Debate: should Britian apologise for having invaded 90% of the world's countries?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dæl**

Grey Templar wrote:
I would hardly compare Guantanamo to Australia.

Yeah, we gave ours a trial.

**thenoobbomb**

Palindrome wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

We keep the worst of the worst in Guantanamo. Australia was where you shipped the bread thieves and purse snatchers

As well as all kinds of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And then torture them.
Honestly, everytime I see an American politician talk about the rights of humans, I can't stop thinking about Guantanamo Bay and then laugh.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, breaking treaties was not nice.

Although the treaties in the first place were semi silly. We should have just outright assimilated them into our culture. It probably would have been less painful in the long run. Plus we wouldn't be dealing with all the Indian Casino crap we have going on now.

**thenoobbomb**

Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, breaking treaties was not nice.

Although the treaties in the first place were semi silly. We should have just outright assimilated them into our culture. It probably would have been less painful in the long run. Plus we wouldn't be dealing with all the Indian Casino crap we have going on now.

There is a US law that allows them to inade the Netherlands if we do not deliver them certain prisoners.
Or something like that. It's silly.

**Ahtman**

thenoobbomb wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, breaking treaties was not nice.

Although the treaties in the first place were semi silly. We should have just outright assimilated them into our culture. It probably would have been less painful in the long run. Plus we wouldn't be dealing with all the Indian Casino crap we have going on now.

There is a US law that allows them to inade the Netherlands if we do not deliver them certain prisoners.
Or something like that. It's silly.

We haven't penciled in a war for 2016-2018 yet, perhaps we can work something out.

**Grey Templar**

Yes, and there is also a town in Texas were it is illegal to sell Blue Ducklings.

**Palindrome**

Grey Templar wrote:

China and India would be backwards countries from a technological standpoint. Which would probably mean Soviet Russia would have invaded and taken over most of Asia.

Very doubtful and without the British Empire there would have been no WWI and therefore almost certainly no Soviet Union.

**thenoobbomb**

Ahtman wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, breaking treaties was not nice.

Although the treaties in the first place were semi silly. We should have just outright assimilated them into our culture. It probably would have been less painful in the long run. Plus we wouldn't be dealing with all the Indian Casino crap we have going on now.

There is a US law that allows them to inade the Netherlands if we do not deliver them certain prisoners.
Or something like that. It's silly.

We haven't penciled in a war for 2016-2018 yet, perhaps we can work something out.

Hmm, how many tullips would that take?

**Grey Templar**

Palindrome wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

China and India would be backwards countries from a technological standpoint. Which would probably mean Soviet Russia would have invaded and taken over most of Asia.

Very doubtful and without the British Empire there would have been no WWI and therefore almost certainly no Soviet Union.

I fail to see how the British Empire was a mandatory piece for WW1 and the forming of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union pulled out of WW1, they didn't start it. They were formed part way through from a unrelated cause.

**thenoobbomb**

Grey Templar wrote:
Palindrome wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

China and India would be backwards countries from a technological standpoint. Which would probably mean Soviet Russia would have invaded and taken over most of Asia.

Very doubtful and without the British Empire there would have been no WWI and therefore almost certainly no Soviet Union.

I fail to see how the British Empire was a mandatory piece for WW1 and the forming of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union pulled out of WW1, they didn't start it. They were formed part way through from a unrelated cause.

The creation of the SOviet Union relates to WW1

**Ouze**

I have a question for the OP; regarding the scope of this thread. Is this "should nations apologize for past wrongs", or are we trying to keep this specific to Britain?

**dæl**

Grey Templar wrote:
Palindrome wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

China and India would be backwards countries from a technological standpoint. Which would probably mean Soviet Russia would have invaded and taken over most of Asia.

Very doubtful and without the British Empire there would have been no WWI and therefore almost certainly no Soviet Union.

I fail to see how the British Empire was a mandatory piece for WW1 and the forming of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union pulled out of WW1, they didn't start it. They were formed part way through from a unrelated cause.

The revolution had some support from Germany in an attempt to make them pull out of the war.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, I still fail to see how the British Empire caused WW1. Aside from being a major member of the Alliance web.

**Tibbsy**

Ouze wrote:
kronk wrote:
They do owe us an explanation for the Spice Girls, though.

What's wrong with the Spice Girls? What exactly is it you want England to do? Tell me what you want - what you really really want.

Ouze - I fething love you for this, nearly fell out of my chair laughing

Exalted!

And I don't think we should apologise at all... It's been too long really for the apology to have any real meaning...

Maybe we should invade the other 10%... May as well go the whole hog...

**thenoobbomb**

Tibbsy wrote:
Ouze wrote:
kronk wrote:
They do owe us an explanation for the Spice Girls, though.

What's wrong with the Spice Girls? What exactly is it you want England to do? Tell me what you want - what you really really want.

Ouze - I fething love you for this, nearly fell out of my chair laughing Exalted!

And I don't think we should apologise at all... It's been too long really for the apology to have any real meaning...

Maybe we should invade the other 10%... May as well go the whole hog...

Explain to me why the Netherlands had to appoligise for stuff in Surinam of >100 years

**Palindrome**

Grey Templar wrote:
Palindrome wrote:

Very doubtful and without the British Empire there would have been no WWI and therefore almost certainly no Soviet Union.

I fail to see how the British Empire was a mandatory piece for WW1 and the forming of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union pulled out of WW1, they didn't start it. They were formed part way through from a unrelated cause.

The main driver for the start of WWI, aside from the usual territorial squabbles, was the rivalry between the UK and Germany. Without the British Empire, and more importantly the navy its funded, Britain there would have been much less of a threat. There would probably have still been a war but it wouldn't have been anything like on the same scale and its probable that Imperial Germany would have won by 1916.

The USSR was born out the the severe hardships inflicted on the Russians due to the war alongside lots of historical social issues. A war on a much smaller scale wouldn't have had the same effect and the Russian Tsar would probably have retained enough control to prevent the Russian revolution which then in turn would have stopped the Russian civil war which in turn created the Soviet regimes.

**Grey Templar**

Well the Vatican's going to be tricky. You've already invaded Italy and no doubling up. Plus I doubt the british army has any melee techniques for dealing with polearms wielded by guys in puffy pants.

**thenoobbomb**

Grey Templar wrote:
Well the Vatican's going to be tricky. You've already invaded Italy and no doubling up. Plus I doubt the british army has any melee techniques for dealing with polearms wielded by guys in puffy pants.

Run, you fools! Run!

**juraigamer**

Apologizing doesn't help, only brings these past events to light once more when we should be learning from our mistakes, not repeating them verbally.

**Frazzled**

Grey Templar wrote:
Last I checked, the US hasn't commited genocide on the scale to which was commited in Africa. We didn't pick up a small continent to use as a prison colony. And finally we weren't heavily involved in the european wang contest that was the Age of Imperialisim.

You're right. Not everyone's perfect. We did try to make up for it though with good old American know how, some split atoms, and two four engine bombers. Thats got to count for something.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
I would hardly compare Guantanamo to Australia.

We keep the worst of the worst in Guantanamo. Australia was where you shipped the bread thieves and purse snatchers

And 45 square miles compared to almost 3 million square miles

Australia, Britain's answer to Salusa Secundus.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
I would hardly compare Guantanamo to Australia.

Yeah, we gave ours a trial.

And that was your mistake! muahahaha!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

thenoobbomb wrote:
Palindrome wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

We keep the worst of the worst in Guantanamo. Australia was where you shipped the bread thieves and purse snatchers

As well as all kinds of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And then torture them.
Honestly, everytime I see an American politician talk about the rights of humans, I can't stop thinking about Guantanamo Bay and then laugh.

Wait shouldn't you be speaking German? How come you're not? Oh yea it was those Brits and Americans again...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

thenoobbomb wrote:
Tibbsy wrote:
Ouze wrote:
kronk wrote:
They do owe us an explanation for the Spice Girls, though.

What's wrong with the Spice Girls? What exactly is it you want England to do? Tell me what you want - what you really really want.

Ouze - I fething love you for this, nearly fell out of my chair laughing Exalted!

And I don't think we should apologise at all... It's been too long really for the apology to have any real meaning...

Maybe we should invade the other 10%... May as well go the whole hog...

Explain to me why the Netherlands had to appoligise for stuff in Surinam of >100 years

First you have to convince the world the netherlands is a real country. Come on, admit it, you're just pulling our leg.

**Grey Templar**

The difference is that PoWs don't have a right to a trail. Citizens do. Right to a Trial is also certaintly not a basic human right.

hence why Guantanamo and the people there really have no comparison to Australia.

**Frazzled**

Grey Templar wrote:
The difference is that PoWs don't have a right to a trail. Citizens do. Right to a Trial is also certaintly not a basic human right.

hence why Guantanamo and the people there really have no comparison to Australia.

Well there is one comparison. I think both Cuba and Australia have salt water crocodiles.

**Grey Templar**

Indeed, you are correct

**Palindrome**

Grey Templar wrote:
The difference is that PoWs don't have a right to a trail. Citizens do. Right to a Trial is also certaintly not a basic human right.

I think you will find that it is.

Articles 10 and 11 are particulary pertinent http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml.

**Grey Templar**

Since when does the united nations matter

They can say it till they are blue in the face. But it doesn't change what is and isn't a basic human right.

**Palindrome**

That old strawman eh?

**Grey Templar**

Its not a strawman.

Basic human rights are impossable to define because there isn't anywhere they are spelled out. And we certaintly can't have a human organization arbitrarily defining them.

The only rights that really can ever be defined are those given to citizens by a country's constitution, because the authority to give out rights and enforce them is present. Aside from that, any concept of basic human rights is far to abstract to spell out.

So unless God comes down and gives us a stone tablet that defined basic human rights we don't have any way of telling what basic human rights are.

**Palindrome**

Yet those 'impossible to define' rights have been defined and are accepted as such by most developed countries. Its just that certain countries chose to ignore them for their own, usually immoral, ends.

**Frazzled**

Palindrome wrote:
Yet those 'impossible to define' rights have been defined and are accepted as such by most developed countries. Its just that certain countries chose to ignore them for their own, usually immoral, ends.

Translation: they are only rights if you have the legions to make them legal.
ALways has been, always shall be .

**Palindrome**

I doubt that it will always be such. Right by conquest is something that is slowly dying away and as the world becomes ever more interconnected it is unlikely to make a return.