lasttry
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 330
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Dont worry, I wont let you forget. I will remind you often the worth of your words.
Cultural Decline of England
- Thread starter Guynextdoor2
- Start date
Dont worry, I wont let you forget. I will remind you often the worth of your words.
Guynextdoor2
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 12,286
- Reaction score
- -42
- Country
- Location
....................shh...shhhoooo......oooooo...........Dont worry, I wont let you forget. I will remind you often the worth of your words.
lasttry
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 330
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
You should try Odomos
But hey even those flies around you have more credibility.
'I quit unless the mods ban this guy, hmmp' .... 2 days later ... 'hey guys, guess who's back!!'
Guynextdoor2
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 12,286
- Reaction score
- -42
- Country
- Location
You should try Odomos
But hey even those flies around you have more credibility.
'I quit unless the mods ban this guy, hmmp' .... 2 days later ... 'hey guys, guess who's back!!'
Do take ka bhakt.......
lasttry
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 330
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
yes, but I still have more credibility than you. I dont mouth of BS in one thread and pretend to be an intellectual in another. Like this stupid thread you just opened.
Guynextdoor2
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 12,286
- Reaction score
- -42
- Country
- Location
Do take ka chutiya bhakt.....
lasttry
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 330
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Yea, the true character of the pseudo intellectual aaptard emerges.
Menace2Society
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
- Messages
- 10,410
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Free education, free healthcare and freedom of speech.
You will be lucky to find a free toilet in India.
Guynextdoor2
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 12,286
- Reaction score
- -42
- Country
- Location
Free education, free healthcare and freedom of speech.
You will be lucky to find a free toilet in India.
Maybe you should look at your own country first.
I agree with your point...They are not supposed to be in the UNSC permanent member list..Rather Japan/India/Brasil/South Africa should be replaced with it...But again, they are cheer leaders of US...So as long as US is their as the top player of the world, it will keep its players to control the UNSC group.
Why should the likes of South Africa/Brazil which have rampant crime and serious issues in its own country with really high murder rates, serious issues controlling crime in their country, not great education and weak inexperienced militaries that struggle to fight drug dealers get a seat on the UNSC? REALLY?
Are you that against the UK that you think a country like Brazil which in much of it is a warzone and politically speaking isnt really a powerhouse and South Africa, a country once ruled by racism and now ruled by money which is corrupt and extremely dangerous and like India has vast problems of rape/crime that go unpunished ever deserve a seat on the UNSC, the only country in that list you mentioned who should be on there is Japan, India within a few years, the other 2 have a long way to go.
Do not take me wrong...first of all. you should not think that I or whoever suggesting anything here is against UK....We are debating here about the England/UK is same powerful nation as it was 50 years back...We appreciate your nation that provides quality of life to your people which is missing in other nations which i mentioned...But that does not discount the fact that you have very limited influence in global geo politics as it was 50 years earlier..You do not pursue any independent foreign policy which is different than followed by US...So in a nutshell, you are just following or being shadow players of US in global politics..
Again with all due respect, this discussion is all about the influence in global politics,economics and bringing change in others rather than discrediting your nation or offering quality of life to your people..
IND151
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,170
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Exactly
Menace2Society
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
- Messages
- 10,410
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
You think UK has limited influence because they don't go parading their guns and making egotiscal big statements every month?
Their emergency war chest is £500 billion.
It is an established old world power. They don't have to brag anymore. Behind the scenes England is well represented and independent.
Last edited:
Guynextdoor2
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 12,286
- Reaction score
- -42
- Country
- Location
Turns out I'm not the only one who feels this way. The economist agrees.
British foreign policy: Punch and duty | The Economist
Punch and duty
JUST over 20 years ago the foreign secretary, Douglas Hurd, declared that Britain should aim to “punch above its weight in the world”. Today the country seems reluctant even to enter the ring. A recently retired British NATO chief, speaking of Russia and Ukraine, has complained that the prime minister, David Cameron, has become a “foreign-policy irrelevance”. America despairs of Britain’s shrinking armed forces and criticises its “constant accommodation” of China. Allies are worried, opponents scornful.
The country’s politicians, who are fighting to win a general election on May 7th, appear unbothered by the world’s sneers. That is a mistake. Britain’s diminishing global clout is a big problem, both for the country and for the world.
The uses of abroad
As a largish power in relative decline, Britain has a tendency to veer between hubristic intervention abroad and anxious introspection at home. After Tony Blair’s expeditionary misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition was always going to shun grand schemes. But Mr Cameron has been not so much cautious as apathetic, ineffective and fickle.
The prime minister made a brave and passionate case for armed intervention in Libya against Muammar Qaddafi. But he did not reckon for the day after and the country is now in a state of civil war. He led America to think Britain would support it in bombing raids against Syria, but then bungled the parliamentary vote. Though Britain was one of the moving forces behind the 1994 Budapest memorandum, which supposedly guaranteed Ukraine’s security when it gave up its Soviet-era nuclear weapons, Mr Cameron has been almost absent in dealing with Russian revanchist aggression against it. Last year, as host of a NATO summit, the prime minister urged the alliance’s members to pledge at least 2% of their GDP to defence. Just months later a straitened Britain looks poised to break its own rule.
In Europe the promise of an in-out referendum if Mr Cameron wins the election has made Britain seem semi-detached. But rather than counteract that impression through vigorous diplomacy, the prime minister has reinforced it. In European Union summits he has been underprepared and overambitious. His humiliating attempt to block Jean-Claude Juncker from becoming president of the commission left him with only Hungary for company. Pulling the Conservatives out of the EU’s main centre-right political group has had the unintended effect of cutting Mr Cameron out of vital discussions with other centre-right leaders, such as Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel.
It is hard to be more optimistic about a Labour government. Ed Miliband, the party’s leader, is pro-European, but he has no more feel for American foreign policy than Mr Cameron does. He apologises for Labour’s interventionist history so strenuously and unreservedly that he leaves no room for liberal intervention. Disastrously, a Labour government might well be propped up by the Scottish National Party, which wants to scrap the submarine-based nuclear-missile system that is a pillar of Britain’s relations with America and NATO.
Mr Cameron’s defenders say that Britons are war-weary and impoverished. But Mrs Merkel and François Hollande, the French president, have shown that you can have an active foreign policy while dealing with an economic crisis.
Just now liberal values and international co-operation especially need defending. New emerging powers, particularly China, want a say in how the world works. By seizing Crimea and invading Ukraine, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has challenged norms of behaviour that were established after the second world war. If Britain does not stand up for its values, it will inherit a world that is less to its liking.
And Britain is well placed to make a difference. With a great diplomatic tradition, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and strong, if fraying, ties to both Europe and America, Britain ought to be pushing hard to extend open trade, human rights and international law as well as newer agendas against crime, terrorism and climate change.
To make its voice heard, Britain needs to bulk up its diplomacy and its armed forces. Pledging to spend 2% of GDP on defence may seem arbitrary but it is a crucial signal to America and other countries that Britain is prepared to pull its weight in exchange for NATO’s guarantee of joint security. That makes more sense than the commitment (which both Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband cherish) to spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid. The money can, and should, be found.
British foreign policy: Punch and duty | The Economist
Punch and duty
JUST over 20 years ago the foreign secretary, Douglas Hurd, declared that Britain should aim to “punch above its weight in the world”. Today the country seems reluctant even to enter the ring. A recently retired British NATO chief, speaking of Russia and Ukraine, has complained that the prime minister, David Cameron, has become a “foreign-policy irrelevance”. America despairs of Britain’s shrinking armed forces and criticises its “constant accommodation” of China. Allies are worried, opponents scornful.
The country’s politicians, who are fighting to win a general election on May 7th, appear unbothered by the world’s sneers. That is a mistake. Britain’s diminishing global clout is a big problem, both for the country and for the world.
The uses of abroad
As a largish power in relative decline, Britain has a tendency to veer between hubristic intervention abroad and anxious introspection at home. After Tony Blair’s expeditionary misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition was always going to shun grand schemes. But Mr Cameron has been not so much cautious as apathetic, ineffective and fickle.
The prime minister made a brave and passionate case for armed intervention in Libya against Muammar Qaddafi. But he did not reckon for the day after and the country is now in a state of civil war. He led America to think Britain would support it in bombing raids against Syria, but then bungled the parliamentary vote. Though Britain was one of the moving forces behind the 1994 Budapest memorandum, which supposedly guaranteed Ukraine’s security when it gave up its Soviet-era nuclear weapons, Mr Cameron has been almost absent in dealing with Russian revanchist aggression against it. Last year, as host of a NATO summit, the prime minister urged the alliance’s members to pledge at least 2% of their GDP to defence. Just months later a straitened Britain looks poised to break its own rule.
In Europe the promise of an in-out referendum if Mr Cameron wins the election has made Britain seem semi-detached. But rather than counteract that impression through vigorous diplomacy, the prime minister has reinforced it. In European Union summits he has been underprepared and overambitious. His humiliating attempt to block Jean-Claude Juncker from becoming president of the commission left him with only Hungary for company. Pulling the Conservatives out of the EU’s main centre-right political group has had the unintended effect of cutting Mr Cameron out of vital discussions with other centre-right leaders, such as Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel.
It is hard to be more optimistic about a Labour government. Ed Miliband, the party’s leader, is pro-European, but he has no more feel for American foreign policy than Mr Cameron does. He apologises for Labour’s interventionist history so strenuously and unreservedly that he leaves no room for liberal intervention. Disastrously, a Labour government might well be propped up by the Scottish National Party, which wants to scrap the submarine-based nuclear-missile system that is a pillar of Britain’s relations with America and NATO.
Mr Cameron’s defenders say that Britons are war-weary and impoverished. But Mrs Merkel and François Hollande, the French president, have shown that you can have an active foreign policy while dealing with an economic crisis.
Just now liberal values and international co-operation especially need defending. New emerging powers, particularly China, want a say in how the world works. By seizing Crimea and invading Ukraine, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has challenged norms of behaviour that were established after the second world war. If Britain does not stand up for its values, it will inherit a world that is less to its liking.
And Britain is well placed to make a difference. With a great diplomatic tradition, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and strong, if fraying, ties to both Europe and America, Britain ought to be pushing hard to extend open trade, human rights and international law as well as newer agendas against crime, terrorism and climate change.
To make its voice heard, Britain needs to bulk up its diplomacy and its armed forces. Pledging to spend 2% of GDP on defence may seem arbitrary but it is a crucial signal to America and other countries that Britain is prepared to pull its weight in exchange for NATO’s guarantee of joint security. That makes more sense than the commitment (which both Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband cherish) to spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid. The money can, and should, be found.
Similar threads
