dr david starkey

[hamster]

Has he got another book coming out?

[JackanorySFC]

If anything the riots highlight how easily bored we are now. Good news story for a few days, then a tedious aftermath. I was bored of the riots by Tuesday night. The newsreaders looked hopeful for a different story by wednesday morning. I imagine even the rioters mainly stopped because it was all getting a bit samey. I mean really, a couple of nights? Britain is pathetic at rioting. For that we should be grateful, but for the nationalists, it must hurt that the french are just so much better at it.

 

Because in your previous post you state that you f***ing hate nationalists - shoulding the bolded text read that the French are "worse at it" rather than "better at it"?

 

I'm a proud nationalist and the French (along with most other non-axis countries except Italy) do nationalism far better than us, unfortunately we are a nation of apologists that would rather we failed as a nation than returned to being a genuine world power as we used to be.

[View From The Top]

I'm a proud nationalist and the French (along with most other non-axis countries except Italy) do nationalism far better than us, unfortunately we are a nation of apologists that would rather we failed as a nation than returned to being a genuine world power as we used to be.

 

Possibly one of the oddest post I've seen on here.

 

Our nation will never again be a world power and nor should it be our aim.

[skintsaint]

he was wrong to say that black people should try and sound more 'white', but on his other points the other two guests couldnt really answer the questions he put and just branded him racist basically.

 

He made a few good points, and a few bad points.

[pap]

Because in your previous post you state that you f***ing hate nationalists - shoulding the bolded text read that the French are "worse at it" rather than "better at it"?

 

I'm a proud nationalist and the French (along with most other non-axis countries except Italy) do nationalism far better than us, unfortunately we are a nation of apologists that would rather we failed as a nation than returned to being a genuine world power as we used to be.

 

Your post seems to equate nationalism with imperialism, and recognition of past mistakes as submission.

 

However, I am interested in how you think we should be a genuine world power again - so spill - if you had your way, how would it be?

[Verbal]

The problem with English nationalism as it commonly exists in public debate is that is not English at all - but a cheap derivative of a corrupt, debased and essentially foreign ideology, namely Nazism and its variants in Europe and elsewhere.

 

English nationalism is best expressed in a set of common ideals, including decency, fairness and tolerance - the kinds of ideals found in Tariq Jahan's wonderfully eloquent calls for calm after the murder of his son. Unwittingly, he was revealing his essential Englishness, while the EDL dumb f ucks in Eltham were espousing their essential foreignness.

[Sour Mash]

Possibly one of the oddest post I've seen on here.

 

Our nation will never again be a world power and nor should it be our aim.

 

You don't think we are currently a world power? I definitely do certainly in the top 10 if one was to make such a list.

[View From The Top]

You don't think we are currently a world power? I definitely do certainly in the top 10 if one was to make such a list.

 

No, we aren't. We can do nothing on our own. Champagne tastes, beer money.

 

USA is on the wane and China on the rise.

[Sour Mash]

No, we aren't. We can do nothing on our own. Champagne tastes, beer money.

 

USA is on the wane and China on the rise.

 

Yes, everyone knows that China are "on the rise" and USA are weakening. But that still doesn't mean we are not a world power. Our influence stretches across the globe like few other nations. Name me ten countries that you would currently consider more influential in the world today than us?

[pap]

Yes, everyone knows that China are "on the rise" and USA are weakening. But that still doesn't mean we are not a world power. Our influence stretches across the globe like few other nations. Name me ten countries that you would currently consider more influential in the world today than us?

 

Let me turn the question on its head.

 

The US is a cultural power. China is an economic power. Both are big military powers.

 

So what exactly are we powerful at?

[View From The Top]

Yes, everyone knows that China are "on the rise" and USA are weakening. But that still doesn't mean we are not a world power. Our influence stretches across the globe like few other nations. Name me ten countries that you would currently consider more influential in the world today than us?

 

Please explain how we are influential apart from a seat on the UN Security Council, a relic of WW2.

[Thedelldays]

Let me turn the question on its head.

 

The US is a cultural power. China is an economic power. Both are big military powers.

 

So what exactly are we powerful at?

 

china are a big military power in terms of numbers...much of their hardware we would have scrapped years ago

[pap]

china are a big military power in terms of numbers...much of their hardware we would have scrapped years ago

 

Oh aye. My boss is an American. Former US Navy, and will bend your ears off talking about the vast superiority of the US vs China, and he's right.

 

My question remains though, what exactly are we powerful at?

[Saintandy666]

Oh aye. My boss is an American. Former US Navy, and will bend your ears off talking about the vast superiority of the US vs China, and he's right.

 

My question remains though, what exactly are we powerful at?

 

I have to concur. No way are we a world power anymore. I'd go regional power most, that region being Europe.

 

Though we share that with France and Germany, and to be honest we could be more powerful in the region if we weren't so anti-EU all the time.

 

World Powers I would say are:

 

US

China

 

(Perhaps somewhere like Saudi Arabia because of the oil???)

 

But to be honest, beyond US and China it is stretching it to see a country that can exert influence anywhere it wishes.

[ecuk268]

Oh aye. My boss is an American. Former US Navy, and will bend your ears off talking about the vast superiority of the US vs China, and he's right.

 

My question remains though, what exactly are we powerful at?

 

We are number one at cricket at the moment.

[Verbal]

We are number one at cricket at the moment.

 

And cheese-rolling apparently.

[pap]

We are number one at cricket at the moment.

And cheese-rolling apparently.

 

Well, I had some inkling about the cricket, but no idea about the cheese rolling.

 

This changes everything.

 

The sort of power that Britain could project with a well-rolled round of cheddar is staggering. The French won't know what's hit them ( their feeble attempts at Brie retaliation will ultimately fall victim to the Gallic insistence that it is ripe ).

 

With this potential route to world domination, are you ready to renounce your liberal credentials and join the jackbooters, Verbal?

[Sour Mash]

Please explain how we are influential apart from a seat on the UN Security Council, a relic of WW2.

 

So you can't name ten more influential countries in the world today? Didn't think so. The vast majority of world crises, be that our involvement in stuff that has been happening in the Middle East/North Africa or whenever a humanitarian disaster occurs around the world, Iraq and Afghanistan, in terms of culture, language, sport, being in a unique position of influence in both Europe and the States, as well as continued close links to every corner of the globe through trade and the Commonwealth (despite that being somewhat outdated). London is a global centre for finance.

 

I don't doubt that China and India's world influence continues to rise and the USA and Russia remain very significant players on the world stage, or that we have the same influence we once did, but to suggest we are no longer a world power is clearly wrong.

[View From The Top]

If Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands now would we be influential enough to get other nations to join us in re-taking them? No, of course not and we are to weak to do it alone.

 

Outside of Europe we have no influence at all. We are no longer a global player in the way we once were and It's deluded to think otherwise. Even Japan and Brazil carry more weight than us now.

[skintsaint]

If Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands now would we be influential enough to get other nations to join us in re-taking them? No, of course not and we are to weak to do it alone.

 

how do you know this?

[Sour Mash]

If Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands now would we be influential enough to get other nations to join us in re-taking them? No, of course not and we are to weak to do it alone.

 

Outside of Europe we have no influence at all. We are no longer a global player in the way we once were and It's deluded to think otherwise. Even Japan and Brazil carry more weight than us now.

 

If we are so weak why haven't they strolled in to take them back? If it REALLY came down to it, I would back us against Argentina all day long even in this day and age. Whether it would be a battle supported politically and by the public back here is another question. And already having involvement in stuff like Afghan obviously doesn't help, we already do loads throughout the world. Our Navy is completely unsung in its efforts against drug smuggling, piracy etc, doing more than most countries do. You honestly think Brazil carry more weight in the world than we do? We are far too good at talking our own country down (I am as a guilty of it as anyone) - we don't celebrate and recognise how much we do influence throughout the world. How much do we contribute via International Development Aid? And charitable donations? There is far more to world power than simply how many guns you own, or how many $ a country has sitting in its bank.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

If we are so weak why haven't they strolled in to take them back? If it REALLY came down to it, I would back us against Argentina all day long even in this day and age. Whether it would be a battle supported politically and by the public back here is another question. And already having involvement in stuff like Afghan obviously doesn't help, we already do loads throughout the world. Our Navy is completely unsung in its efforts against drug smuggling, piracy etc, doing more than most countries do. You honestly think Brazil carry more weight in the world than we do? We are far too good at talking our own country down (I am as a guilty of it as anyone) - we don't celebrate and recognise how much we do influence throughout the world. How much do we contribute via International Development Aid? And charitable donations? There is far more to world power than simply how many guns you own, or how many $ a country has sitting in its bank.

 

I think you seriously underestimate Brazil! I can see your point, but are we then not dividing 'influence' in to a number of differennt sub-catergories?

[Mmm Donuts]

Outside of Europe we have no influence at all. We are no longer a global player in the way we once were and It's deluded to think otherwise. Even Japan and Brazil carry more weight than us now.

 

Yes London is a truly global city, which in itself gives access to power and influence around the globe. We are very much a driving force in neo-liberalism, surely we connect to other places in other ways other than money and war.

[Verbal]

If we are so weak why haven't they strolled in to take them back? If it REALLY came down to it, I would back us against Argentina all day long even in this day and age. Whether it would be a battle supported politically and by the public back here is another question. And already having involvement in stuff like Afghan obviously doesn't help, we already do loads throughout the world. Our Navy is completely unsung in its efforts against drug smuggling, piracy etc, doing more than most countries do. You honestly think Brazil carry more weight in the world than we do? We are far too good at talking our own country down (I am as a guilty of it as anyone) - we don't celebrate and recognise how much we do influence throughout the world. How much do we contribute via International Development Aid? And charitable donations? There is far more to world power than simply how many guns you own, or how many $ a country has sitting in its bank.

 

This argument tends to descend into the 'how long is a piece of string' variety, because influence can be measured in so many different ways. Britain has influence that may have nothing to do with power (for example, its greater influence in some ex-colonial countries like Pakistan), and it can lack influence despite its relative power (on many European matters, as well as in China for example)

 

As for Brazil, they are now one place behind us in virtually all economic rankings, and are set to overtake us, on conservative estimates, within the next five years.

[CB Saint]

We certainly have influence on the world stage because of our relationship with the US. Other nations will use us as a conduit to try to resolve dipomatic issues due to our unrivalled access to them. However I would stop short of saying we are a world power, as whilst we can influence, we cannot impose our will anymore, be it economically, militarily or diplomatically.

[Sour Mash]

This argument tends to descend into the 'how long is a piece of string' variety, because influence can be measured in so many different ways. Britain has influence that may have nothing to do with power (for example, its greater influence in some ex-colonial countries like Pakistan), and it can lack influence despite its relative power (on many European matters, as well as in China for example)

 

As for Brazil, they are now one place behind us in virtually all economic rankings, and are set to overtake us, on conservative estimates, within the next five years.

 

I am well aware of Brazil's huge economic growth. Would you say they have more influence or power around the world than the UK?

 

I would argue that even at our strongest, our preference was usually for "influence" rather than "power" in the majority of instances.

[Thedelldays]

If Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands now would we be influential enough to get other nations to join us in re-taking them? No, of course not and we are to weak to do it alone.

 

Outside of Europe we have no influence at all. We are no longer a global player in the way we once were and It's deluded to think otherwise. Even Japan and Brazil carry more weight than us now.

Tomahawk Cruise Missiles could win the war on their own

[Verbal]

I am well aware of Brazil's huge economic growth. Would you say they have more influence or power around the world than the UK?

 

I would argue that even at our strongest, our preference was usually for "influence" rather than "power" in the majority of instances.

 

On certain issues, certainly Brazil would have more influence. To take VFTT's example of the Falklands Part Two, if Brazil were not to support any UK military action this tie around, it would make things especially difficult. On matters to do with the Americas, obviously Brazil has greater influence, despite the fact, for example, that the UK is a larger investor in the US than Brazil In any case, influence and power are rarely the same thing. Japan has FAR more economic power than Britain, but its influence is limited in many ways.

 

To make any sense of this, you'd have to argue case by case. Often it comes down to a kind of moral influence, which goes up and down. Norway had greater influence at one point than Britain in the Middle East settlement attempts because it was seen as an 'honest broker'. Britain's influence in the middle east generally has waned as a result of Blair's adventure in Iraq. but Britain's influence in parts of West Africa is high, after Blair's very effective rescuing of Sierra Leone from murderous anarchy.

 

So, at the risk of sounding all LibDem-y, it depends...

[Verbal]

Tomahawk Cruise Missiles could win the war on their own

 

In this case, not even close to being true. If you think sending tomahawks into the urban heartlands of a western democracy is going to help Britain gain influence and win a stand-off, you are so very wrong.

[dune]

Thanks to 13 years of a wasteful Labour government our country is weaker than it should be, but so are a lot of other countries including Argentina. For the next decade our south atlantic colony is slightly vulnerable because if the Argies struck our runway we couldn't reinforce by air. Also the Americans have recently called for us to discuss sovereignty with the Argies over "the malvinas" (a deliberate use of the Argy name...) so it's debateable whether we'd be granted use of Ascension Island in the mid atlantic or be supported with a few equivalents of the sidewinder missiles. So why the shift? It all comes down to oil with the yanks wanting stability so they can invest billions in exploiting the region.

 

I believe we will muddle through this decade and retain our colonies, but this is not ideal. We could possibly be caught out by a weak Argentina, but I don't think we will.

Edited 16 August, 2011 by dune

[Thedelldays]

In this case, not even close to being true. If you think sending tomahawks into the urban heartlands of a western democracy is going to help Britain gain influence and win a stand-off, you are so very wrong.

 

in winning back the falklands in a conflict...I kind of work in the field of this subject

[Verbal]

in winning back the falklands in a conflict...I kind of work in the field of this subject

 

You're in the military. You're not a politician. And you are so plainly wrong.

[Sour Mash]

On certain issues, certainly Brazil would have more influence. To take VFTT's example of the Falklands Part Two, if Brazil were not to support any UK military action this tie around, it would make things especially difficult. On matters to do with the Americas, obviously Brazil has greater influence, despite the fact, for example, that the UK is a larger investor in the US than Brazil In any case, influence and power are rarely the same thing. Japan has FAR more economic power than Britain, but its influence is limited in many ways.

 

To make any sense of this, you'd have to argue case by case. Often it comes down to a kind of moral influence, which goes up and down. Norway had greater influence at one point than Britain in the Middle East settlement attempts because it was seen as an 'honest broker'. Britain's influence in the middle east generally has waned as a result of Blair's adventure in Iraq. but Britain's influence in parts of West Africa is high, after Blair's very effective rescuing of Sierra Leone from murderous anarchy.

 

So, at the risk of sounding all LibDem-y, it depends...

 

Well yes, I sort of agree with you, each situation is different and there is little point in guessing at obscure scenarios. Also the semantics of what we mean by "world power and/or influence" will always be open to interpretation. I guess it is largely down to our own individual interpretation of the world we see around us and I certainly still see us as a significant and respected nation across most corners of the globe.

[pap]

 

Mildly amusing. Nothing more.

 

The Starkey interview with added pussy.

[Thedelldays]

You're in the military. You're not a politician. And you are so plainly wrong.

 

My point was, in a fight, regardless of politics, TLAM could win a war for the falklands on their own.

[Verbal]

My point was, in a fight, regardless of politics, TLAM could win a war for the falklands on their own.

 

War isn't regardless of politics, so it doesn't make sense.

[ecuk268]

I see that the BNP has offered Dr. Dave a "Gold" membership (whatever that is).

[solentstars]

I see that the BNP has offered Dr. Dave a "Gold" membership (whatever that is).

i expect its for the highest form of racist but i,m sure but i think dune is the man to ask being a expert on these matters.

[dune]

i expect its for the highest form of racist but i,m sure but i think dune is the man to ask being a expert on these matters.

 

"but i'm sure but i think" makes a lot of sense.

[Sour Mash]

War isn't regardless of politics, so it doesn't make sense.

 

But he's kind of got a point - we really don't know how the politics of it would pan out - it would be hard to call from many angles - what we do know is what we can do from a military point of view and to be fair Delldays should know better than most of us. If it was that easy for Argentina to take back the Falklands, how come they haven't just strolled in?

Edited 16 August, 2011 by Sour Mash

[dune]

But he's kind of got a point - we really don't know how the politics of it would pan out - it would be hard to call from many angles - what we do know is what we can do from a military point of view and to be fari Delldays should know better than most of us. If it was that easy for Argentina to take back the Falklands, how come they haven't just strolled in?

 

The same can be said of Spain and Gibraltar. We all know that we are weaker because of the cuts but so are our potential enemies. I'm just thankful that we have a nuclear detterent because while we have this we will always punch above our weight and sit at the top table.

[pap]

The same can be said of Spain and Gibraltar. We all know that we are weaker because of the cuts but so are our potential enemies. I'm just thankful that we have a nuclear detterent because while we have this we will always punch above our weight and sit at the top table.

 

I don't think really think that's the purpose of the nuclear deterrent. I mean, do we really go around saying "do this, or we'll nuke you?". It's an empty threat, and can't work. We'd never get away with it.

 

The only possible use of the nuclear deterrent would be in retaliation to an attack on our shores by a nation state. Even then, it's almost impossible to imagine using nukes in a retaliatory attack. Who could we actually nuke on this Earth without upsetting people and ultimately getting nuked ourselves?

[Verbal]

But he's kind of got a point - we really don't know how the politics of it would pan out - it would be hard to call from many angles - what we do know is what we can do from a military point of view and to be fair Delldays should know better than most of us. If it was that easy for Argentina to take back the Falklands, how come they haven't just strolled in?

 

The idea that you can take military decisions in the complete absence of a political framework is a fantasy. just look at the tiptoe-ing around in Libya that the UK and France in particular are forced to do. Wars are politics with deadly weapons. I can't think of a single example ever where the military have just been told - do what can be done and hang the consequences. Even Thatch didn't attack the Argentine mainland, for example.

[Seaford Saint]

The same can be said of Spain and Gibraltar. We all know that we are weaker because of the cuts but so are our potential enemies. I'm just thankful that we have a nuclear detterent because while we have this we will always punch above our weight and sit at the top table.

 

Sometimes you still manage to amaze me......

[Thedelldays]

The idea that you can take military decisions in the complete absence of a political framework is a fantasy. just look at the tiptoe-ing around in Libya that the UK and France in particular are forced to do. Wars are politics with deadly weapons. I can't think of a single example ever where the military have just been told - do what can be done and hang the consequences. Even Thatch didn't attack the Argentine mainland, for example.

 

From a point of view of being capable in just military terms. We could do it now...

 

As for maggie not going for argie mainland... You sure??

[Sour Mash]

The idea that you can take military decisions in the complete absence of a political framework is a fantasy. just look at the tiptoe-ing around in Libya that the UK and France in particular are forced to do. Wars are politics with deadly weapons. I can't think of a single example ever where the military have just been told - do what can be done and hang the consequences. Even Thatch didn't attack the Argentine mainland, for example.

 

Where did I say you that you can take military decisions in the complete absence of a political framework? I said nothing of the kind.

[Verbal]

Where did I say you that you can take military decisions in the complete absence of a political framework? I said nothing of the kind.

 

You didn't - it was a discussion with delldays that you commented on.

[Verbal]

From a point of view of being capable in just military terms. We could do it now...

 

As for maggie not going for argie mainland... You sure??

 

And we can destroy several times over. It doesn't mean we should. And no, as much as Thatcher desperately wanted to take out the Super-Etendard/exocet bases, she couldn't. She thought about it - and there was an abortive SAS recon mission that ended without a shot being fired and a helicopter crash in Chile. But not single British shell casing fell on the Argentine mainland. The Americans, Brazilians and the Chileans were all dead against, so it couldn't happen.