Anyone else up watching things unfold?

.... and they all had guns.

--
| ___ 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
'^'

 

wrote in @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

The folks from all over the continent would've turned up to take potshots
at the disembarking brits though. Not feasible IMHO. But I'm no armchair
general so I won't try to argue the military implications.

Sure.

 

Definitely a factor in the English thinking on the matter.

 

I stopped smoked ciggies on the 3rd day of the 3rd month of the 3rd year of
the 3rd millenium. I only realised that a couple of days after.

 

There was a lot of competition with France, of course, during the
18th/19th centuries. Until we beat them up, leaving ourseles the only
global power.

Spain was certainly global, with domination of south/central America and
significant power in the Pacific.

And what about the Soviet Union?

 

Green grow his nadgers Oh!

 

And we were spending a bloody fortune defending their coast from piracy.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

<to the tune of "My Darling Clementine> iirc.

Joe, he was a young cordwangler,
Munging greebles he did go,
And he loved a bogler's daughter
By the name of Chiswick Flo.

Vain she was and like a grusset
Though her gander parts were fine,
But she sneered at his cordwangle
As it hung upon the line.

So he stole a woggler's mooly
For to make a wedding ring,
But the Bow Street Runners caught him
And the judge said "He will swing."

Oh, they hung him by the postern,
Nailed his mooly to the fence
For to warn all young cordwanglers
That it was a grave offence.

There's a moral to this story,
Though your cordwangle be poor,
Keep your hands off other's moolies,
For it is against the law.


--
| ___ 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
'^'

 

You drink that?

 

Yes. Superpower. Deffo. Whether the SU enjoyed the kind of power
Britain, did on a global scale, (say) 75 years before.....

If there is a difference, I suggest economic and cultural. The US and
Britain have managed to combine cultural and economic strength/influence
with military and political. The SU never managed the two former ones.

But yes, the Soviet Union was a superpower.

 

The rose is actually rather nice.......
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 2.0 TS
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

Actually we get through gallons of the stuff. Pretty cheap from Tescos and
it's one of the few reds Sarah can tolerate. That and Saumur-Champigny.

 

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Ian <
()> saying something like:

We got them back in the 70s.

--

Dave

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

 

Not exactly a superpower.......

 

Agreed. The red is OK, in a mass-market plonk fashion, but the rose is a
cut above yer average. The rose's harder to find, though.

I still prefer Tavel or Bandol.

 

I believe the phrase is:

"The majority are not always right"..

Phil

 

Not as long as the British Empire would be my guess.. The British
Empire was dismantled[1] for may reasons - political, lack of manpower
to defend the borders *and* suppress internal dissent (especially after
the 1st World War) and the growing sophisication of opposition. Add in
the fact that Britain lost it's technological edge (and was surpassed
quite quickly by people like the US) and there was a clear choice -
dismantle the Empire in a reasonably peaceful way or drown in blood.
Fortunately for the world the first option was chosen!

Why do I think the US one will be shorter? In the fading days of the
British Empire the UK itself didn't really face any internal problems
from those who wanted to destroy the Empire - the natives may have
revolted in the far-flung corners but there was very little unrest (or
at least very little related to the business of Empire) at home. There
were no partisans planting bombs in Whitehall..

But the modern era (and changes in technology) means that the US is far
more vulnerable to attacks than the UK was 100 years ago. Added to the
fact of the US' inherent isolationism I could quite easily see a return
to the politics of the late 1930's and early 1940's where the US shuts
it's borders (or tries to!) and goes it's own merry way.

Especially if they manage to reduce their dependance on external energy
supplies..

Phil

 

I think that should be *world* powers because at that time the
Europeans were the only ones capable of international colonialism. The
US was too involved in "winning the West", the great powers of the East
(China and Japan) were busy trying to compete with each other rather
than expand and there were no others with the capability or resources
to take on the UK or France.

The American war of independance could have been won quite easily if
the Government had gone about it the right way - the tactics that they
tried to use had already worked in Ireland but the situation in America
was totally different. Had they changed tactics (and allowed some of
the demands of the colonists) then some agreement could have been
engendered. Just think of it as our Vietnam

After all - we and the Canadians kicked their butts later in 1812..

The US *did* try to intervene in Europe later (they supported Napoleon
and attempted to destabilise the British Empire wherever they could)
but failed because they didn't have the international credibility or
the ability to project their military capability abroad.

Phil

 

Largely because our power was based on the Navy and commercial
interests.

Neither of which are particularly useful in invading a technologically
equivalent power..

Phil

 

Look at the difference in technology level..

Phil