Replace "everything" with "anything" and "telegraph" with "British print media."

Seriously, I love Britain, but you guys have the worst print media of any democratic country I know of. It's pretty much all tabloid garbage. Even the Times is a rag these days.

On the other hand, the news on British television is absolutely excellent.

Supposedly its official commissioning date will July 23
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...de/8063097.stm

Somehow, I don't think that the missile system is going to magically come on that day.

Considering the sad story of the Type 23s going into service without a operative combat system, I'm not shocked. I've actually seen The Naval Review articles of the officers serving in those things trying to act tough at the lack of that system. Sigh...

I understand the wanting to buy British, but with every day I wonder whether that less than well regarded Lewis Page has a point after all - the Royal Armed Forces just really can't afford to buy British, with their limited budgets and all.

Don't be so sure. It is a pretty prideless solution if that's the case - they become almost protectorates.

That is the direct result of going liberal, and all your money goes to the people, not where it should. Pure democracies can't exist. Eventually the voters realize that they can vote money for themselves, and in doing so, bankrupt the system. You are almost towards going to a pure oligarchy, regardless what fancy name they give it from labor to socialism to communism, but you will probably collapse before that time. This will cause anarchy which will firmly push into a pure oligarchy. You still have a foot in the democracy camp and that will be your undoing. Only way for a truly prosperous nation, as history shows time and time again, is a Republic. You my friend are no longer even close to a Republic. The rise of Rome was based on a Republic. The fall of Rome was based on a Monarchy.

That's what keeps scaring me in the US. They keep calling our Republic a Democracy on the news. Our founding fathers created a Republic, not a Democracy. As anyone can tell you that knows the five types of Government are, a Democracy (mob rule) is only a transition stage. It cannot truly exist for long term. It is either a transition to a Monarchy or an Oligarchy, or a transition to a Republic, and I can tell you, we are not heading towards a Republic regardless what our country was founded on.

A new world order is upon us. But we deserve it. The people of any nation get the government they deserve....

-S

I'm going to wind up stirring up a whole next of flaming vipers by saying this, and probably start a fourteen page thread which will no doubt dissolve into a Nobama war, however...

Although the era of the Empires is past, Britain has in the past been a rather powerful entity, one could say in terms of influence it was almost on the terms of Rome at one point in time, and throughout this time the Empire was lead by a Monarch, even before the lessening of the monarchical powers and the end of the Divine Right of Kings after the Civil Wars. There was only one time in the past seven hundred years (that I am aware of) where Britain was a republic, and that was during the Cromwell years, which were renown for their austerity and paranoia and eventually led to the return of the king, and although the era of the Empire has passed, as has the era of the Empires, is it not that all things come to pass, be it Rome, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, or the ancient republics in Athens or Sparta.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Monarchist or Socialist or any other '-ist', if anything I think that the most productive societies are that with less freedom of expression, however how you view this depends on how much importance you place on the rights of the individual versus the needs of the state. I agree that a monarchical or democratic system is not the most effective system for production and progress, however I do not think that it is quite as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

*Grabs the first seat in the front row*

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6...corncowtx0.gif

If you're referring to Plato's Republic, it's hardly a republic in the modern sense, or even what the Founding Fathers created.

Plato's Republic was simply a dictatorship by a wise man. The problem with that is that everybody fancies himself a wise man, but few men are truly wise.

And you're absolutely correct, it is not quite that simple. There are examples of very prosperous states that are nearly totalitarian. Singapore comes to mind, as do certain members of OPEC.

The key to a prosperous country is economic success, moreso even than a proper government. It's just a lot easier to achieve economic success with a proper government, one that keeps its' nose out of trade and doesn't incur expenses that it pays by leeching off of industry.

During England's heydey, her lifeblood was trade, global and virtually unhindered. She engaged in many costly wars, and there was a lot of military spending, but innovation was fostered and free trade was the rule.
The problems began when England began using protectionist trade practices to cement her position as the foremost nation in the world.
England, like many other empires, didn't learn the lesson of the Red Queen, that one must run to stay in place. Her attempt to maintain a monopoly on the industrial revolution didn't stop the Americans from obtaining the Bessemer steel process, nor did it stop the Germans from surpassing England's industrial output. As her economic power waned, she pursued the same course of action that nearly every fallen empire has; military interventionism. Between the mid-19th and early 20th centuries, The Royal Navy tripled in size, and on the eve of World War 1, George VI repeatedly turned a deaf ear to Wilhelm II's pleas for peace.

Britain's zeal for war with Germany and Austria-Hungary was born of a desire to eliminate her continental competitors, but the war, coupled with her weakening economy, paved the way for the fall of the empire and accomplished little.

Despite this, Britain pursued the same policy in WW2. The popular view is that Britain's role in WW2 was forced upon her, but nothing could be further from the truth. One only has to read a few of Churchill's musings on Germany to see that there was a warhawk movement that desired war with Germany under any pretext and for no other reason than to break the power of continental Europe and regain supremacy. The Polish war guarantee was a complete farce. Neither England nor France had any means to protect Poland from Germany, and Germany wasn't intent on attacking Poland, anyway. The only thing it wanted was the return of Danzig, a city that was German and wanted to be returned to Germany.
There is more, so much more, but I'm a little pressed for time.

In any case, we all know what the results of England's brave and noble intervention on Poland's behalf; the rise of the Soviet superpower and thirteen eastern European nations enslaved behind the iron curtain for the better part of a century, including Poland. England turned to socialism and languished for decades, and remains crushed under ww2 debt to this day despite economic reforms.

The nice thing about all that is that it's like a crystal ball for what will happen to the U.S. We've already taken great measures to ruin our economic viability through protectionism and government-heavy trade policy, and it could be said that Iraq was the first of the wars we will start in an attempt to use military force to maintain our position. Personally, I don't think the Iraq War is the first, but we'll see. Anyhow, we eagerly await the day when we can't afford to build anything larger than a frigate.
We didn't want to learn from history, and tried to cover up what lessons could be gleaned from it with propaganda, so now we shall repeat it.

I think Britain's "fall" actually had more to do with factors outside of her control.

I could explain it all myself, but instead I'll just direct everybody to one of the greatest books I've ever read: Dreadnought by Robert K. Massie. It's superbly written, and it contains a lot of interesting naval history as well. It's the story of Anglo-German relations from the birth of Queen Victoria to the start of World War I, but it also sheds a lot of light on how Britain's world domination through "Splendid Isolation" crumbled.

The question with the US in the future is how well we react to changing economic needs. When the world switched from wood to coal and steel, Britain lost her huge superiority but was able to stay as a leading global power. When the world switched from coal and steel to oil, Britain couldn't hold on anymore because she didn't have oil at home. Today the world is switching from oil to who knows what, whether we like it or not. The key question for the US is how it copes with that transition.

But getting back to Britian, I have to wonder if she's really fallen. Sure she isn't a superpower anymore, but what does that really count for? Britain still enjoys a remarkably high standard of living. By most standards, Britons' lives aren't demonstrably worse than Americans' lives, and your average Brit is certainly better off than your average Russian, even though the US and Russia are both far more powerful on a global stage than Britain.

My point is that the health of a country and that country's power are not one and the same. For any country power ought not to be an ends in itself - the ultimate goal of any government must be to provide prosperity for its people. Sometimes global power can be a means to achieve that ultimate ends, but it's not the only means. Some nations have power but not prosperity (USSR was a good example), and some nations can have prosperity but not power (New Zealand in today's world). But ultimately you want to make your country a nice place to live, and I'd rather live in New Zealand today than in the USSR at any time in its history.

I think I will read that book, then. I think my Dad has a copy of it at his place. I could always use a little more perspective.

However, I disagree with you assumptions about modern-day Britain, Max.
SUre, Britain is better off than most of the world, but then again most of the world lives in destitute poverty. Hardly a benchmark for success, and compared to Americans they are demonstrably worse off, imo. Beginning with the absurd taxes they pay for government services that are no more effective than their American counterparts(save rail transport), and lower average wages, most Britons enjoy a mediocre standard of living, at best. Everything is expensive and most people drive tiny cars and live in tiny homes. At least, that was the impression I got each time I visited. My first apartment was about the size of most of the homes I saw and I payed for that on a Home Depot sales associate's salary with plenty to spare.

That said, I do not equate power with prosperity, far from it, so I agree with you there. I only mention the gap between the power Britain once held and the power it has now as an example of just how far and how quickly a great nation can fall when it practices poor economic policy.
Certainly, there are examples of prosperous but relatively powerless nations. Switzerland is one, as are Japan and S. Korea, all of which are based on lassiez-faire economies.

Applied to America, Britain's example would turn us into another Russia in the short term. A huge nation with vast resources that has been economically pulverized by its' own government and a haven for black market activity. The standard of living would probably be higher than in Russia for a variety of reasons, but not much higher. In any case, the question is not whether the U.S. as a country will adapt to changing economic needs, but whether the U.S. will allow its' market to adapt to those changing needs. The protectionist measures we have implemented over the past few decades and the increasing demand for state intervention in, and even control of industries tells me that we will not.

Let's help you all understand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwarnKEswSY

Pay particular attention to the ending.

-S