Particracy Forum

Just two?

That's the number, I believe, of the world wars. Sorry to disappoint, only two wars of western suicide, only 52,199,262 (about) people dead. Only 6 empires ruined, too, and a mere three major totalitarian regimes rose and fell as a result, and some other little dictatorships. Not to mention the insignificant erosion of freedom by wartime social regimentation in the form of arbitrary arrest without trail leading to imprisonment in camps and information control in the form of ultra-patriotic propaganda and censorship. Yes, IdioC, only two.

Of course there were only two "World Wars" but that doesn't mean that any of the battles between Empires in the two centuries before, with their large scale of fronts, made them anything less than Global.

IdioC wrote:Of course there were only two "World Wars" but that doesn't mean that any of the battles between Empires in the two centuries before, with their large scale of fronts, made them anything less than Global.

Not really, trans-continental wars maybe. The World Wars were fought in a manner unlike others before, in the sense that battlefields no longer existed in the way they did before, and that instead of armies rolling about while life continued as normal far away, bombing, blockades, mass politics and the total mobilisation of nations resources in the war effort meant that if a country joined, it was likely to get either trashed physically and be completely socially-controlled by the war (like the European and Asian combatants) or get completely socially-controlled by the war and have their colonies and troops trashed physically elsewhere. The wars before can't compare either because of the lack of Global Alliances (however ridiculous and random) which divided the entire world between two different viewpoints (however vague and hypocritical).

Anyway, explain how any war in the two centuries before did damage even comparable to the damage done to the British Empire in the World Wars?

Perhaps explain how "...but by heck, us limey bastards made exactly the same mistakes in a slightly different way when we had the world on a lead." equates to "Damn, those Opium Wars in 1869 hit us like a Doodlebug on the Strand?". I think you've affirmed a few consequents there. With the "Maritime" empires of Britain, Spain, the USA against the more continuous "Territorial" empires of Russia, China and the Ottomans, there were lots of battlefronts on a Global stage. Perhaps about as slow as the Cold War in terms of actual flashpoints. As for an all-out Global war, the Crimean War is a good example, as well as others at The "World War" Article on wikipedia.

Furthermore, I should point out:

Captain-Socialist wrote:DO NOT FIGHT TOO POINTLESS GLOBAL WARS

My statement was pertaining to there being other "Global" wars - in your wording, not mine - during the times when Britain was top of the pile. I did not at any point suggest they did more damage than any other, nor did I compare them, I brought up the fact that several other conflicts fit that category.

Calm down a bit; your post was about as reactionary as a caffeinated Times-reading goalkeeper with paranoia being walked in on during a dangerwank in a mosque.

Can't we unsticky this and do a better political opinions thread? I never liked the first one, a list of issues most of which are applicable only to Americans. Why don't we do one based on more general principles?

Hm...why bother do it anyway? Let's just debate on different issues.

This has turned into a less than perfect thread for posting political opinions.

Back on topic plz.

Thought you could use an English viewpoint

* I am against laws against victimless crimes
* I am in favour of the right to sue a news organisation for inaccuracy of reporting
* I am against gun ownership
* I believe in a moderate right to privacy
* I am in favour of a socialist market, where firms are run democratically and natural monopolies are controlled by the community
* I am against affirmative action, in favour of actually making sure minorities (and women) get equal amounts of education, opportunities and cultural recognition as white men
* I am in favour of moderate labour laws
* I am opposed to charity as a solution to problems
* I am in favour of social healthcare
* I am in favour of social education
* Social Security is necessary for the poor
* Corporations should receive no support if they fail, any assets should be seized by the government and stores/factories prevented from closing by nationalisation
* I am pro-choice
* I am against government support for marriage
* I am in favour of laws against incitement to violence
* I am for international organizations, in principle, but only if they are bottom-up rather than top-down like the EU
* I am an English nationalist but I don't consider England to be 'better' objectively than anywhere else
* I am against smoking in public
* I am in favour of anti-trust laws
* I am in favour of eminent domain for the purposes of national interests, not corporate greed
* I am in favour of replacing the house of lords with a house of professionals, representing unions and employers
* I am against a gold standard
* I am for the separation of church and state.
* I think the United Kingdom should be dissolved into constituent countries
* I am against national service although a form of national community service might work
* I am for integrated immigration
* I am in favour of taxing imports if the taxes in the country of origin are lower
* I think the government's purpose is to act in the interests of the entire nation, not any particular pressure groups
* I have no love for any British Prime Ministers or American Presidents
* I am opposed to the monarchy

Emperorsflag wrote:* I am against laws against victimless crimes
* I am against smoking in public

Bit hypocritical, old bean?

* I support the monarchy
* I am for individual liberty, but do not believe it is somehow God-given or derived from 'Natural Law'
* I believe liberty is more desirable than equality
* I believe traditions represent the cumulative wisdom of the past and
* I believe that government should be a conversation between past, present and future
* I believe the state should be organised as a civil association and
* I believe government should be limited and specific, an impartial umpire of said civil association of individuals
* I believe that politicians should not place abstract principles before the political reality, morality or their duty to their constituents
* I believe that government should not impose a design upon society
* I believe that social welfare is necessary
* I believe that the government should not tax alcohol, cigarettes or anything else with the purpose of restricting those activities rather than raising funds
* I believe violent pornography or any depictions of perverted or illegal sexual acts should be banned but
* I believe that the government should not intrude on the right of consenting adults to fuck any which way they like in private
* I believe that the media should be forced by law to respect privacy
* I believe that the stability of society is the principal concern and
* I believe it is necessary for government to respect the rights to property, privacy, free speech and association that are necessary to ensure that stability
* I believe in limited democracy
* I am against the dissolution of the United Kingdom
* I am against abortion
* I am for government support for marriage
* I am for charity as a fair solution to social problems
* I am for a properly regulated free market
* I am against discrimination based on race, religion or gender, 'positive' or otherwise
* I believe feminists are evil and have no souls