When is the Anglo Empire going to reunite? - Page 4

Ned · May 9, 2003, 16:09

And just think of it, we could make the likes of Prince Charles ambassador to the court of Chirac I, Emperor of the EU.

DinoDoc · May 9, 2003, 16:09

Quote:

Plus, thanks to NZ, nuclear disarmement!

The nukes would stay. NZ would be a minority in the new empire.

PLATO · May 9, 2003, 16:11

Quote:

The French position is not untenable, its at odds with the American view, and that is all. The current US administration has come to the conclusion that the best way to get what they want is to demonise opposition, be it domestic or foreign. Given that the most prominent foreign opposition is from France it means they are the principle target.

Okay, perhaps leaving a murderous dictator in power, selling him illegal weapons, having him present at least a threat to regional security and letting him pay families of homicide bombers is a tenable position in your eyes. We will just have to disagree on that point.

Having one of your "allies" try to create an opposing power block to you certainly shouldn't cause any resentment by "the current US administration" (in your view). Again, we will have to disagree on this point.

The French deserve ridicule and harrassment for their actions. It is the French administration causing the problems, not the US. France is a "target" because they asked for it, not us.

GePap · May 9, 2003, 16:14

These groups might get together, but if they did they would just undermine each other..by uniting with the BNP filth (I mean...), social conservatives would be unable to gain points among minorities who might share some of the same social issues.

The fact si that right wingers in the US and those other states do not match perfectly, and a combination of them would make them unappealing enough to most centirst to crush them soundly all over!

But if my point was not to obvious, here it is: It is amazingly foolish to think a "united empire" could be formed simply out of foreign policy, while ignoring the essential basics of internal politics. Just wait till them "kill them all, let god sort them out" death penalty happy Texan judges had to co-exist with British and NZ and Canadian judges: Oh, I forgot, most of these states have outlawed the death penalty..I wonder who's rules stay?
French-Canadians would be the least of your problems (what about Cajuns?)

Kidicious · May 9, 2003, 16:17

Why do you guys think there are only 50 states?

GePap · May 9, 2003, 16:17

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003

Okay, perhaps leaving a murderous dictator in power, selling him illegal weapons, having him present at least a threat to regional security and letting him pay families of homicide bombers is a tenable position in your eyes. We will just have to disagree on that point.

Having one of your "allies" try to create an opposing power block to you certainly shouldn't cause any resentment by "the current US administration" (in your view). Again, we will have to disagree on this point.

The French deserve ridicule and harrassment for their actions. It is the French administration causing the problems, not the US. France is a "target" because they asked for it, not us.

Ahh, first of all, what illegal weapons? (sales in the 1980's were fully legal) Second: what power block? You mean a parlamentary manuever at the UN? did I misss the French going around with new anti-US defense pacts? Must be my listening to the liberal news-media...
Sorry PLATO, but this point of view remians absurdly childish, but that must be why conservatives radio hosts love it so much.

PLATO · May 9, 2003, 16:23

Quote:

Ahh, first of all, what illegal weapons? (sales in the 1980's were fully legal) Second: what power block? You mean a parlamentary manuever at the UN? did I misss the French going around with new anti-US defense pacts? Must be my listening to the liberal news-media...

1998 delivery of weapon systems confirmed two weeks ago. Where were you?

DeVillepin(sp?) visits to security council members to solidify anti-US, pro French/pro Saddam staying power position. Does it need a defense pact to be a power block...hmmm...didn't know.

Childish? Insulting that you are so against an open debate to resort to these tactics. Perhaps the validity of your position forced you into it??

GePap · May 9, 2003, 16:40

Quote:

1998 delivery of weapon systems confirmed two weeks ago. Where were you?

Never heard of it...which was it?

Quote:

DeVillepin(sp?) visits to security council members to solidify anti-US, pro French/pro Saddam staying power position. Does it need a defense pact to be a power block...hmmm...didn't know.

Yes, it does. the French were looking to agther votes for a vote (a single, solitary vote in the UN) on a single resolution then on the floor.

And yes, I will call your arguemtns exaclty what they are: if you think the parlimentary moves by the French in the UN amount to

Quote:

anti-US, pro French/pro Saddam

, then there is nothing else I could say but to call it childish, because that is the level of reason one must use to come up with this "analysis". Sorry if my honesty offends.

PLATO · May 9, 2003, 17:17

Well GePap, it is sad that you and I so often disagree. I have usually found your debates to be worth thinking about. I, however, cannot categorize your opinions as "honesty", but only as opinions honestly given. Those I can appreciate, even if I cannot agree.

Oerdin · May 9, 2003, 17:48

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
French-Canadians would be the least of your problems (what about Cajuns?)

Face it the Cajuns are extinct. They've all been assimilated into southern culture over the last 200 years and all that's left of them is a commercialized facsimilie which is rolled out for the tourists.

Odin · May 9, 2003, 17:52

I think this isn't too bad of an idea, thanks for convincing me GePap.

Altough conservatives will probably revolt if we try to unify all english-speakers because of the influx of liberals. Latinos won't like it either.

GePap · May 9, 2003, 17:57

I don't think Latinos would care: they then get to have big neighborhoods in sydney! Though a big problem is how the illegal immigrants of the US, UK, and Australia would get along: i mean, they are Latinos in the US, Asians and africans in the UK, and Asians in australia...might be a bit of a porblem..I mean, do Latinos keep all the retaurant jobs?

Then there is the problem of blacks speaking with English accents..I mean, how will Americans handle that?

And on the gastronomic level: I think the US is unpreared for the English obsession with curry.

Lord Merciless · May 9, 2003, 18:21

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Then there is the problem of blacks speaking with English accents..I mean, how will Americans handle that?

The problem is rather: how American blacks deal with British blacks?

Ben Kenobi · May 9, 2003, 18:37

I agree with the proposition, however, I'm not sure what the percentage of British trade is done with the Americans, and also, what benefits would Canadians get from the ANZACs.

If it diversifies our exports, then I'm all for such a trade union. But let's keep it at that. Too many anti-monarchists in the US to bring them back into the Commonwealth.

Ned · May 9, 2003, 18:42

obiwan, I think there are too many monarchists in England to allow them to reunite with their American colonies.

It is strange, though, that this issue more than any other is still what divides America and England!

Sandman · May 9, 2003, 18:51

Quote:

It is strange, though, that this issue more than any other is still what divides America and England!

Apart from gun control, abortion, healthcare, electoral system, religion, foreign policy, patriotism, taxation and support for international treaties.

Ben Kenobi · May 9, 2003, 18:56

Quote:

gun control, abortion, healthcare, electoral system, religion, foreign policy, patriotism, taxation and support for international treaties.

WRT religion, last I checked, the Brits have a state religion, while the Americans do not. That would take some getting used to.

WRT to abortion, the British trust their doctors more than the Americans. Americans couldn't stand a tighter standard than the Brits.

Last I checked, they both use a first-past-the-post system.

Method · May 9, 2003, 19:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
We'd have to get rid of Quebec, or require them to speak English.

nah, we already tried that, didn't work

Ned · May 9, 2003, 19:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman

Apart from gun control, abortion, healthcare, electoral system, religion, foreign policy, patriotism, taxation and support for international treaties.

Sandman, many of these are "local" issues. I am sure each state can have its own form of government and taxation, etc. I think England still has a state religion only because it has a Monarchy. Get rid of that, and the Brits would be quite happy with the US first amendment.

As to the new "Federation" government, we'd have to run elections for that post, wouldn't we? I can see it all now, Bill Clinton will be the first Federation president!

DAVOUT · May 9, 2003, 19:43

Dear PLATO1003,

There is only one thing that my fellows-countrymen could not afford, coming from you, is your indifference; but they are not hurt at all by the fact that some Americans, like you, hate them, all the more that your reasons for hating us do not stand the test of rationality. Anything excessive is insignificant (tout ce qui est excessif est insignifiant), and your arguments fall always in this category.

By chance there are also many Americans who do not hate us, and we reciprocate warmly, and we will continue without effort to express those feelings, would it be only because so many of them are posting on this forum. Together, we will take care that the future will not look like the present time, so that you become tired of sending bad names for wrong motives.

We hope that you will realize that the crushing of an underdeveloped country of 23 millions, deprived of any air power, by a 300 millions industrial nation, is not an astounding achievement you could be proud of, and that the future could be more difficult and dangerous than you expect. We friendly suggest that you do not to continue to insult and despise nations disagreeing with you today, but that you could be happy to see on your side tomorrow : as said the fabulist, on a souvent besoin d’un plus petit que soi.

Kidicious · May 9, 2003, 20:35

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT
By chance there are also many Americans who do not hate us, and we reciprocate warmly, and we will continue without effort to express those feelings, would it be only because so many of them are posting on this forum.

There is a silent majority in my country who like you and your country, even if we are at odds politically from time to time.

Kramerman · May 9, 2003, 20:35

*kicks DAVOUT off his high horse*

Kontiki · May 9, 2003, 21:06

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
If GB, Austrailia, Canada, and NZ really wanted a say in US forign policy...how could they resist this offer?

Well, we already have a bit of a say on defense through NORAD. We can say "please, not so hard this time" when we bend over and pull down our pants.

notyoueither · May 9, 2003, 21:20

Why are so many people overlooking India?

from the CIA Factbook: English enjoys associate status but is the most important language for national, political, and commercial communication

Kidicious · May 9, 2003, 21:34

I can't believe this thread. It's not going to happen folks. There is absolutely no chance.

Ned · May 9, 2003, 21:37

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why are so many people overlooking India?

from the CIA Factbook: English enjoys associate status but is the most important language for national, political, and commercial communication

Your're right. The addition of India would make the Federation the largest country in the world by any measure.

notyoueither · May 9, 2003, 22:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
I can't believe this thread. It's not going to happen folks. There is absolutely no chance.

Political union is certainly not in the cards in the short term, but a trading block / alliance system among many of the mentioned countries is really quite possible.

Closer political associations can grow from that, but are not necessary.

Kidicious · May 9, 2003, 22:16

The thread is suppose to be about a trade union, but people keep mentioning political union.

Cruddy · May 9, 2003, 23:57

As far as intelligence and national security issues go, they're just one country anyway.

As for trade, well sure - you drop the protectionist steel policies and we'll let you play.

Seriously though, I'm amazed that anyone really believes these are separate nations. What are the chances of one declaring war on another? That's as good a definition of unity as any other.

Another way to look on it is as the US as the "mother" state and all the other's being clients.

I have no problem with this state of affairs. I'm just gob smacked that any one who lives in a country other than the US can believe their country is actually independent of the US.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Ted Striker · May 10, 2003, 03:51

Well said Cruddy.