[artery08]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_mi...ntion_in_Libya (chronology part) it seems like more of a team effort than merely the UK. The UK played a part but so did France and USA.

Exactly, and anyhow, like former CIA officer Micheal Scheuer said, Britain would not be able to get their boots on without the American approval. That's why they call it American intervention in the US lol It's only the the Europeans who think that they had a say-so in the matter.

[Mrkingpenguin]

(Original post by artery08)
Exactly, and anyhow, like former CIA officer Micheal Scheuer said, Britain would not be able to get their boots on without the American approval. That's why they call it American intervention in the US lol It's only the the Europeans who think that they had a say-so in the matter.

It's called the UN, where everyone has a vote. Obviously we couldn't invade without the go ahead of other countries...that is why we vote

But it was Britian in particular that really pushed more than any other EU/American country for the motion, which is why is was deemed such a political success over here as the Yanks wanted to see the Britian and France etc. doing this one themselves (Military action).

[rainy_days]

Britain's glory days have long gone I'm afraid. Economically and politically the UK still have some influence but it's peanuts compared to big league players like the US and China.
You do have some great musicians and BBC in particular produce really good TV programs, unfortunately they are overshadowed by Beyonce and Paris Hilton. It's sad I know...

[electriic_ink]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Yeah but how does being the worlds sixth largest economy mean we influence things? France and Germany are both larger and they're hardly influential outside the EU.

In other words, they are influential in the EU (because of their wealth.)

Money makes the world go round and if a lot of it flows your way, you have control.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by electriic_ink)
In other words, they are influential in the EU (because of their wealth.)

Money makes the world go round and if a lot of it flows your way, you have control.

No, they aren't influential in the EU. Germany and France are influential in the EU, remember UK aren't trying to be heavily invested in the EU? They have the potential to be influential in the EU but as long as they're trying to be isolationist they aren't going to be that influential.

[Ricardo5]

(Original post by Aramiss18)
What about the Spanish Empire? that was far from heavenly yet the world's view of Spain doesn't seem to be tainted by it.
I agree with what you said about the effects of the British Empire by the way but think it's unfair we are so often judged/disliked because of what Britons did 50-200 years ago.

Yes, you're absolutely right. I personally despise people who judge others by their nationality or their country's history. The British are not imperialists anymore, Germans are not right-wing fascists anymore and Eastern Europeans are not communists anymore.
As far as the Spanish Empire is concerned, the reason why nobody talks about them is because they managed to completely brainwash the people they conquered. Spanish conquistadors were encuraged to intermarry with the locals and their children would be taught only Spanish, raised as Christians and as "Europeans". That's why most Latin Americans today are of mixed heritage, but they are all Christians, have European languages as a mother tongue etc. To summarise, the Native American race has almost perished, been replaced by the Mestizo/Hispanics who have forgotten about their Amerindian heritage and consider themselves to be merely the descendants of early Spanish conquistadors are later settlers.
The British Empre on the other hand had a white supremacist policy and wasn't really interested in Anglicizing their colonies' population, so the remnants of the Empire are today filled with people who grew up hearing stories about how the British robbed their land and treated their ancestors as inferior people.
Fortunately though, times change, people grow and today the British are one of the most accepting, liberal and open-minded people in the world!

[Ricardo5]

(Original post by folk-stanley)
Yet the Portuguese started the trans-atlantic slave trade....

There's no arguing with that... My ancestors did start the most unspeakable thing in human history and I'm very ashamed of that.
In fact, my fiancée who is Brazilian of African heritage sometimes jokingly brings up that we only speak the same language because my great grandfather enslaved hers but this is not a joke! Yes, the Portuguese did start the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade but as people became more enlightened we also started the first and only colonial policy that wasn't based on racial hierarchy and it was called Lusotropicalism.

[Go.Infi]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
In HY2 the other day we were going over the British Empire, and we were all given a map of the world with the British Empire highlighted and it was amazing how much we'd accomplished, more than anyone else ever has. It really made me feel proud to be British.

I suppose I'm just wondering how much influence do we have in the world today? What do other countries think of us etc..

Feel free to discuss :-)

Thanks!

Remember, make your language worldwide is the most glorious thing a nation can do.

[IndianDancer]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
It wouldnt happen today because that's not how the world worked.

It happened then because that's how the world worked?

Thank you come again.

You're hilarious.


I don't care how the world worked then. If it is immoral then it is immoral. Letting a country starve so that your own country prospers is immoral and I can't believe anyone would be proud of something like that. And i'm not saying I hate the UK and its people NOW. I have nothing against you guys but some of your ancestors? Yeah...I'm glad they're dead. (not YOUR ancestors specifically lol the whole country's)

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by IndianDancer)
You're hilarious.


I don't care how the world worked then. If it is immoral then it is immoral. Letting a country starve so that your own country prospers is immoral and I can't believe anyone would be proud of something like that. And i'm not saying I hate the UK and its people NOW. I have nothing against you guys but some of your ancestors? Yeah...I'm glad they're dead. (not YOUR ancestors specifically lol the whole country's)

Oh god.. I just saw your name.. that wasn't meant in that way lmfao!

I'm still proud of how we did. If we never did that we wouldn't have been so great. But I guess we'll disagree on that. Though I'm proud I wouldn't want it to happen today etc..

[IndianDancer]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
Oh god.. I just saw your name.. that wasn't meant in that way lmfao!

I'm still proud of how we did. If we never did that we wouldn't have been so great. But I guess we'll disagree on that. Though I'm proud I wouldn't want it to happen today etc..

hahahha sure sure

if my country was great because it exploited so many people then i wouldn't call it great at all. england did achieve a lot of things and i'm not saying that you shouldn't be proud of it but you can't just dismiss other people's sufferings. but w/e...lets just agree to disagree.

[jaxxa]

Britain has a very small influence on global affairs, of course. However, the average UK citizen is much better off than the average Chinese/Russian/Indian/Brazilian citizen by a long mile. Living standards in these countries are still hideously poor. GDP doesn't tell you everything.

[Aequat omnes cinis]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
No, they aren't influential in the EU. Germany and France are influential in the EU, remember UK aren't trying to be heavily invested in the EU? They have the potential to be influential in the EU but as long as they're trying to be isolationist they aren't going to be that influential.

After Germany and France the UK is the third most influential country in terms of influence in Europe. Just because the UK doesn't want to go along with Merkel's fiscal pact, that doesn't somehow automatically make us irrelevant. Worldwide Germany probably has more influence than the UK and the UK more than France. Germany is especially influential considering it is the strongest and largest economy in Europe and the fate of the Eurozone essentially rests on Merkel, and the fate of the Eurozone is of great importance to the world economy as a whole.

Regarding the central question, the UK still has a very important role in global affairs. London is the worlds biggest financial centre and is strong in related professional services and business. London is also a very cultural city. The UK still has the 6th largest economy in the world, ahead of Brazil, India and Russia, though these three countries are estimated to overtake the UK in terms of GDP by 2030. The UK still retains a permanent place on the UN security council with a veto power, putting it level with the US, France, China and Russia in terms of UN security council influence. The UK is a member of many international organisations. The UK is still a core country and a great power. The UK consistently ranks in the top ten most influential countries

The role of the UK as an international power may diminish as developing and semi-developed countries
extend their influence and as the economic, political and demographic circumstances of the UK continue
to worsen, but I think the UK will retain influence for a long time yet.

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by IndianDancer)
hahahha sure sure

if my country was great because it exploited so many people then i wouldn't call it great at all. england did achieve a lot of things and i'm not saying that you shouldn't be proud of it but you can't just dismiss other people's sufferings. but w/e...lets just agree to disagree.

I'm not proud of England

[generaljonny]

(Original post by artery08)
Britain wouldn't be able to enter Libyan airspace in 100 years if Americans didn't give us permission. Our foreign policy is to seek permission from the White house for whatever we want to do. Argentina would have the Falklands tomorrow if the US wanted. There's no doubt about that.

You can engage this question on a I-read-the-Sun level or at a more intellectual pace. The fact remains that we are a permanent member of the UN Security Council, our companies have a global reach, Anglo-American culture is dominant, we have the 4th highest military spending, a blue-water navy, overseas territories (Gibraltar etc).

It is not a show of weakness to say that we would have to defer to the USA, they are the world's only superpower. Rather, it is a sign of strength for the USA. The fact remains, we are still a world power. The ill-educated who read a couple of newspapers with columns remarking on how we need to cut a few thousand troops and therefore 'showing' that we are weak - need to be enlightened.

[artery08]

(Original post by Mrkingpenguin)
It's called the UN, where everyone has a vote. Obviously we couldn't invade without the go ahead of other countries...that is why we vote

But it was Britian in particular that really pushed more than any other EU/American country for the motion, which is why is was deemed such a political success over here as the Yanks wanted to see the Britian and France etc. doing this one themselves (Military action).

I think we both know that the United Nations cannot do anything unless the US agrees. In fact, the US could go to war unilaterally without UN approval, whereas Britain couldn't do that. The Libyan war is really the US going to war, it weren't for them it wouldn't happen. The British war machine only took off because Obama gave his approval.

[alex5455]

(Original post by sucess)
proud of making natives second class citizens

like your retarded country did you mean?

[Mrkingpenguin]

(Original post by artery08)
I think we both know that the United Nations cannot do anything unless the US agrees. In fact, the US could go to war unilaterally without UN approval, whereas Britain couldn't do that. The Libyan war is really the US going to war, it weren't for them it wouldn't happen. The British war machine only took off because Obama gave his approval.

I think you find the US had an extremly low key role in Libya (they did some reconnaissance at the start and then pulled out-no fighting), the US did not "go to war" in Libya, the whole point of it was showing that Britian/France could pull their weight within NATO/UN.

[artery08]

(Original post by Mrkingpenguin)
I think you find the US had an extremly low key role in Libya (they did some reconnaissance at the start and then pulled out-no fighting), the US did not "go to war" in Libya, the whole point of it was showing that Britian/France could pull their weight within NATO/UN.

But the US gave the approval yes? If they wanted, they could have stopped it yes? To say that the US was not responsible for what happened in Libya is just semantics. They are the ones responsible, if it weren't for them it wouldn't have happened so they are wholly responsible for British fighter planes being there. Think of it as the US sending British fighter planes because that is exactly what they did.

[generaljonny]

(Original post by artery08)
But the US gave the approval yes? If they wanted, they could have stopped it yes? To say that the US was not responsible for what happened in Libya is just semantics. They are the ones responsible, if it weren't for them it wouldn't have happened so they are wholly responsible for British fighter planes being there. Think of it as the US sending British fighter planes because that is exactly what they did.

But what is your point? Your just proving how strong the USA is as a power. Hence that it why they are a superpower, and the world's only superpower. In fact, some commentators go so far as to call it a hyperpower. It does not show how weak Britain is relative the rest of the world. The USA is in a league of its own. Everyone else has to defer to the USA as well.