>If America falls, the West falls, including us. Nah, that's not true.
Though it depends on how America falls. If, for example, the time-travelling USSR magically took over the USA - including her economy and military - then that would be a very serious situation for the west indeed. If however the USA declined quietly and let all their weapons rust, we'd be fine.
>That couldn't be further from the truth. In 'official' ranks this may be the case, but official ranks are often bullshit I'm sure you've got the real figures showing that we're actually the ones in charge. >Stop trading with us; sanction us? And press every other western nation to do likewise. >The only country who will profit from recalling the debt is China They wouldn't benefit at all. They need a strong USA to export to. >a Briton has just released a patent for an EM drive using a British patent. As is traditional, I await it's sublicence to an American who'll then take advantage of it.
>Thanks for proving my point It doesn't prove your point at all. It proves that sometimes rankings have large drop-offs. Hicks isn't denying that the top 3 armies are big, he's just saying there then comes a massive drop off at #4.
>We can still inprove our economy and improve life within Britain, We generally still try to do this. We've never officially verified that our country is run by those who maliciously want to destroy it. >It is abusrd that because we wont be #1 on Civ VI power rankings you think we should just turn off the game. I don't and I have no idea where you get that idea. What I'm saying is that we'll never be "great" again by any reasonable standard of greatness, and we're ALREADY a mid-tier power. (Japan and Germany trapped by history and language.) meaning there's no further "greatness" we could hunt down but currently refuse to. (Except by altering our attitude & becoming say, more nordic - less relevant internationally but higher living standards at home)
Dylan Wilson
fuck brexit, it won't happen
Daniel Stewart
we find that out today.
Austin Butler
>I'm sure you've got the real figures showing that we're actually the ones in charge. No country is in charge. I thought you'd have figured that by now.
>And press every other western nation to do likewise. The whole world isn't the West. If they did that, then we would be forced to ally with Russia.
>They wouldn't benefit at all. They need a strong USA to export to. Kind of true. China doesn't have to trade with other nations, unlike us, but it's just more beneficial to trade with other nations. Besides the whole scenario is based on whether the time is right for a nation to recall debts. If we don't assume that then no debts will be called, including ours making our debt as irrelevant as America's.
>As is traditional, I await it's sublicence to an American who'll then take advantage of it. It's not traditional. Don't lack faith in Britain. In our history we have rarely given America these things. We only do so when it benefits us - as in there is a deal in place.
Carter Evans
>less relevant internationally but higher living standards at home
I want us to be more concerned with Britain than the rest of the globe. No more meddling with inerbational affairs such as Syria or US/Russian relations. I would like us to be semi-isolationists politically but embrace a free-market ideal here, low corp/income tax, removal of Socialist policies, and become a global trading powerhouse.
Justin Carter
Let me help you gets get going here
Jace Brooks
Its always slow at this time.
Our slow period is around 3am - 11am.
Don't worry about it. If thread dies we just leave it until around 8 or 9 to bring it back.
Cameron Murphy
>No country is in charge. Some are more powerful than others. Troop back to 1973 and see how the USA unilaterally ended Breton Woods for an example of what impact the US can have on the world.
>If they did that, then we would be forced to ally with Russia. A country poorer than we are and with military spending in the same general area.
>In our history we have rarely given America these things. We only do so when it benefits us - as in there is a deal in place. No, our history is littered with examples of Britain inventing something cool only for someone else to actually commercialise it.
Consider the story of the APT 1960s-70s: Britain starts designing a tilting train 1980s: Government wants to cut rail spending and pushes BR to deliver results. PR incident for a prototype train when BR failed to manage expectations. Project eventually shelved, all the information from it sold to Italians 1990s: BR is privatised. Virgin trains buys tilting trains from Italy which drew heavily from our own designs.
I can't say I'm fond of that vision. It embraces globalism too heartily for my liking. Isolationism politically can be very desirable, but globalism is poison.
Nathaniel King
I didn't advocate Globalism, I advocated Powells vision of Free Market Capitalism with English Nationalism.
Daniel Peterson
>I didn't advocate Globalism, By the very nature of free-market-capitalism on a global scale, you get globalism. Our position as a trading powerhouse would naturally integrate our economy with more closely with that of the rest of the world, and I can't see anyone politically denying the ability for foreign millionaires to immigrate here even with a nationalist outlook.
Luke Richardson
>Look back in the past when America was a superpower No doubt America was a superpower with the Cold War; that's because America was able to rally countries together against a common threat. And it could exploit that loyalty as with Suez and Bretton Woods.
>Russia is weak meme I have no doubt their GDP is shit, but I do believe that if time came they could crush America just as America could crush them. Besides, they're impervious to economic sanctions and joining them will only bolster their power providing a counter-weight to liberalism. In fact, I'd wager that joining forces with Russia would befall America since our intelligence and military skill is so vital to America. Do you think America could do anything in the ME without our intelligence agencies and the SAS?
>Provides an example of a case with Italy. C'mon lad... but those are special cases when we do something extraordinarily retarded.
Alexander Evans
A free market needs to be global in order to function, and there is no issue for wealth or talent to immigrate.
The issue we have currently is the Nation is too attractive to undesirables through social welfare and benifits and unattractive to nee business through taxation.
If we removed the socialism we could afford to remove the taxation and thus create a supply of desirable controlled immigration in contrast to current large amounts of low caste immigrants.
Eli Ross
Furthermore, the meme that America is stronk only makes America stronger than it ought to be. Supporting America out of fear that they may do something that they can't do means that they'll soon be able to do that thing you thought they could do.
Caleb Perry
>And it could exploit that loyalty as with Suez and Bretton Woods. In Suez it acted essentially unilaterally. France and Britain, the primary colonial powers, found themselves against the USSR and the USA tacitly backed their cold-war enemy over us.
>but I do believe that if time came they could crush America just as America could crush them Definitely not. The odds of a Russian invasion of the UK succeeding are minuscule, the odds of one against the USA succeeding are null. Russia could by all means ensure her own survival, but she lacks the ability to expand outwards.
>Do you think America could do anything in the ME without our intelligence agencies and the SAS? I don't think America could do anything good in the ME period.
>those are special cases when we do something extraordinarily retarded. Those cases are ridiculously common. We did the same with the Miles M.52 supersonic airplane, to the benefit of the USA.
>A free market needs to be global in order to function Then I would strongly question whether a free market is necessary. >the Nation is too attractive to undesirables through social welfare and benifits and unattractive to nee business through taxation. Our corporate taxes aren't particularly high by the standards of first world nations and migration would be the case regardless of welfare, it's our (by EU standards) strong economy that brings people in.
Remember that the free market gives no special consideration to nation, nationality, culture or creed. It should never be accepted unquestioningly.
America already makes herself stronger than she ought to be based on the idea that she's weak. She's so far ahead of other nations militarily it isn't funny, but they still wheel out Russia repainting their cold-war jets as an imminent threat that they need more money to counter.
Mason Roberts
Have you seem their Navy? Nobody even comes close.
Nicholas Long
>Implying any country can invade a nuclear power
>I don't think America could do anything good in the ME period. Fair enough, but I mean the only thing America can do without our help in the Middle East is carpet bomb - and we both know that works wonders.
>In Suez it acted essentially unilaterally. France and Britain, the primary colonial powers, found themselves against the USSR and the USA tacitly backed their cold-war enemy over us. And you know what - we could do nothing because we knew going to war against the US would mean loss (at that time), but more importantly we know that would only play into communisms' hand.
>It's people thinking America is weak that makes it strong Not really. Even the strongest nation couldn't defeat Russia due to nukes and the response of the free market. But people who think that America is a superpower or even has a chance of defeating Russia, or their nation play into their hands because they start sucking America's dick despite it being unnecessary.
>Muh big navy No one cares. One missile in the right area would lead to any ship's destruction - see Bismarck. The fact is having a big or even powerful navy means nothing if you don't have the intelligence or skill to harness it.
Jaxon Clark
>Then I would strongly question whether a free market is necessary.
Then what is your solution to a strong economy?
Why do you have such a stong adversion to global trade? Have you been listening to too many Oswald Mosley speeches on Youtube?
If businesses are banking out of Jersey rather than the mainland, it is an indication that our taxes may be too high.
Corp tax: 20% Income tax: 20%-40%
Punishing success is not a great way to stimulate economy.
Ryan Peterson
>Carriers = Outdated battleships
I don't think you have any idea how modern wars are conducted. Force projection is a huge part of it, and a Navy is the best way to project force.
Thomas Mitchell
The only thing that their navy does is make people think that America is more powerful than they really are.
The tech doesn't matter if you can't harness its full potential. Just look at the Kriegsmarine or the Japanse Navy in WWII. Hell, back then they didn't have Brimstone missiles or stealth bombers (advanced ones), thus it's much easier to destroy the best ships in today's sea.
James Allen
If America were trying to fool us into thinking its weak, then why do they always boast they're a superpower - despite showing no signs in today's decade of being such?
Gabriel Butler
How would they even get close enough to attack a US Fleet? How would they compete with its air capabilities? How are irrelevant WW2 incidents the bulk of your posts?
I work closely with the Royal Fleet Auxillary and even they have mounted chain guns that use boomerang en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_(countermeasure) to detect income projectiles and destroy them with a wall of lead.
If you don't think countermeasures of the worlds largest force projection body is a measure of military strength, then I think you may be retarded.
Austin Powell
...
Austin Ross
...
Joseph Brown
>Implying any country can invade a nuclear power The USA would be the best poised one to do it. Even excluding nuclear weapons from the equation Russia simply doesn't have the force projection necessary.
>we could do nothing because we knew going to war against the US would mean loss (at that time), but more importantly we know that would only play into communisms' hand. With the benefit of hindsight, I would rather have played into the hands of the USSR than the USA. An outright war with the US would be unlikely and had we delayed, we could've perhaps comprehensively handed parts of the ME to the USSR, washing our hands of our future war-on-terror.
>Even the strongest nation couldn't defeat Russia due to nukes That depends on how we're defining "defeat" - are we talking of defeating Russian aims, invading Russian territory successfully, or what? Even in nuclear technology America is much further ahead than Russia. The Russian early warning systems have rotted away since the 90s.
>One missile in the right area would lead to any ship's destruction Getting a missile in that area can be surprisingly difficult. Remember the Falklands.
>Then what is your solution to a strong economy? A mixed policy as we follow now. The gains from believing the memes of the free-marketeers would not outweigh the damage done to social cohesion caused by, say, abandoning the NHS.
Consider it a "largely" free market approach, or "Free market until you do something I don't like" approach. (i.e. if BAe wished to sell weapons to our enemies, I would see it fit to intervene and refuse the sale despite the free market option being to allow it to go forth.)
Our tax rates aren't particularly unreasonable relative to the gains provided by public services, and in particular the gains that could be provided to public services in a society with strong immigration controls.
Austin Brown
kek, keep em coming
Jace Perry
(You)
Wyatt Murphy
There are still many loyalists in the colonies!
We need to MEGA, Make the EMPIRE Great Again while the Americans MAGA.
Charles Brown
>fool us into thinking its weak No, fool their domestic population and politicians. >despite showing no signs in today's decade of being such? Ah yes. #1 GDP in the world #1 Military spending in the world (including more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined and more aircraft than the rest of the world combined. Also second only to the DPRK in terms of active submarines, though the DPRK's ones are hilariously outdated.) #1 Publisher of scientific research in the world #1 Producer of Oil and Natural gas Of the 9 largest tech companies in the world, 8 are based in the U.S. Over 80% of all financial transactions worldwide are conducted in dollars, as are 87% of foreign currency market transactions
Or, I mean, you could take Russia's concession: "America is a great power - today probably the only superpower. We accept that" t. Putin
Now, I don't want America to be a superpower. I want America to suffer for Suez, but denying extant reality isn't going to help bring that goal about.
Brody Mitchell
Mixed policy dosent work.
Any attempt to introduce control the the market results in unforseen effects, and once a policy is in place, it is almost impossible to remove. So the only solution availiable to a government trying to appeal to the electorate is to inpliment further controls to mitgate the effects of the original policy. Obviously this mitigation is also subject to its own unforeseen effects, and so an endless cycle begins.
Now lets take you situation of BAE started selling weapons to our enemies, in a free market it would become undesirable for us, or our Allies to trade with them and as such they would loose a large amount business. It would be bizzare if a company with many active contracts in its home nation suddenly took action to void them all.
Carson Thomas
Guys the west is already dying around us, can't we just keep it comfy in here?
Jace Edwards
...
Juan Ward
Why do you keep harping on about the Suez? It is a minor incident compared to them enforcing our abolishment of preferential trade with the Empire and their support of the fall of the Raj.
Jackson James
>How would they even get close to the yank rafts Like I said, Americans don't have the intelligence or skill to fully use their equipment. That, and there are such things called stealth bombers - however I doubt we'd need them since Americans would rarely be able to properly aim and shoot down a British pilot.
>How are WWII battles and vessels the bulk of your argument Because it just shows how having a big or powerful navy - and I say powerful navy in the sense that the vessels available are mechanically strong - doesn't mean you're powerful. Even more, I say, in this day of advanced technology where we have the ease to destroy vessels. And yes, the defence has improved since WWII but the skill and intelligence required to operate the defence is much higher than before (unless we build deflector shields).
Nor does America. I mean, America can't even successfully maintain occupation in Iraq - what makes you think they'll be able to do so in Russia?
And I have no doubt that America's military tech is very powerful - but like I said, they don't have the skill or intellect to use it, and in today's world having marginally better tech means nothing - even more than wars before the nuclear age.
>Getting a missile in the right area can be surprisingly difficult. With missile accuracy improving since then, I don't think it will be as difficult. But yes it's still difficult, however I do think our lads will be able to manage.
>Muh GDP >Muh military spending What have we just gone through? Besides that's what I mean by fooling people into thinking they're more powerful than they really are - the truth is GDP and military spending doesn't matter. If it did then America could have easily crushed Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc.
Kayden Brooks
>t. yank
Go fuck off back to Trump Gen. Americans are below everything and need to be killed off like the plague.
Man, why can't Remainers just fucking accept it and fuck off.
William Cook
>Like I said, Americans don't have the intelligence or skill to fully use their equipment >however I doubt we'd need them since Americans would rarely be able to properly aim and shoot down a British pilot. >we have the ease to destroy vessels
Where on earth are you getting your information? It's just assumptive nonsense.
Ryan Turner
...
Hudson Thomas
What? Are you retarded?
Adam Long
Why did he murder his dog?
Jaxon Turner
>Any attempt to introduce control the the market results in unforseen effects, and once a policy is in place, it is almost impossible to remove But that's not actually true. Policy is chopped and changed all the time. >So the only solution availiable to a government trying to appeal to the electorate is to inpliment further controls to mitgate the effects of the original policy. This assumes all the effects are negative. Perhaps the unforeseen effects are positive. Perhaps they are neutral. Perhaps they are economically mildly detrimental, but immensely beneficial for the interests of the nation.
>in a free market it would become undesirable for us, or our Allies to trade with them and as such they would loose a large amount business Only assuming that there was a competitor producing weapons as good as BAe's If not, all we can do is buy their weapons to defend ourselves against the weapons they sold elsewhere. Much easier to just force them to cancel the sale.
You're always going to have state interference in the market so long as there exists a state. I believe such interference should be used judiciously instead of holding back ideologically and hoping things will self-stabilize in time. By all means allow the market to decide the price of a television, but don't expect me to sit back and allow it to destroy our country.
Even immigration policy (both pro and anti) is state interference in the labour market with resulting unforeseen consequences.
Suez encapsulates it in a single word.
Though I would point out >enforcing our abolishment of preferential trade with the Empire Demonstrates in a good way how dogmatic free-marketism is a poisonous American notion, and how Britain has always interfered in the market for her own ends (such as by encouraging imperial trade.)
Xavier Baker
And look if America were a superpower it would be able to coerce other powers into following it - it can't do that anymore. I follow a more realistic, yet simplistic, criteria of a superpower. And shouting statistics is not the structure of said criteria.
Suez was a major issue and America needs to be destroyed for its display of treachery during said event.
It's basic inference. The American military lacks any skill or strategic/tactical intelligence. Look at how they behave in the Middle East. Look at their little competition with even the worst of our men. The American military is a 'paper tiger'.
Jaxson Young
It's an user larps as an amoral sociopathic realpolitical imperialist episode.
Adrian Adams
Because Remainers lack empathy
Jeremiah Hughes
With the Americans you must be realpolitical - and you must never show them mercy. It's a simple fact that they will do that to you.
Jose Moore
I was talking in simplified terms, Socialist policy can be adapted somewhat. But lets use minimum wage as an example, imagine the public outcry if it was to be lowered?
"In Politics it is far more blessed not to take than to give"
>This assumes all the effects are negative. Perhaps the unforeseen effects are positive. Perhaps they are neutral. Perhaps they are economically mildly detrimental, but immensely beneficial for the interests of the nation.
So you're happy with taking the risk of say, post war rent controls turning almost 25% of northern housing into slums because there might be a totally random chance that some unforeseen consequence might be positive?
Hell why don't we put Mystic Meg in your perfect cabinet!
You're clearly just an edgy retard, can't be bothered replying to you anymore
Christian Powell
mah Britgga.
Caleb Moore
>America can't even successfully maintain occupation in Iraq This was due to the fact nobody fucking wants it to be there. The Iraq war was a pointless one. >what makes you think they'll be able to do so in Russia? I never said they could do so in Russia. I specifically requested clarification for how we're defining a "defeat" for these purposes. Nonetheless, the fact the US Navy far outpaces the Russian one does stand well for a US invasion of parts of Russian territory, whereas Russian forces haven't a cat in hells chance of holding any position in America (we're talking in conventional forces here. Nukes were all stolen by the Irish.)
Russia and Iraq are greatly diverging situations. A war with Russia would be a very serious matter indeed, and would be instigated by something important. The Iraq war was a pointless excuse to play with shiny hardware.
>in today's world having marginally better tech means nothing It's not "marginally" better. The US are leaps-and-bounds above the rest of the world. A MiG-29, or indeed a Squadron of MiG-29s would to be raped to death by even a single F-22 even though both are just supersonic fighter aircraft on paper.
>With missile accuracy improving since then, I don't think it will be as difficult Improving missile accuracy just makes the problem worse. Making a missile accurately hit a big boat is easy, we mastered that long ago - now we're mastering making missiles hit other missiles so that they don't hit our big boats. America is again at the forefront of this. >What have we just gone through? Far more statistics than GDP and Spending. I also forgot to mention their cursed cultural influence. >If it did then America could have easily crushed Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc. This assumes they want to. America DID crush Iraq. The Iraqi army was decimated to the point it wasn't funny. They fucked up in rebuilding Iraq, gave up and went home. That isn't the same thing as facing military defeat.
Adrian Baker
Oh just fuck off. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. >muh suez Literally you are the last person on this planet to give a fuck about suez. You're fucking retarded.
Jonathan Long
>But looking beyond the short campaign, there is one man without whom there would probably not have been a referendum at all. Someone who wasn’t taken seriously because he was banging on the pub door at 11am. Someone who has never sat in Westminster – but who still pulled off the greatest democratic coup in living memory.
I'm not even a UKIPPER, but he really does deserve a Knighthood, even if you disagree with him, what he has achieved is spectacular in political terms.
Ryan Walker
>- it can't do that anymore. Yeah, America could never bring along other world powers on an utter wild goose chase. Never.
>And look if America were a superpower it would be able to coerce other powers into following it - it can't do that anymore. If Hillary wins and goes to war with Russia, then Nato's going along for the ride. The groudwork's already being laid with media propaganda and Boris and the EU's ludicrous sabre-rattling. Besides, the establishment that runs America right now is the same one that runs the EU and, now to a lesser extent, the UK. They're all in it together. They're all following the same ideology. In short, you're retarded.
Logan Watson
Haha yeah, but they redeem themselves by including are Nige imo.
Blake Brooks
The Joseph Chamberlain award – Sadiq Khan
Michael Robinson
>imagine the public outcry if it was to be lowered? For good reason.
If the value of labour has dropped below the minimum wage and that's causing economic difficulties, let's slash immigration until that's no longer a problem because the value of labour has returned to being above that rate.
>post war rent controls turning almost 25% of northern housing into slums You're going to have to develop on how that occurred.
The rest of the point is a strawman. Slum housing? Regulate housing quality (like we did), house price/rent problem like we have? Build more houses*
*National policy in the UK is often oriented towards keeping house prices artificially high since this appeals to swing voters, whereas the poor - generally renters - are already solidly Labour meaning a policy of actually solving the problem isn't desirable. Even if the free market concludes more housebuilding is a good idea, the government might well frustrate this in other policy areas simply to maintain house prices and thus keep swing voters content. Also, of course, lower demand for housing by reducing immigration.
Jace Harris
>(See also pic related for the 1991 coalition.) It would probably help to link it.
Nathan Campbell
>he was famously shy about his own background. Even now, we don’t know what his dad did for a living.
They're hinting that his dad did something dodgy, probably a drug dealer knowing pakis.
Owen Martin
>I am going to ignore your whole point because I can apply it out of context
I said Imagine if, can you not think of a situation where the minimum wage had to be lowered? Its a hypothetical...
You keep skirting my points rather than adressing them, which inplies to me you have no answeres and I have lost the will to explain simple concepts to you repeatedly or further point out how discussion works.
Christian Thompson
You don't give a fuck about Suez. I bet you believe that without America there would be no Britain. People like you disgust me - you're a traitor, plain and simple.
America wanted to invade. And yes it was pointless since in the end America was too weak to be able to maintain a presence there.
>It's not "marginally" better. Yes, it is - most of the time, it is. And with your little example you assume that the pilots in all the planes have the same skill level, which is normally not the case.
>Cultural influence The only people who are influenced by American culture are degenerates and genuine tards. Besides, there's a difference between upper class American culture, which is a derived British culture, and the judeo-negro culture which is what you're calling the 'cultural influence'.
>America did crush Iraq They failed in their goals to maintain terrorism. They only ended up creating the breeding grounds for ISIS. It's like Vietnam all over again.
So you admit it isn't America that controls the world, but a global elite?
And you're clearly just a retard who listens to yank propaganda.
It should help to note that the only notable members of the grand coalition consisted of the UK and US with Poland providing some help because they just left Russia's grasp and believed that sucking up to the US would secure them from Russia's grasp.
Dylan Carter
>I want America to suffer for Suez America the nation has got NOTHING to do with Suez. It's the globalists, the jews, whatever you want to call them, who are guilty. Internationalists. Americans haven't even heard of Suez, let alone were involved in the crisis. What you think of as suffering, getting Hillary elected, BENEFITS the people who are responsible for Suez. It will put them in power for the rest of time and finish off the actual American nation, the people, the only ones who can stop them, forever. They will cross the demographic rubicon and every fucking day will be Suez till we're all shitskins ruled by a jewish elite. RETARDED.
Liam Jenkins
Possibly, but I still don't like, nor trust Americans. It's best for Britain that America and her people die.
Camden White
>And you're clearly just a retard who listens to yank propaganda.
I literally pointed out two cases of Americans working against us far worse than the Suez. You're a fucking retard.
Easton Adams
Where have you come from mate. Is this bait?
Landon Williams
You clearly think America is some superpower when that simply isn't the case.
Isaiah Green
You are the worst poster I have ever seen on Sup Forums. Worse than any SJW, JIDF or CTR. At least their retarded opinions have logical motives behind them. I'm not even going to dignify you with (You)s anymore.
Jace Bennett
>t. yank Just accept your nation is not a superpower and you're a piece of filth. It's not that hard.
Austin Gomez
Christ, there's so many yanks and yankaboos in this thread right now. Fortunately, most of you are cucks who suck jew dicks for shekels.
Luis Brown
>can you not think of a situation where the minimum wage had to be lowered? Would you like to set one out for me? The minimum wage doesn't *have* to be lowered if other policy options exist. What great crisis are we facing such that we need to cut the minimum wage?
It stands to reason that a random cut in the minimum wage would be unpopular. If you told everyone they'd have to work below it because Aliens have demanded it and will blow up earth if we don't comply, I'm sure they'd be perfectly understanding of the policy change. If you told everyone they'd have to work below it because the global financial crisis has ballsed up the economy, they'd be justifiably angry at the decision since it would (as time has demonstrated) be completely unnecessary.
>You keep skirting my points rather than adressing them You're giving me very little to work with here. You still haven't developed on what you were talking about vis-a-vis northern housing. I can't give you an answer if the question is unclear. >America was too weak to be able to maintain a presence there. America could've outright annexed Iraq. It didn't WANT to. The invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam was a resounding success, it's nation building that failed. >And with your little example you assume that the pilots in all the planes have the same skill level, which is normally not the case. Skill only gets you so far. Skill will do nothing for you if you're totally unaware the enemy is even present until you've been shot down. >The only people who are influenced by American culture are degenerates and genuine tards So the vast majority of the population of western countries. >which is a derived British culture But is distinct from it, an example of their influence and not ours.
>They failed in their goals to maintain terrorism. I'd say terrorism was maintained very well. :^)
Their goal was to turn Iraq into a functioning democratic state. That's a failure of nationbuilding, not power.
Jace Ramirez
To be honest, you just come across as a divide and conquer shill using ludicrously convoluted and tenuous arguments with a stereotyped and cartoonish understanding of nationalist ideology to try and troll support for Hillary. At least you're trying hard.
Isaac Young
>America the nation has got NOTHING to do with Suez Yes it does. America the nation and her self conception has everything to with Suez. American notions of freedom eventually found themselves incompatible with explicit colonialism, and "The American Dream" and such free market nonsense found themselves opposed to preferential trade with empire.
>Internationalists Internationalism is dead.
Globalism is what we've got now - internationalism approached from the right, concerned with finance instead of with people. It masquerades as internationalism occasionally to dupe the anti-racist left, but it is entirely distinct. Globalism has no regard for people where internationalism would hold them in the highest regard. Internationalism would notionally reject war between peoples (who "share more in class than they differ in nationality.") whereas globalism may well encourage it for the benefit of a few wealthy individuals.
The left-right axis is of limited utility here. Many of the worst globalists have found themselves on the right of the political spectrum, because of the belief in liberty even if that places one wealthy individual in disproportionately powerful places.
>getting Hillary elected You've got somebody else if you think I want that. I want a Trump victory. Hillary is the lazy consensus candidate, and against her everything must be thrown for that reason alone.
Josiah Nguyen
>Their goal was to turn Iraq into a functioning democratic state No it wasn't. It was to turn it into a generic republic for assimilation into the nwo in order to bring about world """""peace""""". They don't give a fuck about Iraqis.
Ethan Garcia
Honestly, if you couldn't tell that America isn't as powerful as it says it is I feel sorry for you. I'm not going to argue with you since it doesn't prove anything, and we've already derived ourselves from the main topic, but just know that statistics by themselves mean nothing. It's the explanations that matter.
Mason Jackson
>He still thinks I'm CTR I want you Trumpfags to go fuck off back to red.-.dit or Trump--GEN - or wherever you came from. If you honestly care more about America's interests then go fuck off to America. Personally, I'll always look at what's best for Britain, and from what I can see a Hillary presidency would mean a weaker America, which will allow Britain to seize the chance to regain its place as the superpower of the world.
Think of it like this, America is one of the great powers of the world, along with countries like Britain and China and Russia; these powers are currently competing for the title of superpower, however America claims that title, despite real-examples suggesting they're not.
And just so you know, a superpower isn't a nation with the biggest military or highest GDP - if that were the case then the couldn't be more than one superpower, and Britain wouldn't have been a superpower for a century; a superpower is a country that holds a large influence over other countries - and America simply doesn't hold a large influence over other countries without resorting to calling them peers; in the same way that Britain holds a large influence over, say France, since we both MUTUALLY agree to respect and listen to one another.
Lucas Martinez
>as it says it is That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing whether it's a superpower and whether it's powerful full stop.
>statistics by themselves mean nothing. It's the explanations that matter. That's very true, but it's also irrelevant.
Now let me ask you: If the USA isn't a superpower, do any superpowers exist at all? If so, who are they? Why are they superpowers?
Jace Peterson
Sorry I mixed you up with the other purple CTR guy. Suez isn't an Empire. It's a canal that the British occupied like highwaymen demanding a toll to use the road. There was literally no justification for hanging onto it. If there were a similar canal going through the UK, you would want to take it back too. And what argument could a foreign power use to stop you?
Matthew Moore
>America simply doesn't hold a large influence over other countries without resorting to calling them peers But it doing this doesn't disprove their superpower status.
We have a "special relationship" with America, but the nature of the relationship is that they say "Jump" and we say "So sorry to ask guv'ner, how high does sir desire I jump?", they use the language of friendship to hide domination.
Levi Phillips
The only superpower that could possibly exist is not a nation but a cabal of the global elite.
But other than that, I don't see any nation being a superpower in this age of terror and confusion.
Cooper Garcia
You see, anyone could exploit loyalty and trust but the result of doing that means you're going to be betrayed and beaten black and blue. Right now, we're seeing countries say to America 'you know what - fuck you. What have you done for us except abuse us?' We see this in people openly burning American flags and making fun of America - again, this is why Trump exists.
Andrew Richardson
>And what argument could a foreign power use to stop you? Force. Because that foreign power hypothetically used to own the entire country and wants to hold onto her canal.
Then America stepped in and said we weren't allowed to do that, which was a massive humiliation and "solidified" the end of our major-power status. As noted in a reply elsewhere in the thread, I use Suez as a by-word for the entirety of American machinations against the empire since it was the most explicit betrayal.
Landon Collins
Trump is in our interests you dumb nigger. Hillary is against. Hillary will not weaken America, it will weaken the American people's ability to resist globalism. It will cement globalist power over the entire West for the rest of time, and we won't have enough time to make ourselves independent from it. We need Trump in power through 2020 so we can sort our own shit out without America breathing down our necks. Britain is not a great power and never will be. This isn't a world where Britain can soldier on alone. It can, but the Government won't. They'll do whatever the jews pay them to do. Please stop posting your RETARDED opinions.
Hunter Gomez
Trump is in America's interests. Like I said, Hillary will try to go against us and nationalism, but she'll also weaken America for her globalist masters allowing us to possibly take over it. This is the most preferable outcome and it's only possible without a strongman in America's govt.
Benjamin Bailey
>Force. Suez wasn't worth fighting over. It's just a fucking canal going through someone else's land. We'd already lost the Empire by then. It was just a canal leading literally nowhere.
Oliver Thomas
...
Tyler Smith
Jesus Christ. Just go back to Trump Gen already. Not everyone who supports Hillary is part of CTR.
Suez is a crucial trade route. Suez would mean we would have a more powerful position in the world economically since we would decide what goods come in and out of that canal. I know it's a bit hard for a stealth-yank to understand such complexities, but you've really got to GO BACK TO TRUMP GEN.
Jason Brooks
...
William Nguyen
...
Owen Howard
Neither here nor there. America betrayed us, whether or not what we were doing was worthwhile is irrelevant.
Alexander Williams
Well, the reason America betrayed us was to make sure they were the only power in the capitalist West meaning they could control countries during most of the Cold War.
Now, I respect and understand this fact, but I also respect the fact that if you hit someone in the bullocks you not only will get hit back - but you deserve it too.
Basically America's destruction as any legitimate power is a duty of any non-cucked Brit.
Carter Ortiz
Yeah and we burned down the White House. So fucking what. America didn't betray us. Their zog government did.
Thomas Edwards
>We burned down their white house >t. retard
Yeah, I wonder why we burned down their white house - I'm sure it wasn't payback for them burning Canada's parliament down.
>I-it was their Zog govt. Whilst this may be true, it's the fault of the USA that they have a Zog govt.
If Britain did the same to America I wouldn't expect the yanks to simply lay down arms in forgiveness. And you've got to remember, even during WWII the yanks hated everything Brits and Britain stood for.
Jeremiah Jackson
>Suez wasn't worth fighting over. Controlling Suez and Gibraltar meant we controlled everything that went in and out of the Mediterranean pretty important senpai
Brody Howard
So there's a weird remembrance day thing in Glasgow, they've combined WW1 and the crystal maze. It all blows when it's turned on. What did they mean by this?
Ryder Hill
If it looks like a shill and talks like a shill, chances are it's a fucking shill. >1) Divide et Impera: Break them to the tiniest groups you can. The right is already broken into groups, but it can be divided more. United they stand divided they fall. This goes for Brit/pol/ too, they are one group: Britfags: No. Don't let that continue. Divide, divide, divide. Eternal anglos and Scotcucks are not the same. Break it into even smaller groups. High tories. Ukip. National socialists. The country the Britfags come from, they are not general Britfags, they come from here and there. Keep pushing that narrative, and to enforce it show trolling between Britfags. If an Eternal anglo trolled a Scotcuck post in Brit/pol/, Sup Forums, your blogpost your whatever. "Eternal anglos and Scotcucks: A divide - Anglican Eternal anglo trolled Scotcuck Presbyterian - refuse to co exist"
Jack Wright
so i have no idea how your prime minister thing works
are there any odds of nigel farage ever becoming the big man?
Logan Morales
...aka he turned conservatism into cuckservatism..... And he kills dogs.
