Anyone else up watching things unfold?

My mistake then - a company with offices in America, to which they sent you.

 

ogden bored us all completely to death with wittery prose along the
lines of:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3979367.stm

Bollox. Looks like Blur's going to be okay...

 

heh. Got me.

I take your point. But such generalisations should be carefully
qualified with phrases like "tend to", "many", "often", etc.

 

Champ wrote

Yeah right and how often do you catch a fish on just the hook alone?

You want to take all the fun out of it you do. Bleedin' liberals.

 

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:10:20 +0000 (UTC), "Toby Augh-Nottoby"

[george bush carried out the 9/11 attacks and rumsfeld was his co pilot]

Oh it won't happen because the space aliens that live in a vault under
the pentagon will ensure that any possible confessor will be killed
before he can speak out.

 

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the

Oh aye. It all makes perfect sense now.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10

 

I love this. Someone honestly believes the UK wasn't a superpower? Oh,
it's Des. Right, well, his knowledge history is appalling, and what
little there is of it is slanted.

A century ago, the UK was in *exactly* the position the US is in now,
with the only exception being that nooklear weapons didn't exist.
Britain, and only Britain, had a global reach and the muscle and finance
to pursue any war, any aim, any goal.

The Romans don't really count as a global power - yes, they dominated
Europe and North Africa, but no more than that.

Spain? Yes, a massive power in the 16th century, but I'd still say that
only the US and UK have possessed truly global power.

 

The man's a twat.

Britain ruled, directly, one quarter of the globe's land mass. The Royal
navy was kept at a "two fleets" size - in other words, it had to be
stronger than any other two national fleets, combined.

British merchant hulls carried most of the world's trade.

Britain controlled *all* the strategic points on the globe, with the
exception of the Panama canal.

British technology led the world. Rail, sea, communications.

Britain was a superpower. End of story.

 

Bear wrote

More than a few hippies I think. What about the rats in the bilge's?
although I dare say it may have come as a relief to them as I don't
suppose they are fond of an unremitting diet of lentils and tofu.

 

Hmmmm. Minority Report. They'll know that he's thinking about thinking
about confessing - then, zap.

 

Bear wrote

His pump I suppose. My spellchucker wouldn't have it any other way so
on the balance of probabilities I let it go. I really don't understand
punctuation, it just sounds wrong sometimes.

 

I note you snipped TOG's explanation of why the British Empire was the
superpower of its day.

This from someone who had no idea of the significance of the 11th hour
of the 11th day of the 11th month.

<sigh>

 

Century, more like. He snipped it because he does not understand. he
tries quoting or citing history, but his ignorance shines through.

There was simply no power on earth that could challenge Britain from
1815 (Waterloo) until 1914 - these are two very convenient yardsticks,
but they hold good.

1805 and Trafalgar meant that Britain's hegemony on the seas was sealed,
for a century or more. Waterloo - yes, yes, I know Blucher helped carry
the day - did the same thing on land.

Quite simply, Britain dominated in almost every field of human
endeavour. Transport, land forces, naval forces - especially naval
forces - science, technology (I will make allowances here for the
nascent field of modern physics, which was a German-dominated field - in
fact, German was *the* language of physics).

And economics. In addition to being the most powerful military nation
(we had to be, to protect and maintain the empire) Britain was the
richest nation. Yes, we were caught up and eclipsed, but 100 years ago
there was no power that could touch us.

Look now at the globe, and note where the US is active: where its forces
are concentrated. Where its bases are. Where it considers its spheres of
influence to be.

Consider Iraq, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran....
Think about control of the seas around China, and the Indian Ocean

I'm sorry to bang on like this. I am an old-fashioned imperialist, and
unapologetic about it. But the parallels between Britain circa 1900 and
the US circa 2000 are *fascinating*, the only difference being that then
our imperialism was overt. We ruled directly.

My own feeling, FWIW, is that far from watching the collapse of the US,
we're witnessing the *start* of the American Imperium. How long it may
last is anyone's guess.

 

I believe it could have been from his coverage of Nixon's campaign in 1972,
which was included in the Great Shark Hunt, although I can't find an exact
match. There's a good quote from Bobby Kennedy, though, which could very
easily be applied to Bush: "Richard Nixon represents the dark side of the
American spirit."

 

I really do not begin to understand why you believe all this stuff Des
and why you have such a completely one sided view of America. Where does
all this hate and condemnation come from? And please don't quote the
death penalty group as some sort of justification because you are just
as provocative there as your opposite numbers.

so rather similar to a whole lot of countries then?

And there have never been any left wing governments that kill their own
citizens and plenty of others then? I suppose you consider them to be
somehow "different" and more justified in their policy of killing
because you have more of a leaning towards their politics?

You are branding the whole nation as fools. That is incorrect in my
experience. Yes we can all cite the odd run in with American tourists
as not exactly the most intellectually stimulating experience but then
I'd expect a Chinaman would find meeting a European in Beijing not
exactly stimulating either. The cultural differences account for a great
deal.

You spend a huge amount of time criticising people for making sweeping
statements in support of their arguments and yet you sit in self
justification using the exact same mechanism. A touch of realism and
balance wouldn't go amiss.

 

Snip stuff I mostly knew.

Don't be. It's like listening to my Grandy. I get the feeling he and
your mum would have talked long into the night had they ever met. It's
good to have a passion but often a double edged sword.

 

The three guys in the bar being interviewed last night certainly
didn't.

Highlight of the night for me was Dimbleby being called a "rosbif" by
the French political correspondent from Paris.
--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/KH500A8/TS250C
|_\_____/_| ..73063../..16589.../..3180./.19406
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 YTC#4 PM#5
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 two#11 WG*
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17 IbB#4
'^'

 

I feel, for no identifiable reason, that it will be a lot quicker than
100 years.

I'd hazard a guess that the US, in its current form, will be a busted
flush within 30 years.

This isn't wishful thinking as the amount of international social and
emotional devastation caused by such a collapse wil be, err, devastating.

 

The Older Gentleman bored us all completely to death with wittery prose
along the lines of:

This is my big concern. Especially when you have right wing nuts
talking about "The Project for the New American Century" Check this out:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Just read the first paragraph. For me, it is scary.

 

Heh - I saw that too.