This makes me sad. - by SirFreddieM
Renegen on 24/10/2006 at 18:40
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Damn right I was; you
are familiar with the tactics of the Soviet Union surely?
Well, I don't think we go from 0-rubberbullets&teargas with quite the same celerity. It would be fair to place these former Eastern Bloc countries in the category of "emerging democracies" who are prone to teething problems of this nature.
Tactics to control riots? both are equally bad. And don't bring Stalin examples as the west has golden examples with dealings with unions themselves. The past is more violent, yay for tear gear.
Quote:
It would be fair to place these former Eastern Bloc countries in the category of "emerging democracies" who are prone to teething problems of this nature.
Oh yeah.. young democracies typically have plenty of riots and out of control citizens.. it's normal, democracy takes time to be accepted. /sarcasm. Think about it.
Rogue Keeper on 25/10/2006 at 07:13
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Actually, violence of any kind is rarely used. People are very rarely killed or maimed in good old-fashioned British riots :D
That's because British nature is so phlegmatic and lacking revolutionary spirit that you can't even initiate PROPER riots! :tsktsk:
ercles on 25/10/2006 at 07:58
And yet they still managed to create one hell of an empire, unlike Slovakia...
Rogue Keeper on 25/10/2006 at 08:31
Where is their empire now hahaha.
Screw empires. Just a greedy colonization killing other cultures.
(btw (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moravia) "Great Moravia" doesn't ring a bell, I guess...)
***
In other news, Reporters Without Borders claim that most Eastern European countries have currently better level
of freedom of press than Great Britain, Australia and United States.
(
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19388)
Still LOLoing, Strontzy? :)
SD on 25/10/2006 at 12:24
Quote Posted by BR796164
Where is their empire now hahaha.
We gave it up; it became too expensive to maintain, and empire-building had become so passé, even the Germans and French were doing it.
It's called the Commonwealth of Nations now; every 4 years, we get together and have an Olympics-style sporting extravaganza, to give our athletes a chance to win medals in the absence of the USA, Russia and China.
Quote:
Screw empires. Just a greedy colonization killing other cultures.
That's a rather narrow view of empire. I refer the honourable gentleman to the "What have the Romans ever done for us?" scene from Life Of Brian.
Traditional empires are as much about giving civilisation and stimulating trade as they are about taking resource. Give me one of those every day over the kind of "empire" that the USA has cooked up (military bases dotted throughout the world, taking advantage of supine leadership to press-gang countries into toeing the line etc.)
Quote:
In other news, Reporters Without Borders claim that most Eastern European countries have currently better level
of freedom of press than Great Britain, Australia and United States.
That's interesting, although any differences in the levels of press freedom across Europe are so marginal as to be practically insignificant.
Rogue Keeper on 25/10/2006 at 12:54
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
We gave it up; it became too expensive to maintain, and empire-building had become so passé, even the Germans and French were doing it.
Let me tell you, empires do not "give up voluntarily". They are too precious for it. Usually they continuously deteriorate and fade out, affected by cumulative outer influences. Often they also "rot from within".
The main three reasons of deterioration of the British empire were :
- Rise of nationalist movements within colonized territories and their continuous
pressures on UK's government.
- Rapidly changing global economical situation at the beginning of 20th century.
- Economical costs World War I and especially II.
I agree that empires give opportunity for development, education and improvement of civilization level, nevertheless, their culturally destructive aspects are apparent. If you look back at history of many imperial colonizations, it usually was a very forceful, bloody and culturally destructive process of taking advantage over nations perceived as "civilizationally inferior".
So, you mean that UK at position 27. and score of 6.50 and f.e. Hungary at position 10 and score 3.00 would be just a "marginal as practically insignificant difference"?
Now LOL.
Perhaps it's time for some detailed reports then. Amnesty, where art thou...
Chimpy Chompy on 25/10/2006 at 14:29
Given that the scale of unfreeness goes up to 100ish, 3 points difference isn't hugely shameful, I would have thought. Although, I'd be interested to know exactly how they calculate this, and what contributes to unfreeness points (restrictions on press intrusion into private life? a major state-owned news service?).
Also, what you say about giving up empires doesn't completely contradict Stronts. He never said the empire was given up freely out of good intentions, and specifically said "too expensive to maintain".
ercles on 25/10/2006 at 14:33
You have got to be joking, you are talking about a kingdom that covered a couple of countries in Europe to one that spanned four continents?
SD on 25/10/2006 at 14:43
Quote Posted by ercles
one that spanned <strike>four</strike> six continents?
fixd ;)
Matthew on 25/10/2006 at 14:58
He's just pissed that they don't hold Moravian Olympics.
