent against a another losing war against descendents of British settlers.
and no, you were enthusiastic Empire builders.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra Sea power was necessary in order to secure the trade routes around the world. Thats not the same as conquest or winning battlefield glories. During Britain's Imperial century (1815 - 1914) the only wars Britain fought were either putting down rebellions or attempting to curtail rivals (Crimea). They did not start wars over land or boundaries like the petty squables that defined continental European powers
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275
Rellions in Britain?? Or were they Rebellion in Africa and Asia?
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra Where is your evidence about us attempting to prevent another revolution in Canada? Thats obvious conjecture. Canada was granted Dominion status by Britain because it became too much of a hindrance financially, and too expensive to maintain and defend.
"another losing war against descendents of British settlers" - Obvious American bias there, do you think your own nation has never been Imperialistic? The War of 1812, Mexican - American War, Spanish - American War?
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275
Tsk Tsk Tsk the Mexican American War was not an Imperialistic one. I should know. I come from Cali.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra No of course, stealing half a country was never an Imperialistic goal, how silly of me. James K. Polk didn't even give an excuse, its pretty obvious reaching the pacific was the goal.
What about 1812? The U.S attempting to seize control of a lightly defended Canada?
Or the Spanish - American war? Which resulted in the US seizing control of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, and then having to fight wars to stamp out resistance in each.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275
My friend. let me speak from the perspective of a Californian. We were part of the Spanish Empire and part of Mexico. Under the Mexican Constitution of 1824, we has a lot of freedom and autonomy. But in the 1830s, a military dictator by the name of Santa Anna revoke the Contitution. In response many Mexican provinces seceded, not just California and Texas but such states as Yucatan.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra
The Mexican Army went in and crushed the insurrections in the south and brought Yucatan back by the sword. Texas and California still held out. Indeed in California both the Anglo-Whites and the Hispanic Californios wanted to leave Mexico and form their own Republic. Don't you see?? In the beginning Texas and California were fighting in the name of freedom and the 1824 Constitution. Look at the Alamo flag. Green White and Red with 1824 written in the middle.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra
so that tells you all you need to know. Noe as the Mexican Army was moving into crush Texas and California the idea was hatched to seek refuge with the United States to protect them against the dictator, Santa Anna. In exchange California and Texas becamse American states.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra Im aware of what was going on at the time, but in response, does the internal troubles of another nation justify the United States invading and forcibly annexing half of said nation?
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275
They were asked to come in by California and Texas.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra "I've heard South Africa wants to join America, so lets go and get them, but while we're there, why not take everything from Egypt downwards just to be sure?".
That is essentially your logic.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275
It's either that or innocent Caifornians and Texans get massacred by a dictator. Do you wwant that, ninja, dude??
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra Oh I see, so America was only acting in the Mexican people's interest when they invaded their country. I understand now that they were only concerned with freedom and democracy, like they always have been. :D
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275
California and Texas, sure.
suryavajra 1 month ago
@Ninja1275
Indeed Zacatecan rebels were the best armed as they were armed and supplied by Brtish Brown Bess muskets...lol!
suryavajra 1 month ago
@suryavajra I was being humorous, in case you didn't know.
Ninja1275 1 month ago