Speaking of Israel...

[a completely inoffensive name]

More people have also been saved by British medicine and uplifted by British education. Citing numbers of sufferers without accounting for scale difference is disingenuous when our population peaked at 1 Billion 100 years ago and yours is currently peaking at 350 million.

How many Indians and Africans got that British medicine and education? Let's not kid ourselves, when you say your population peaked at 1 billion, you mean your population peaked at 50 million white Brits in the isles, Canada, New Zealand and Australia and 950 million conquered indigenous.

I'm sure the Palestinians and Israelies refusing to stop trying to kill eachother once we were no longer able to keep them in check had nothing to do with it's current state. Also, I could have sworn that it was US support that made Israel confident enough to think it could keep getting away with being unreasonably harsh with it's palestinian population

You drew an arbitrary line in the sand and now you want to say that because they think your line was arbitrary and wrong, any conflict is solely on their shoulders. Also shame on the US for picking a side in a conflict.

Large parts of Latin america and the middel east are warzones too, worse because you are still making it so whereas we mostly stopped meddeling with our former colonies.

You only stopped because you lost the political will and the money to do so. Their is no altruism in your withdraw.

Their historical animosity and choice to continue such conflict when we left has nothing to do with it as we know. We wanted to leave them a united india, but they insisted and as africa has shown sticking a bunch of hostile neighbours under one flag wouldnt have worked either. The only way a cold war could have been avoided is if we stayed as a common enemy, and after we gutted ourselves fighting the nazis I somehow dont think that would have worked out in anyone's favour.

Yes, 200 years of British rule did absolutely nothing to exacerbate Hindu-Muslim relations. Because we all know that the British were believers in "equal opportunity" back then. Funny how fast defending colonialism devolves into "it is all the locals fault".

But that's the thing, while the fact that we gave slavery up willingly while you had to bloodily excise it can be excused as a result of economics, what makes your side more morally rehensable is that you had to resort to such extremes and you still failed to finish the job. You ended slavery but the racism stayed hot as ever for 150+ years, with a third of your population is still waiting for the south to rise again the american shame is still being generated by a frankly borderline-retarded political right wing.

So because we did not invent the steam engine first, we are therefore morally reprehensible in pursuing our only method of eliminating slavery....

And speaking of racism persisting, I didn't realize Cecil Rhodes went to Africa on a mission of charity. And I didn't realize the UKIP just wants to help Muslims find the rest of their families by sending them out of the country.

As much as we gripe over our government being run by idiots, our national shame is mostly a part of a nebulous past that we can level out with pride, it's in the past and paired with a lot of good so we can deal with it, whereas yours is still perpetuating now and cant be viewed with the dispassion of history. Yet when you try to make the argument for why america is a net benefit to the world (some damn good arguments I've seen that I agree with wholeheartedly) you get less resistance than when I try even though going by the numbers my argument is more compelling.

Africa is objectively worse off from colonialism. India is a mixed bag at best. I think the aboriginals in Australia and New Zealand would also have a problem with your argument.

I suppose the main problem I have with this situation is that our detractors are not our former colonies calling us devils, it's our contemporaries. Either fellow imperialists that screwed the world so hard we were seen as moderates, or relative do nothings who's main contribution to the world beer and cheese and resentment from petty wars and show no sign that they could have done any better in our stead. The only member state of such categories that could even argue to moral superiority is France and they seem to lack a representative on this forum. The sentiment becomes, to mangle G.R.R.Martin: By what right do the wolves judge the Lion

"You were just as bad as us. Therefore we did nothing wrong."
I find it hilarious that you insist on asserting that all the problems of the colonized world originate in the locals and all the good that occurred came from the British.

I'm not really interested in making a case that the British empire was objectively horrible. I wish to come clean and say that the only reason I am going this path is because I get tired of your US bashing.

[Greyblades]

How many Indians and Africans got that British medicine and education?.

For a good while, few, however before 1870 all people who werent rich went mostly uneducated, white or otherwise. Same with medicine, if you werent rich you got nothing unless it was serious. It started bad to nonexistant and got better over time in both our contries, Ghandi and many other Indians were educated in London, there were indian MP's in 1890, in the last few decades we were pretty good, especially with the backdrop of post industrial Europe.

Let's not kid ourselves, when you say your population peaked at 1 billion, you mean your population peaked at 50 million white Brits in the isles, Canada, New Zealand and Australia and 950 million conquered indigenous.

We're judging ourselves on how we treated the indigenous arent we? How many blacks, latin or native americans got american medicine and education in the 1800's?

You drew an arbitrary line in the sand and now you want to say that because they think your line was arbitrary and wrong, any conflict is solely on their shoulders. Also shame on the US for picking a side in a conflict.

Could have sworn it was the united nations that drew the lines. Also, it's not shame on you for joining a war, it's shame for continuing to support them whenever they turned nasty.

You only stopped because you lost the political will and the money to do so. Their is no altruism in your withdraw.

Did I say there was? I'm arguing equivilance to america not superiority, and you have yet to withdraw from yours.

Yes, 200 years of British rule did absolutely nothing to exacerbate Hindu-Muslim relations. Because we all know that the British were believers in "equal opportunity" back then. Funny how fast defending colonialism devolves into "it is all the locals fault".

I never said I was defending colonialism. And if we didnt believe in equal oppertunity half of you were actively hunting it for heresy.

So because we did not invent the steam engine first, we are therefore morally reprehensible in pursuing our only method of eliminating slavery....

No you are morally inferior in this matter for getting your reformer shot and leaving the job half done for 100 years.

And speaking of racism persisting, I didn't realize Cecil Rhodes went to Africa on a mission of charity. And I didn't realize the UKIP just wants to help Muslims find the rest of their families by sending them out of the country.

Cecil Rhodes was a product of his time, like Henry Ford and H.P Lovecraft people were fully capable of being dicks. As for Ukip, ours is the reactionary outlier, yours is the (dis)honourable opposition.

Africa is objectively worse off from colonialism. India is a mixed bag at best. I think the aboriginals in Australia and New Zealand would also have a problem with your argument.

Quite likely africa and the aboriginals would be better off, though with thier relative lack in technology and education there was basically no chance of them ever reaching the modern age without being conquered and colonised, be it by Europeans, Arabians, Indians, East Asians or even Native American. My argument is that by taking everyone else's performance into account Africa would be(and in some places was) a lot worse if they were under anyone else except maybe you and France.

"You were just as bad as us. Therefore we did nothing wrong."
I find it hilarious that you insist on asserting that all the problems of the colonized world originate in the locals and all the good that occurred came from the British.

...I have no idea where you got that idea, my message was "we're bad, but the rest of you europeans were especially worse, so shut the hell up."

I'm not really interested in making a case that the British empire was objectively horrible. I wish to come clean and say that the only reason I am going this path is because I get tired of your US bashing.

Well firstly, I cant help but wonder what you were expecting when you waded into a nationalist pissing match with that opener, but did you not even read this bit?:

Yet when you try to make the argument for why america is a net benefit to the world (some damn good arguments I've seen that I agree with wholeheartedly) you get less resistance than when I try even though going by the numbers my argument is more compelling.

I dare say nationalistic pride is the only reason I wont admit you're better than us. Well, that and the rotten, festering albertross around your neck you call the republican party.