Most powerful Country in Europe in History

[Facist]

posted on May 7th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Last edited by Facist on May 7th, 2011, 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hmmm so india has same amount of nukes as uk? and france and germany have a better trained military?

the nukes maybe but training wise the uk has some of the best in the world and another point the british special forces (SAS) spend alot of time training other countries special forces etc so to me that means the uk should be aleast 3rd or 4th in the list at least

and trust me on that almost every male member of my family has been in the british army at some point in their lives 

also a point that needs to be noted is that the uk compared to all the other countries in the list is tiny (i think some states in usa are almost as big)

so i dont think the brits (im one yay) have done to bad to have their influance span the globe militarilly and culturally .... 

but i may be a bit biased hehe considering i havent even left england lol and i mean england not uk 

posted on May 7th, 2011, 3:29 pm

i think texas is bigger than the uk lol

posted on May 7th, 2011, 5:31 pm

i think texas is bigger than the uk lol

Bigger then all the British isles put together

the nukes maybe but training wise the uk has some of the best in the world and another point the british special forces (SAS) spend alot of time training other countries special forces etc so to me that means the uk should be aleast 3rd or 4th in the list at least

They probably have the best special forces in the world. But I've heard that they suffered quite an economic breakdown.

so i dont think the brits (im one yay) have done to bad to have their influance span the globe militarilly and culturally ....

I beg of you not to take this personally, but Frankly in the Past, They've handled their colonies such as India quite bad. They have had a pretty strong influence, but I live in Bangladesh (my grand-father is Indian and he lived through Brit India, until about 8 ) And he said it was great but the English treated them unfairly, and he's happy to have been out of their rule. (Note: he was from one of the Major families of Bengal)

posted on May 7th, 2011, 6:23 pm

It's definitely possible to define England as a "country", but as you say, that's inappropriate here. The way I see it, there are two possible contexts:

1) Cultural, historical, etc.

2) Economic, geopolitics.

I think it's crystal clear which one this thread is referring to - a country as a sovereign state which can (potentially) go on military adventures across the world - and of course, England can do no such thing because it doesn't have an independent military of its own.

I would go further and mischeiveously suggest that the vast majority of the time, most people mean number 2). When Barack Obama referred to David Cameron as the Prime Minister of England, he made a mistake (unless you reckon it's appropriate for Cameron to refer to Barack Obama as the president of California). Remember that the individual "countries" (or whatever) of the UK have less power than states in the USA do (even after devolution). That's the nature of a Unitary state.

So if you want like-for-like comparison, the geopolitical equivalent of France or the USA is not England, but the UK.

wots with all the quotes around countries England is DEFINATLY a country just like Scotland and Whales (hence why they compete seperate in eents like the World Cups and the Commonwealth Games. just because they share a centeral goverment and military force means squat all. and since this is an historical debate then the UK is definatly a top contender for the top place in Europe (followed closely by Italy)

posted on May 7th, 2011, 7:14 pm

hehe yeah the british empire wasnt built on being kind to the people under its rule, but this is not about kindness 

and in anycase all the countries in europe that have had an empire previously also did not treat people with the same respect as their own....which is a real shame 

posted on May 7th, 2011, 8:28 pm

Whales

LOL
Wales

posted on May 7th, 2011, 8:56 pm

lol yup it wasa a test and u past honest

posted on May 7th, 2011, 9:05 pm

that makes charles the prince of whales

someone should make a movie about someone who talks to whales

oh wait, star trek 4 has been done already

posted on May 8th, 2011, 2:01 pm

wots with all the quotes around countries England is DEFINATLY a country just like Scotland and Whales (hence why they compete seperate in eents like the World Cups and the Commonwealth Games. just because they share a centeral goverment and military force means squat all. and since this is an historical debate then the UK is definatly a top contender for the top place in Europe (followed closely by Italy)

I placed quotes around "country" because most people use the word country to mean a sovereign state with an associated military which can bear the corresponding flag. Sport may be "devolved" but people are not talking about sport here, are they? Unless you think that a nation can rule the world by playing cricket.

I'm kind of surprised that you could describe the existence of a central government and military force as meaning "squat all". Those things are the very definition of a sovereign nation. England has no military or government of its own. The United Kingdom does. It's as simple as that. I don't think it matters whether it's possible to call England a country or not - of course it's possible, maybe it's even common in colloquial use, but it's plainly obvious what people here really mean by country. I mean come on, stop playing word games.

By the way, definatly is spelt definitely, Whales is spelt Wales, seperate is spelt separate, centeral is spelt central, wots is "text spk" and should be spelt What's, and sentences begin with capital letters.

posted on May 8th, 2011, 2:28 pm

oh come on man, dont be a spelling/grammar nazi. this is tuh interwebz, not an academic journal.

plus he's scouse, so naturally he can't spell

posted on May 8th, 2011, 2:31 pm

I'm scouse too. Bet that surprises you.

My view is different. Spelling properly is easy. I have a friend who is dyslexic who is far more literate than this guy, and he's even doing a Chemistry PhD at Cambridge. He doesn't make excuses, so don't make excuses for others.

Quantum Physics is hard. Constructing well made sentences is easy - we learn how to do it in primary school.

posted on May 8th, 2011, 2:36 pm

lol that does surprise me, if u want to be a jerk then do so, you shouldnt pick on your fellow scouse, enough other people pick on scouses, dont add to it

i dont bother with spelling and grammar on the internet cos it doesnt matter. its not about making excuses, there is no need to excuse poor spelling/grammar on the internet.

and dyslexia isnt so simple, just cos your friend can manage it doesnt mean anything. not all dyslexics have the same severity, and not all people can spell/have good grammar regardless of dyslexia.

ive seen plenty of really clever people who have crappy english, and plenty of real morons who write perfectly.

posted on May 8th, 2011, 2:41 pm

I'm not a jerk to expect someone to be able to do something crushingly simple. Your quote here illustrates the problem perfectly:

ive seen plenty of really clever people who have crappy english, and plenty of real morons who write perfectly.

Exactly, the factor which differentiates those who have crappy english from those who don't is EFFORT, not intelligence. This is why my dyslexic friend can spell - he works at it. You've basically proved my point.

And who exactly decided that the internet should be full of garbage english? Who figured that the most important mode of communication in human history should be littered with poor communication? How are people supposed to properly understand each other when they communicate in txt spk????

posted on May 8th, 2011, 2:54 pm

I'm not a jerk to expect someone to be able to do something crushingly simple.

you are a jerk to point out something you think is a mistake, applying your values to someone else's behaviour. he doesnt have to spell right to please you, and you dont have any right to criticise him, because his behaviour is acceptable, ever wondered why grammar nazis are always attacked on the internet? because we dont share your twisted values, most people dont care.

why dont you go out onto the street and find people dressed poorly and criticise them? maybe those who wear hoodies or have their trousers low, go tell them to dress right. i'd love to see the reactions.

Exactly, the factor which differentiates those who have crappy english from those who don't is EFFORT, not intelligence. This is why my dyslexic friend can spell - he works at it. You've basically proved my point.

you missed my point completely, which was that spelling/grammar tell you nothing about a person, and tells you nothing of their intelligence.

And who exactly decided that the internet should be full of garbage english? Who figured that the most important mode of communication in human history should be littered with poor communication? How are people supposed to properly understand each other when they communicate in txt spk????

1) this is your own personal definition of garbage, i happen to find nothing garbage about it, i understand it fine.

2) the people decided that his speech is acceptable, as nobody else complains when people speak poorly.

3) who gave you the right to be spelling and grammar police on the internet?

4) i can understand him fine, as can most people, as can you, or you wouldnt have been able to "correct" his "mistakes"

5) english changes, all the time, fighting the changes is silly. otherwise thou can go back and speak like shakespeare did, why was it acceptable to stop using "thou"?

posted on May 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

How strongly you feel the need to defend the indefensible.

All I can say is that each and every one of us has housed in our head the most complex known object in the universe, with billions of neurons and trillions of connections or potential connections. Each of us, dyslexic or not, is a potential genius. Furthermore, each of us now has access to an exponentially growing information base by means of the World Wide Web. There is simply no excuse for poor English (and no, Blade was not developing a new form of modern English, so your "thou" analogy is void).

Considering the above fact, it is stunning beyond belief that anyone these days can make basic errors which were supposed to be rectified when we were young. I understand that some people find it harder than others, but ultimately all of our brains are capable of amazing things, if only we could be bothered to put the effort in.