Which colonial empire was "most evil"?

Everything you have said simply is not true. The fact that you think slaves were shipped to Liverpool tells me you have absolutely to understanding of this issue at all.

I just posted you the linked article explaining how most of europes slaves where shipped to Liverpool, en route transatlantic, and how Liverpool grew immensurabley due to the slave trade. you are clearly deluded.

if you think that slaves were shipped to liverpool then you are deluded.

slaves were simply NOT shipped to liverpool. its just such a ridiculous thing to say -- it tells me you have no understanding of this issue at all.

the slave trade contributed hardly anything to british GDP and liverpools real wealth was created by the technological innovations of the industrial revolution.

The Americans never had an empire, they laid claim to a few islands here and there like everyone did and annexed much of the land which now makes up the United States; Texas and Louisiana. They have a cultural empire over English speaking countries now, based on pop culture effectively being modern American culture in the eyes of most.

If by its definition you really think America once had a geographical 'empire' then I have every right to say that the British Empire didn't end in 1997 and in fact lives strong to this day because we still own territories around the World with a combined population of about 250,000. The Americans controlling a few islands is not an 'empire'.
The USA does not have an empire by threat and proxy (by which I assume you're alluding to places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Korean peninsular DMZ), they have an obligation to maintain a presence in those places to ensure that everything is under control during politically erratic times. It's also incredibly ignorant of you to think that the occupation of places like Afghanistan and Iraq is down entirely to the Americans when in fact they've been assisted continuously by NATO and the British Armed forces because they're too naive and gun-ho to actually do anything like that themselves. And I quote: annihilated in Vietnam by some fishermen. Haha you must be an American?

By very nasty things I'm sure you mean economic sanctions against places, like North Korea; where the only thing preventing the entire populace dying of famine and malnourishment is the trade links and aid received from China. Those economic sanctions though aren't the responsibility of the USA, the UN (in particular the security council) makes the decision and are the ones who will enforce it however grim. The US does have some influence over other countries when voting on these sort of things simply because they're the ones with enough military and economic mite to carry such things out on behalf of the others, as well as their opinions being seen as superior for numerous factors like intelligence and whatever else. The fact of the matter is though that one veto at the UN and the 'nasty things' you speak about will never happen and in one case when they did; Iraq, the backlash was enormous and the American diplomats and leaders responsible for the infamous move to invade Iraq are now considered war criminals in the eyes of the public and in many of the political corridors.

I don't understand what you mean by 'who rebuilt Europe after WW2?'. The Americans? You're having a laugh. The Americans were incredibly savvy and strategic in that war because they realised they could sit back and wait for all of the 'powers' on the other side of the world to kill each other whilst simultaneously needing to purchase resources on lend-lease and take huge financial from the Americans who would rapidly become the most wealthy nation in the World because the others bankrupted themselves in debt. The Americans then 'picked a winner' (although I do agree with people who say they were coming to the defence of the allies anyway) late on in order to galvanise an image for themselves in the International community as rational thing 'good guys'. I'm lost in what you mean by the Americans rebuilding Europe though, the Americans sat back and let the Europeans juggle their own problems whilst always claiming the money that was owed to them. The original juggernaut the British effectively paid for the Americans to become the next superpower; in 1939 the British Empires economy amounted to $918.7billion (without even considering inflation to what that would be valued at now; much larger than even the current US economy) but by the 50s/60s this was non recognisable because of how much we owed the yanks

Actually i was talking about when the Americans depose regimes they dont like, like in iraq etc. plus their meddling south of the boarder is a beautiful case in point they have created a virtual civil war for this drug crap then we have cuba, panama etc. etc. etc. my point is the US can and does do what it wants for its own sake, if for instance saudi stopped giving them oil im fairly certain the king [or whatever title he uses] plane would somehow fall out of the sky and a morefriendly regime would come to power... take Iraq vs Iran, India vs Pakistan, Afghanstan vs Russia they armed and trained on the side they wanted to win to protect their interests.. the UN doesnt even factor into this, its a talking shop little more, all it can do is give a country a spanking.


Whats your point? They still rebuilt europe and yes because it was in their economic interests... all youve done is spout a load of clap trap every body already knows and for the record the US economy had already surpassed the UKSs by this point.... Everything is about money do you really think theyd let the developed world lie in ruins? no of course not youd be an idiot to think that theyd econoically decimate themselvesif they allowed that to happen.

If a nation is able to influence events to its own interest, then it is a superpower, but in the same way that not every empire is a superpower, not every superpower is an empire. I do agree with what you say about the UN: the USA does have the military and economic strength to ignore the UN.

After the conclusion of WWII, the USA was the only nation to have actually got richer. The formerly profitable trading partners of western Europe were bankrupt and the region needed financial support if it was to become a viable market for the growing American economy once more. In addition, the experience of the 1930s had shown how people reacted to times of economic hardship: by turning towards political extremism. For the USA, the best way to stop the spread of Communism was by revitalising the economies of western Europe. And yes, the US economy had overtaken the British economy by this point.

technically it could still only be a great power but your point stands none the less.
second point i disagree with though the french, spanish, portugese, dutch and german [before theirs got squashed twice] empires never achieved more than at best great power status the only empire which is generally accepted as being a super power albeit for a short period was ours, or theUSSR if we feel like counting what they had as an empire. Im interested to see what the next turn is though as technically we now have super powers of different calibres; china and germany are trading super powers, china a monetary super power, america the super power and russia, india and the EU and forcast to become superpowers... to be honest though its a redundant term these days anyway for instance america might have projection power and be able to influence events around the world but i have yet to see it do so on its own in the past years [disregarding the occassional rendition etc ]

ha yes war profiteering, we only paid them back in the 2000's if i remember rightly? they may well have restored peace and rebuilt a broken continent or two but they didnt do it out of generosity as you said, europe was and is the power house of the world [especially now with the eu trading bloc] and japan has a vast economy the yanks were very savvy in what they did, they not only turned a profit on the loans but gained in every possible regard from that war and for that i do grant them props.
When we say British do we mean our economy or our empires by the way just to make sure we're on the same page?

Well I suppose on that point we can agree that the Americans can be quite manipulative, obtrusive and ultimately evil (trying to keep on the OP's topic). But Iraq wasn't invaded just because they 'didn't like' Saddam Hussain (that sounds a bit like a conspiracy to me). Of course that came into it, but who did like Saddam Hussein? No one. He was a tyrant wh had to be deposed of because, regardless of whether he had nuclear weapons, he was committing human rights violations and the USA combined with the British were best placed to get rid of him (they would've never been able to invade Iraq without the UK's support so don't attempt to undermine that). You're saying that the USA is singularly responsible for instigating political and social uprisings and revolutions just because it suits them, and to a point they are 'guilty' of that (in the case of training the Taliban against the Russians it obviously came back to bite them. You can't honestly think that they're the only ones who engage in that though? All of the World's leading countries do so if it fits their 'interests'; because more often than not those of the entire Western Hemisphere are exactly the same (back to the cultural thing).
Throughout the Arab Spring the Americans were seen as 'leading from the back'; simply being one of many and arguably the least vocal of the members when NATO became involved in Libya, and now with the debate rumbling about whether we should train and arm rebels in Syria the US is being oddly prudent and claiming they'll only begin doing so full-steam if the British and French join them in doing so (which needs the approval of Russia, so it goes far deeper than what you think of the Americans doing 'what they want').
I think some of the assertions you're making are a bit biased and irrational and are testifying that you must be just another person who is in awe at the role of the USA in this century as the leading power...



Literally don't know what you're talking about by 'rebuilt Europe'? I can think of hardly any cases of the USA hands-on rebuilding anywhere out of charity; apart from the piece of Germany which was seceded to their control (just like bits were to Russia and the UK). The lend-lease system wasn't them offering to rebuild our houses and infrastructure if we 'paid them back later', it was used during the war for things like tanks and guns; with a huge interest rate should probably add.
And no the economy of the USA wasn't even nearly as big as that of the UK in 1939 haha. $918.7billion at that time puts it out in the lead as by far the biggest economy of all time.

1) Agreed.
2) Please read what I wrote.
3) Again, please read what I actually wrote.
4) Europe is the power house of the world? C'mon, you can't be serious...
5) British means Britain.

your lack of knowledge on this subject despite your willingness to discuss it is embarrassing - --- "Between 1700 and 1800, Liverpool in north-west England was transformed from not much more than a fishing village into one of the busiest slave trading ports in the world and thence into a general trading port and city without peer in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Ships from Liverpool accounted for more than 40% of the European slave trade" ------------"In Liverpool, there were ten large merchant houses engaged in the slave trade and 349 smaller firms. Shop windows displayed shining chains and manacles, devices to force open the mouths of slaves who refused to eat, neck rings, thumb screws and other implements of torment and oppression.
Not all of Liverpool's wealth was thanks to the slave trade, but it was undoubtedly the backbone of the town's prosperity, Slaving and related trades may have occupied a third and possibly a half of Liverpool's shipping activity in the period 1750 to 1807"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A2408889

It would help if you linked those to bits i said....
Europe is an upcoming i said i also said predicted, learn to read. It is the largest trading bloc in the world... notice how when europe had money trouble the world economy took a tumble to?
No britain is geographical, it is the island we live on, british are the people who live on it.

dude, slaves who were purchased from africa were not brought to liverpool. thats just a fact.

i already gave you a link from the liverpool museum:



get it now? and btw, those africans that did make it to england were not slaves. they were either sailors or hired servants for the upper classes.

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/archive/faq.aspx

So why do you seem to think the USA just globe trots doing whatever it wants, when it wants? The few examples you've given I've turned over. The US doesn't aspire to have an empire, it can't help if its own culture and ideal is attractive to most of the World. It's perfectly understandable that the Americans would challenge the political landscape in theocratic countries (sometimes forcibly) because it's typically in response to threats or the potential of threat towards their ideal emanating from the countries they tend to intervene in (most of which have been radicalist and corrupt, agree?).

I'm ending the other point here because it's got nothing to do with the original purpose of this thread (other than it being evil of the British to exploit its lands resources to grow the economy). But for you to think the USA's economy at the turn of the second World War was close to that of either the UK and its Empire (you can't differentiate them; the money was going through London) or that of even Nazi Germany in 1939 is absurd. I can't give you a history book quote but I at least found this table of the biggest ever GDP's, you're welcome

How hypocritical, I believe you said 'Europe was and is the power house of the world'. I'm sorry but your expression of your thoughts is absolutely awful so pardon me if I miss something.
Please tell me which financial crisis you are referring to here. As far as I'm aware, the 2008 recession was caused by financial problems in the USA.
You seriously need to take a leaf out of your own book and learn to read. You asked whether my statement of 'British' referred to the economy of Britain or that of Britain's empire (at least that's what I thought you were asking, hard to tell) and I told you that when I said 'British' I referred to Britain.

The Americans would care about a dictator committing human rights violations because they should feel compelled to do so as a World leader and insignia of freedom, as well as being on the UN Security Council which has one of its main remits to prevent tyrants from oppressing people. Of course they care, you saying they don't is the ludicrous point. But please do entertain with your list of countries the USA has evilly (keeping on topic) for its own gains?

The Empire was the UK's economy. It may have been dirty money from exploitation but at that time it was Britain's money because only they had final say on how any of that money would be invested. Once again proving my first point on this thread that the British Empire was hands down the most evil. Why does it matter about the time variations? You don't seem to be taking into account inflation and equal worth. For example: £10,000,000 in 1938 would be valued at £180,000,000 today. Now, extrapolate that first figure of 10million to 918.7billion and you'll be getting close to the worth of the British Empires GDP by comparison to that of the USA today (14.99 trillion in case you were wondering).

No i said it was believed to be an up and coming super power and the worlds largest trading bloc, which would indeedmake it a power house... see how that works?
no i wont pardon you you justappear to be blind to facts.
are you ****ing kidding me ? the european debt crisis, seriously theres some very colourful words to describe you and your knowledge of this unfortunately i just came off a ban and dont really want another one so ill let you figure out what id like to compare you to.
yes and you didnt bother reffering it back to which point id made as i made clear in my reply to your thoroughly irritating one.

Interesting that you say that, because I quoted directly from your earlier post (but spelt 'Europe' correctly) but now you deny saying it. Interesting.
If I'm blind to facts then I'd like to see where that leaves you.
Wikipedia says that the European debt crisis was a result of the US housing bubble. Explain that. Yes it is indeed unfortunate that you just came off a ban.
Throurougly irritating? Cute.