Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Ohelemapit

Why do we still fool ourselves?

42 posts in this topic

Why do we feel we must behave as a world power? Whenever a crisis blows up — Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria — politicians of whichever party act as though it is our national destiny to intervene.

Much of the media, particularly the BBC, colludes in the fiction that what this country does during these crises is decisive. Britain is mentioned in the same breath as the U.S. Maps are produced signifying British fire-power on which there are almost as many Union Flags as Stars & Stripes.

arrow3.gifView: Read more

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Daily Mail can talk, since it was their Tory party that was responsible for the dismantling of British military power. So it's all very well mocking the UK as being pygmy in world affairs, but I'm afraid it's the fault of the political party they support.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Daily Mail can talk, since it was their Tory party that was responsible for the dismantling of British military power. So it's all very well mocking the UK as being pygmy in world affairs, but I'm afraid it's the fault of the political party they support.

Not only. But they had at least 50% of the responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We used to be a real world power,until we got a load of idiots at the top,and they still live in a dream world of their own making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK isn't interested in being a world power. The UK only wants to get it's own house in order. It is only those few oiks from the Oxbridge club who purport to represent the UK that wish to be "big players" on the world stage - and that is simply down to ego.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UK has the 4th largest military budget in the world only surpassed by USA, China and Russia.

I think thats quite a lot for a small Island.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UK has the 4th largest military budget in the world only surpassed by USA, China and Russia.

I think thats quite a lot for a small Island.

To much by my reconning.

You can only make wars profitable if you are the big player and the UK lost that position over 50years ago, since then its been all burden for no gain.

Br Cornelius

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To much by my reconning.

You can only make wars profitable if you are the big player and the UK lost that position over 50years ago, since then its been all burden for no gain.

Br Cornelius

For once, Br, both you and I are in complete agreement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood the constant knocking we like to give ourselves relating to our position in the world. For a tiny insignificant island, that's given up 95% of it's former empire....I think we have positioned ourselves quite well in the modern world.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We used to be a real world power,until we got a load of idiots at the top,and they still live in a dream world of their own making.

A non contiguous colonial power is untenable, a big country (even if some parts of it are treated like colonies, ie, ancient Greece, Rome) can work, thousands of miles of distance will collapse as soon as those further away get wise on your methods.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood the constant knocking we like to give ourselves relating to our position in the world. For a tiny insignificant island, that's given up 95% of it's former empire....I think we have positioned ourselves quite well in the modern world.

It seems to me that the British worked out that you don't have to maintain the colonies once you have the "business" ties and financial structures in place to continue milking the former colonies once you have left. This is why the various aspects of the square mile represent such a disproportionate part of the overall economy. A significant proportion of all global trade pays Britain a tithe for using the trading facilities of London.

Unfortunately it all smacks of fraud and robbery to me and is no basis for a secure economy. It also means that much of the area outside of the South East has been left to wither, which has diminished the country overall. Feeding from the scaps of the high table is how it looks to me.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the British worked out that you don't have to maintain the colonies once you have the "business" ties and financial structures in place to continue milking the former colonies once you have left. This is why the various aspects of the square mile represent such a disproportionate part of the overall economy. A significant proportion of all global trade pays Britain a tithe for using the trading facilities of London.

Unfortunately it all smacks of fraud and robbery to me and is no basis for a secure economy. It also means that much of the area outside of the South East has been left to wither, which has diminished the country overall. Feeding from the scaps of the high table is how it looks to me.

Br Cornelius

Ok, scrap the business ties with the rest of the world which will reduce the money coming through London drastically. So you have a more even footing across the country....i.e much less money to play with. How does that help the rest of the country?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, scrap the business ties with the rest of the world which will reduce the money coming through London drastically. So you have a more even footing across the country....i.e much less money to play with. How does that help the rest of the country?

The problem is that the system is unbalanced and has an innate bias to remain unbalanced since the square mile has little interest in the health of the real economy - but massive influence on national policy.

If you are happy with the scraps from the table of the square mile propping up the rest of the economy, then I suppose thats fine then. Personally I think we should pursue a national industrial policy to rebalance the economy, which is what the current government proposed doing, but then quietly abandoned the idea when they realized that it would be unpopular with the square mile spivs and wouldn't save their bacon in the upcoming elections.

let it also be said that the UK's approach has resulted in a long series of economy destroying boom and bust cycles, where as the most successful European economy which operates both a wage and industrial policy has managed to steer a much more even and successful path through the same period. I think we have valuable lessons to learn, but not from the spivs and their cronies in Whitehall.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that the system is unbalanced and has an innate bias to remain unbalanced since the square mile has little interest in the health of the real economy - but massive influence on national policy.

If you are happy with the scraps from the table of the square mile propping up the rest of the economy, then I suppose thats fine then.

Br Cornelius

The square mile has always propped up the rest of the country, even when we was manufacturing at large levels (take our motor industry for example)...it was still propped up by the square mile because we were unable to do the simple things correctly, you know like balancing the books, making quality products...etc....so they kept needing to be bailed out.

Back to my question though - the square mile takes a back seat, plugs the flow of money into the city. How does that help the wider country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The square mile has always propped up the rest of the country, even when we was manufacturing at large levels (take our motor industry for example)...it was still propped up by the square mile because we were unable to do the simple things correctly, you know like balancing the books, making quality products...etc....so they kept needing to be bailed out.

Back to my question though - the square mile takes a back seat, plugs the flow of money into the city. How does that help the wider country?

Chicken and egg situation, solve the problems of national incentives and training and grow a viable economy whilst bringing the worst criminality of the square mile under control. Most of the financial criminality which has been uncovered in the last 7 years has been traced back to the Square Mile and Wall street. It is the citizens who foot the bill - they are robbing us as well as the ex-colonies, and systematically destroying the real economy for profit. Meanwhile Whitehall does everything in its power to protect its chums in the square mile - making them as criminal as the bankers.

The UK once produced the best and most sought after products in the world - it was a massive exporter of goods that people needed and wanted. the capacity is still there. Germany never abandoned its manufacturing economy and has a far better economy as a result.

This really boils down to selecting our representatives from a tiny cabal of oxbridge toffs who have always been distrustful of industry and the skilled working class. Class warfare is what has destroyed the British economy. I see no change on the horizon.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice as well how Germany has done rather well from not holding a large standing army to drain away all of its money :tu:

Britain has backed the wrong horse for the best part of a century.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All civilisations crumble. Look at the Roman Empire.

Britain lost much of it's power since WW2 and is now more like a tin pot country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion it's about " responsability " the UN and Security Councle

have duty of protecting civilians in any kinda of struggle

and you refering to syria in the opening post

in syria the goverment have killed 100.000 civilian so far . and most are women and children

and in the recent chemcial attack alone by the goverment they killed around 200 child and most of other victims were civlians women and men

and that falls under the UN nations responsablity

it's moral calling to end such goverment activity

a goverment that made 4 million of their people refuges inside and outside

denied children of their rights in life and destroyed their childhood

many orphans .. many families lost their childrens

schools and homes destroyed by millions with scuds usage in civilian areas

torture and gang rape in prisons to children women all alike

you want silence more than 3 years nearly ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion it's about " responsability " the UN and Security Councle

have duty of protecting civilians in any kinda of struggle

and you refering to syria in the opening post

in syria the goverment have killed 100.000 civilian so far . and most are women and children

and in the recent chemcial attack alone by the goverment they killed around 200 child and most of other victims were civlians women and men

and that falls under the UN nations responsablity

it's moral calling to end such goverment activity

a goverment that made 4 million of their people refuges inside and outside

denied children of their rights in life and destroyed their childhood

many orphans .. many families lost their childrens

schools and homes destroyed by millions with scuds usage in civilian areas

torture and gang rape in prisons to children women all alike

you want silence more than 3 years nearly ?

Nothing of what you say can be proved!!! It is the Insurgents and Govt that have killed 100,000 people (it is not 1 sided)... you are as equally culpable in this slaughter, and you wlecome the likes of Al Qaeda into your ranks of "rebels"...

Sort this out yourselves, you started it, you finish it, do not try to pull in the Western Nations to do the job that you cannot do...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing of what you say can be proved!!! It is the Insurgents and Govt that have killed 100,000 people (it is not 1 sided)... you are as equally culpable in this slaughter, and you wlecome the likes of Al Qaeda into your ranks of "rebels"...

Sort this out yourselves, you started it, you finish it, do not try to pull in the Western Nations to do the job that you cannot do...

oh yeah ? don't be so sure it can't be proved

the united nations proved it

the United Nations reported that of the over 3500 total deaths, over 250 deaths were children as young as 2 years old, and that boys as young as 11 years old have been gang raped by security services officers

The authorities are accused of arresting democracy and human rights activists, censoring websites, detaining bloggers, and imposing travel bans.

Arbitrary detention, torture, and disappearances are widespread.[78] Although Syria's constitution guarantees gender equality, critics say that personal statutes laws and the penal code discriminate against women and girls. Moreover, it also grants leniency for so-called 'Honour killing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria

there is thousands of human rights institutions reports feel free to search too

try again .. try harder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but as somebody else wrote in a news paper forum, all this has the ring of a 'false flag' operation to me.

I've not seen anything on the T.V. news convinces me. In fact, as far as I can see, the only people to gain from a chemical weapons attack are the al qaeda the rebels.

After Iraq & then Afganistan i can't believe how dumb it would be to get mixed up in another conflict & i wonder whether this government are just using these conflicts to downsize our army. idiots.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UK has the 4th largest military budget in the world only surpassed by USA, China and Russia.

I think thats quite a lot for a small Island.

I never understood the constant knocking we like to give ourselves relating to our position in the world. For a tiny insignificant island, that's given up 95% of it's former empire....I think we have positioned ourselves quite well in the modern world.

well said, as for - Why do we still fool ourselves that Britain is a great power?

well in the world today as far as great powers go you have the USA, United Kingdom France and Germany. on one side, on the other side you have Russia and China, if the west doesn't influence the globe in our favour it'll be left to Russia and China to influence it in their favour. there is no other option. its either one or the other, then it comes to capability. the USA, United Kingdom and France have the assets to project force. this is why these nations spend big on military. its exactly why the billions of coinage is spent. this is a luxury the great powers can afford. once you lose this ability so does the the ability to shape the world.

Syria is a perfect example of the great powers of to day. i think Syria is just the pawn in the middle of a wider global strategy, we the west have tried to shape events in Syria which was going well at first, but now three years later the pendulum as swung in favour of Russia and China do we leave well alone and let them win this battle of influence? or do we finish the job and swing the whole thing back in our favour. - i think this is where we are today - prepared to use our assets IE: military capability - making sure the outcome is desirable to western influence. like another poster pointed out three years and 100,000 dead. yet a tiny fraction of that figure is killed by chemical weapons (by whom we still dont know) and now we are prepared to put the lives of our own military in the firing line. i think this is why the politicians are so keen on military action its not the moral aspect of saving men woman and children - its the wider scenario of political influence with the moral aspect of saving men women and children threw in as a after thought, the sweetener for joe public to agree to military action. give the voters a conscience and they'll use it. give them a guilty one and government will split opinion once opinion is split the green light for military action will follow.

still personally i think we should not get involved, not unless the UN approves of military action. but i cannot see this coming about with Russia holding a Veto.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Russia and China were to win this battle of influence, would that be catastrophic? for whom? for "Democracy"? I'm afraid that "capitalist Democracy" has long since forfeited any right to claim to Moral Leadership of the world.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice as well how Germany has done rather well from not holding a large standing army to drain away all of its money :tu:

Britain has backed the wrong horse for the best part of a century.

Br Cornelius

Germany has all was done well in manufacturing terms in WW2, cars, trucks, tractors, cranes, diggers, phones, roads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Russia and China were to win this battle of influence, would that be catastrophic? for whom? for "Democracy"? I'm afraid that "capitalist Democracy" has long since forfeited any right to claim to Moral Leadership of the world.

It has nothing to do with Moral Leadership - if having a moral compass had anything to do with anything we would have cut all ties with Saudi Arabia a long time ago, and we'd also have stuck some cruise missiles into Mugabe by now too.

No, it wouldn't be catastrophic if Russia and China win this battle of influence, some you win and some you lose....it would just be rather handy for some Western nations if they didn't, hence the interest. I also think it's starting to dawn on a few 'suits with ties' that post Assad could be worse for their interests, but as the general consensus seems to be he'll lose at some point anyway then they might be thinking some limited help now might carry favor with whomever seizes power next.

It's a nasty game they all play....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.