English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Has anyone ever thought there is a double standard on people invading countries on England. I am not talking about a long time ago I am talking recent history. England has controled The Fiji Islands, India, and Hong Kong just to name a few. I wonder if another country that was not the greatest ally to the U.S. did the same thing if there would be a war over it?

2007-04-06 18:50:44 · 14 answers · asked by Joe B 1 in Arts & Humanities History

14 answers

By the way - proper English - "IS England AN evil country?"
No, its not, your theory is weak, and it lacks evidence.

2007-04-06 22:30:29 · answer #1 · answered by WMD 7 · 0 0

"The sun never sets on the British flag" was one of the sayings when Britain also owned Australia and other places that are now separate countries. The native people in a country would become outraged and would revolt. The British recognized that they had a huge Army and Navy, but not big enough to fight all over the world, so they went back home. Hong Kong was one of the last just a few years ago.

No country reigns the world for long. The ancient Romans, if you count Istanbul, had an empire for 1500 years or more. (I'm not looking this up as I go, could be much more.) It appears that China will be one of the next to take the lead as time passes.

I believe that the last five years or so has put us in a bad spot and we are not going to be ready to fight another war any time soon. Wars are for getting all the power and that is part of human nature. There are numerous wars going on now if you include Africa and large places in Asia and the Mid East. If a country thinks it can beat another one, they will go to war no matter what the supposed attraction; it is always power.

2007-04-06 19:07:08 · answer #2 · answered by PAT 3 · 2 1

Until very recently, England was an empire.

Yes, it was evil; the United States in now an empire and evil.

The Dutch Republic was an empire and evil, as were Rome, Charlemagne's Empire, Napoleon's France. Hitler's Germany, the Austria-Hungarian Empire, the Chinese, the Persians, Sparta, and every pseudo-religious kingdom of Europe, Asia, or anywhere else from the Sumerians to the USSR.

All totalitarian states are evil. By definition.

The 'public sector's nature' as decreed by god-playing leaders once it is substituted for reality warps the lives of any real individual trying to live in the secular space-time
universe.

Forget the local color and specific details: the collective is evil.

Postmodernism as a philosophy, its adherents denying reality in order to set up something else and force people to believe in ithat fantasy and sacrifice to it, is evil.

So, England was pretty bad; it was just lucky enough to be our friend and also English-speaking like us, at a time when most places were savage-backward, or even worse
than England was.

In a few places, the Brits tried to set up a government where none had been; most places they just wanted raw materials, slaves and a docile populace of people. They could have been a lot worse; but they could have done a great deal better also.

2007-04-07 05:23:07 · answer #3 · answered by Robert David M 7 · 2 0

I don't think you can condemn a whole country for being evil Joseph. I would say the few that run the country call the shots. This is the difference between a righteous leader and a self determined, power monger who's selfish design are not of Love and compassion. England is no more evil than United States or any other country for that matter. It is the leaders who call the shots and some of those wealthy behind the scenes leaders hold the cards of destiny, be they good or evil. Rev. TomCat

2007-04-06 19:04:52 · answer #4 · answered by Rev. TomCat 6 · 2 1

No, not really. It might be a little bit evil in the past by invading countries. But come on! It's in the past right? But now, people believe that England is one of the haunted country. But the sights are beautiful!

2007-04-06 20:15:38 · answer #5 · answered by Orion 2 · 0 1

Well when England did take those countries alot of other countries were also big into taking colonies. U.S. was the same.

You can't really compare back then to now. Many of the take over tooks hundreds of years and started slowly with a headquarters to do trade. Local instabilities happened and the brits used this saying they needed to protect their interests. And then took over. (Fiji is different than the other two items you mentioned).

2007-04-06 19:06:46 · answer #6 · answered by Lupin IV 6 · 1 2

The funny thing is, that none of the hypocrites who claim that Britain (not England) is still somehow "evil" for having colonies, would agree to them becoming independent. They want to control them instead!

So why would it be less "evil" for Argentina, instead of Britain, to control the Falkland Islands?

Why is it less "evil" for China, instead of Britain, to control Hong Kong?

Why does Spain think it is "evil" for Britain to control Gibraltar, but it would not be evil for Spain to control it?

All of these in the end say nothing but "Britain evil, every other nation not evil", and this just shows that the people who say them are complete hypocrites.

2007-04-07 09:26:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

not one of the above. the most evil authorities of the present day is your human being, correct there in Washington. in simple terms they way it really is been for decades. And England don't have a authorities, it really is the so-observed as uk - a noticeably evil bunch, yet no longer of their paymasters' league.

2016-11-27 00:31:22 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Sorry but I think your question does not make sense... could you be clearer?

2007-04-06 19:00:35 · answer #9 · answered by Topaps 3 · 2 0

I think u mean "an" evil not "a" evil. And i didn't understand ur question, can u explain???????

2007-04-06 18:56:38 · answer #10 · answered by US Cutie 3 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers