so in other words, the world needs strong military forces to protect against a British tyrant?
Trump: "I'll make Brexit a great thing."
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
so in other words, the world needs strong military forces to protect against a British tyrant?
To protect a country against ANY invader.
If the Irish (who invaded Britain first) had much stronger military forces 900 years ago they may never have been invaded by the Anglo-Normans.
So, the British invade weaker countries, and therefore they need a strong military to defend themselves.
yes the old "we were ordered to invade them to protect our freedom" business
or is it "we were ordered to invade them to protect them from their freedom"
...I'm not quite sure which one it should be
yes, that's why all us colonials got our butts shot off saving the british every time there is threat of invasion in a real war
or is it "we were ordered to invade them to protect them from their freedom"
...I'm not quite sure which one it should be
yes, that's why all us colonials got our butts shot off saving the british every time there is threat of invasion in a real war
It's much harder to invade militarily stronger countries.
And it was England's Norman rulers that started the English incursions into Ireland - after the Irish had already been raiding, and incursioning into, the island of Great Britain - and it was a Scotsman (James VI of Scotland, I of England) who started the Protestant plantations in the north of Ireland.
Just like the Brits, pick on a weaker person. Without that bully mentality, you'd have trouble cornering little kids to bugger, wouldn't you?
Just like anyone with an ounce of common sense - and it shows why it's necessary to spend lots of money on strong armed forces.
Why's it okay for the Normans to invade England but not Ireland?
As for the Irish, I can only laugh at them: just 50 years after regaining their sovereignty they went and gave their sovereignty away again and now find themselves under the yoke of Brussels rather than London whilst, ironically, their former political masters, the British, are regaining their sovereignty and independence.
The British are having the last laugh.
I'm sure the Scots don't see Cromwell's rule that way. As for union with England there is a bit for to it than that. I believe the Darien Scheme had something to do with it by bankrupting Scotland.
The way the Scots see something and historical reality can be two quite different things.
Cromwell, I must remind you, is the man who did more than any other to keep the (Scottish) Stuarts in check, managing to get one of the bastards beheaded.
The Darien Scheme was but one factor.
As I said - executing the Scottish King did not endear Cromwell to the Scots, nor did his crushing victory at the Battles of Dunbar and Worcester. However, by the time of the Act of Union the Scots had long forgotten Cromwell, and were much more interested in gaining access to English markets, full participation in the British Empire, and payment of their massive national debt. The deal turned out to be an excellent deal for both nations in spite of frequently rumblings of Scottish nationalism.
Who cares? Charles I deserved to have his block knocked off. If the Scots are desperate to have a Stuart Absolute Monarch ruling - not reigning - over them then all they have to do is declare independence and stick one on their throne.
Trump seems to be intent on shattering the EU. He is operating straight out of Putin's play book. The Russians would like nothing better than to see end of the EU and NATO.
Fellow travellers..
Fellow travellers..