The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
fletchinator
it didn't in 1939.


It did, however, in '33, '34, '35, '38, and March of '39...
Reply 41
fletchinator
I'm sorry but I really can't take you seriously now. Because not all of our soldiers are white if you hadn't noticed. We didn't send soldiers over there to kill 'darkies' or to kill non british people, we sent them there to dispose of certain groups of people that we (or the usa might I add) thought were harmful to world security. Whether they were a threat or not is a different debate but I don't think it would have made a difference if this potentially dangerous government had taken hold of Italy lets say. I don't think that would stop the US and British governments, it didn't in 1939.


I disagree. Imperialism is inextricably bound up with racial constructs. Did we ever colonise Italy? The only 'white' countries we colonised, like New Zealand and Canada, we granted independence to as early as possible, with the result being that those countries are now relatively wealthy. If you believe that the war was about 'world security' rather than simply making money and maintaining power over other parts of the world, then I can't help you as you're obviously grossly misinformed on the topic. Turn off the news and read.
Reply 42
Imperialism implies the construction of an Empire, which by definition requires government to be seated at a central point. As Iraq has its own government, is sovereign and independent, and troops will eventually withdraw this cannot be imperialistic.
icedout
In fact most of Asia, Africa and Latin America do.


Most of asia? Why do the chinese hate us? Do india hate us? I don't think so. Do Japan hate us?- No way, they love it. Asia love Britain because of Becks anyway. As for Africa- who cares? Latin America? Why do they hate us? Argentina do, but we hate them so **** em.

icedout
And all the Muslim world.


Good. Most of britain don't like the muslim world.
gas_panic!
Well i can assure they don't. The only countries that do are ones not worth being bothered about. Iran don't like us? Oh no! What ever shall we do!
I'm glad somebody isn't bothered by the Iranian Nuclear Dispute.
icedout
I disagree. Imperialism is inextricably bound up with racial constructs. Did we ever colonise Italy? The only 'white' countries we colonised, like New Zealand and Canada, we granted independence to as early as possible, with the result being that those countries are now relatively wealthy. If you believe that the war was about 'world security' rather than simply making money and maintaining power over other parts of the world, then I can't help you as you're obviously grossly misinformed on the topic. Turn off the news and read.


This coming from the man who was insinuating that all british troops are white and we sent them over there to kill people who don't have white skin. Whatever the wars are fought over, it certainly isn't race.
Ethereal
You can't equate removing naturalised citizenship with removing citizenship of someone who was born here.

When someone is born here it is an accident of birth that they are British. When someone applies for citizenship they choose to become British. It is perfectly valid to argue citizenship can be revoked if they then go on to act against the interests of the state.


Why should someone be given preferetial treatment just for being born in Britain? Like you said, it's just chance that they were born here, so there's no case for them to have more rights than others who have chosen to become British. What good does deporting people do, anyway? Why should a Brazilian born (but British citizen) violent crimnal, for example, be deported when a British born violent criminal is not? The only difference between the two is that they happened to be born in different countries, and that's got nothing to do with their crimes at all.
Reply 47
Chumbaniya
Why should someone be given preferetial treatment just for being born in Britain? Like you said, it's just chance that they were born here, so there's no case for them to have more rights than others who have chosen to become British. What good does deporting people do, anyway? Why should a Brazilian born (but British citizen) violent crimnal, for example, be deported when a British born violent criminal is not? The only difference between the two is that they happened to be born in different countries, and that's got nothing to do with their crimes at all.



1) because you can't deport someone who was born here, there is nowhere to deport them to. Simple practicality.
2) because someone born here hasn't had to demonstrate they can offer something to society. Someone who applies for citizenship has. Therefore, if they commit violent crime they are detracting from the society they are supposed to be enhancing. Again, it's simple practicality.

Latest

Trending

Trending