Quote:
Originally posted by fuzyfuzer
so the british should be the peacekeepers of the world, what a great job you guys did first you carve up africa not even looking at the natural boundries and then you believe in conscesions before WW2
are these really the signs of an informed leader i don't think so it may be easy to sit back and criticize what other people are doing but before you do that look at your self relize the problems you caused and then after you solve those weel see where the world sits and i think looking at history a lot of the hot spots today (middle east, Africa) will be very toned down or maybe non existant
|
well, considering that mostly british led task forces have done a major amount of peacekeeping over the past 50 years, with some prime examples of the balkans, where about 3 americans stood around and did jack shit.
um, and i would please ask that you get your history right, the british empire was a colonial one, along with the rest of europe they created colonies abroad, you yanks would be a bunch of puritain weirdos if you hadn't been a british colony.
the empire made this world, without it america wouldn't be anything close to what it is today, india wouldn't be industrialised, iraq wouldn't exist (then who would america have to bomb?), and most of the inventions that fueled this worlds growth wouldn't have been created for a hundred or more years.
and if i remember correctly, most of the african problems are in ex-french colonies, not british.
if you like it or not, british troops are far more qualified at peacekeeping missions than americans, it's been the europeans who've been given the task of sorting out the world after america goes in a blows shit up.
and considering the americans history, blow stuff up, blow more stuff up, get a few thousand troops killed in jungles and mountains, blow more stuff up and wonder why everyone hates you. not my idea of a peackeeper.