as a world leader, Britain did much better than the US, don't you agree?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by dreamin'gal, May 8, 2015.

  1. dreamin'gal

    dreamin'gal New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Britain dominated the whole 19th century,
    during this one hundred years,
    Europe was the center of the world.

    the great inventors, the first class talents,
    the fast growth of science and technology,
    revolutionary Thinking Innovation.

    this is the start of modern world, this is the great era of mankind,
    the era of explore and adventure.


    after the WWII, Britain stepped down from the throne
    United States embarked on the world stage from the ashes of the atomic bomb.

    the US couldn't stop the Soviet took half of the Europe, she could not stop China fell into the communist hell. she could not achieve the victory at Korean war and Vietnam war.

    for half century, south east Asia lived under the threat of bloody communism.
    The most tragic is that in April 1975, the fall of Cambodia.
     
  2. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,150
    Likes Received:
    20,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We couldn't stop Soviet Expansion, because we were foolishly allied with the Soviets up until 1945. Even Churchill reportedly said "We killed the wrong goose". Reports from early Soviet planning, indicated that Stalin wanted to play the long game, and he was the only one capable of it, after Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt and Churchill took aggressive actions.

    Stalin might've butchered and killed millions, but his patience to see his actions through to the end, created what we would know as modern day Russia. In reality, there was nothing the US, or anyone could do to stop Soviet. Short of a catastrophic war. We're lucky that with diplomatic resolutions and agreements, we were able to free a few States from the former Soviet Bloc.

    And no, we couldn't stop China from becoming Communist. That's because China was Communist for a LONG time coming, including the second world war. Little lost in the Japanese-Chinese history, was the faction between the Nationalist Chinese, and the Communist Red Dragon that rules China today. The Communists won over the Nationalists, then began defending their territory from Japanese invasion.

    Korea wasn't(and isn't) a victory. The DMZ merely armed two States, with China boosting up North Korea and now North Korea possibly poses an existential threat to the US. The ideal victory would be a merger under South Korean principles. But to get that accomplished, we need to get China out of the way and in clear terms to remove the militarized regime of North Korea. That might(and has) taken a long while.

    I believe Eisenhower was a general at the time, and reportedly he suggested we should've decisively won in the Koreas. In hindsight, he was right. Especially given Chinese economic antagonism.

    Vietnam, of course was a failure. Not only in the needless launching of the war, but then the political meddling in the war. But overall, the examples you cite of the US failing as a leader is partially(if not mostly) circumstances we couldn't control, followed by half-assed action, when action needed to be taken.
     
  3. dreamin'gal

    dreamin'gal New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the 3rd world, de-colonization after WWII,
    they got independent, and then they got warlord dictatorship, civil war, famine, genocide.


    I think that, when talking about the colonial strategy, the US has a rather poor vision compare with Britain, not to say to compare with the quality and foresight of Old Britain's politics.
     
  4. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,150
    Likes Received:
    20,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, to be sure. I've termed it "Proxy States". The strategy REALLY took gear in and around the mid-1970's and Kissinger's role as State Secretary. It was their bright idea to replace one anti-US regime, with a "pro"-US regime, usually as you mention some kind of tin pot dictatorship. And of course, as seen with the Iran-Iraq war and Saddam's reign of terrorism, we would eventually enable Al-Qaeda and others.

    If we didn't adopt Proxy States(which were in response to the fact that the UN outlawed Annexation), likely terrorism would not be prominent. It's ironic that it comes from all countries, Iran,. But Rouhani points out how numerous states, including Britain have used these groups. The M16 is notorious for having given them a training ground, right in Britain.

    So, I have a huge problem with US Strategy dating back at least 35 years. We didn't contain anything, in fact we proliferated more violence than at any time in our history.
     
  5. dreamin'gal

    dreamin'gal New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So the "Proxy States" policy is certified fail.....

    I think the only quite success example of Proxy Sates is Singapore....with the strong ruling power of Li Kwan Yiu, Singapore becomes an important stronghold to stop the spreading of communism at SE Asia.
     
  6. Merwen

    Merwen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,574
    Likes Received:
    1,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting; I have been wondering about your OT myself lately.

    I think about the best thing we did was to help defeat Hitler in WWII. After that, I don't think most Americans thought about leading the world, we just got back to our regular lives and assumed other countries were doing the same. We had a nice, self contained, self sufficient country, so why should we have focused most of our energies on international concerns?

    In retrospect, though, some of us must have been, and kept pulling us into such things as Korea and Vietnam...and now the Mideast.

    England was a trading country, more like Portugal and Japan in its needs than the US. We were a relatively new country, and I think we would have been better off focusing on cultural development than foreign adventures. IMO we were simply not culturally ready for the responsibility. And we are still not cosmopolitan enough to be good at such a task, in my opinion.

    I question the appropriateness of having one "world leader" anyway. Power corrupts, as it certainly seems to have by the neocon activity that appears to have been going on here. One reason we still have as much freedom as we do in the US is because the states also have their own powers. I think the world should be led by regional powers.

    In thinking of regional powers, of course. Russia and China both come to mind, but are they any more cosmopolitan than the US? I'm not sure. What is needed is skilled leadership by culturally competent people, backed by the most powerful nations...symbiotic relationships among closely related countries like the one that Britain, Canada, and the US have had, perhaps, not leaving out Australia and the rest of the Brits.

    What complexes of countries could cooperate to lead Asia? The Mideast? South America? Etc.

    I think this could also have survival value for the human race. Our planet is vulnerable to natural catastrophes from time to time, and having several centers of control would in my opinion be safer.
     
  7. dreamin'gal

    dreamin'gal New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    China will bring the world to a great trouble sooner or later.
    European will think Russia is more dangerous than China, right now. in fact China is not a small danger, it's just a little bit far from Europe.

    the fact is, the US has the most advance military power, and economic power, no other countries can compare...
     
  8. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    23,076
    Likes Received:
    14,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Britain was an empirical power in the 19th century, but in those 100 years, America went from being a newly formed nation to the most productive nation on the planet. That says nothing about world leadership, but it says plenty about us.

    The Soviet Union began before WWII, as did communism. Regardless, comparing the 19th century to the Cold War isn't a fair comparison, and the Soviets had been opposed by NATO, not only the US. That the Soviets were strong does not mean that Britain was a better world leader.

    Vietnam was a mistake, as well as the Middle East. We agree there, but since we're bringing up Europe, the French were in Vietnam and the Brits had been tampering with the Middle East for a century.

    I think the US has been a fine world leader. We've lead with our liberties, our justice system, innovation, popular culture, our economic system, you name it. You can praise the Brits if you want. They had a good navy...and they had a good opium route. Good for them. I prefer our leadership.
     
  9. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Considering that much of the mess in the Middle East today can be attributed to actions and decisions made by the British and the French in the early part of the 20th century, I am going to have to say no. Besides there is no "world leader". Yes, the US is the only superpower but we can't even get China to stop devaluing its currency.
     
  10. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's because we didn't have the intent to rule the world, and would rather not. It's not due to incompetence that we aren't the world leader that the UK was, it was due to choice. We don't want to colonize the world. We don't want colonies.
     
  11. everyman2013

    everyman2013 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    825
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Brits pretty much took over nations that didn't really want to be "colonized", and a lot of the time they weren't very nice about it. That's not leadership, that's conquest, and because of that, there are still places where Brits are not welcome, or at least they are tolerated, but not respected.
    Enjoy!
     
  12. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,659
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By the time the US replaced Britain as the world power, it already had most of it's options removed. It had virtually nothing to do with decolonization, and was in a cold war with the USSR that all US foreign policy was built on.
    It did win that struggle so I would have to put that down as a success.
     
  13. maat

    maat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I do t recall us trying to be an empire in the first place. Our Constitution was for the US, not the world. While we may promote our liberty values abroad, it is not our mission to shove them down other countries throats.
     
  14. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Unlike the British Empire, the United States never caused not one but TWO world wars.

    The British desire to keep the Germans under control and down relative to them was a major factor in World War One.

    And the British (and French) obsession with avoiding another World War played a direct role in letting Hitler out of the box.

    For all its mistakes, the U.S. never made those monumental errors.
     
  15. dreamin'gal

    dreamin'gal New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hum...that's maybe my prejudice. opium coursed a serious social problem in China, but Brits sold opium to other countries also...only Chinese addicted to opium in a large population.

    anyway, ... my homeland was born from opium war. really thanks this history. (political incorrect:hug:)
     
  16. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those days are LONG gone!

    [​IMG]

    USA

    [​IMG]

    UK
     
  17. dreamin'gal

    dreamin'gal New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sad.....what's happening....
     
  18. Nat Turner

    Nat Turner New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    5,082
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Define "world leader" and "better". (in a generally accepted conventional sense that doesn't come from Conservapedia or do violence to the language).
     

Share This Page