IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of.... 


...the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness. 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed. 

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security. 

— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is
now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of
Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a
history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct
object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. 

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for
the public good. 

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should
be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend
to them. 

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large
districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and
formidable to tyrants only. 

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records,
for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his
measures. 

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with
manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. 

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others
to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of
Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;
the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of
invasion from without, and convulsions within. 

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that
purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing
to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the
conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. 

 

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent
to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. 

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their
offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. 

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of
Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. 

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the
Consent of our legislatures. 

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to
the Civil Power. 

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to
their Acts of pretended Legislation: 

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders
which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: 

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging
its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument
for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies 

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and
altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: 

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested
with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. 

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection
and waging War against us. 

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and
destroyed the lives of our people. 

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries
to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun
with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most
barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. 

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to
bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their
friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. 

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to
bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages
whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all
ages, sexes and conditions. 

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in
the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. 

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have
warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend
an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to
their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the
ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would
inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. 

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We
must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our
Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in
War, in Peace Friends. 

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in
General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority
of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, 

That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and
Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the
British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the
State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that
as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War,
conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. 

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. 

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge
Gerry 

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart,
Abraham Clark 

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George
Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross 

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison,
Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton 

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur
Middleton 

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton     ###

"Sydney of Astatula"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9C3D7E2BC28EDSYD@209.197.15.205...
> IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
>
> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America:
>
> When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people
> to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another
> and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
> station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
> decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
> declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
>
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
> that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
> that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
>
> - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
> deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
>
> - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
> ends, it is the Right of....
>
>
> ...the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
> Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
> powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
> Safety and Happiness.
>
> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should
> not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
> experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
> evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
> which they are accustomed.
>
> But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
> same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
> is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
> provide new Guards for their future security.
>
> - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is
> now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of
> Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a
> history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct
> object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
>
> To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
>
> He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for
> the public good.
>
> He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
> importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should
> be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend
> to them.
>
> He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large
> districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
> Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and
> formidable to tyrants only.
>
> He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
> uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records,
> for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his
> measures.
>
> He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with
> manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
>
> He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others
> to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of
> Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;
> the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of
> invasion from without, and convulsions within.
>
> He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that
> purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing
> to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the
> conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
>
>
>
> He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent
> to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
>
> He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their
> offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
>
> He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of
> Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
>
> He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the
> Consent of our legislatures.
>
> He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to
> the Civil Power.
>
> He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
> our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to
> their Acts of pretended Legislation:
>
> For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
>
> For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders
> which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
>
> For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
>
> For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
>
> For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
>
> For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
>
> For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
> Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging
> its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument
> for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
>
> For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and
> altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
>
> For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested
> with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
>
> He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection
> and waging War against us.
>
> He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and
> destroyed the lives of our people.
>
> He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries
> to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun
> with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most
> barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
>
> He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to
> bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their
> friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
>
> He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to
> bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages
> whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all
> ages, sexes and conditions.
>
> In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in
> the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
> repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act
> which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
>
> Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have
> warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend
> an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
> circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to
> their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the
> ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would
> inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
>
> They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We
> must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our
> Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in
> War, in Peace Friends.
>
> We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in
> General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
> for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority
> of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,
>
> That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and
> Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the
> British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the
> State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that
> as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War,
> conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
> other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
>
> - And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
> protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
> Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
>
> - John Hancock
>
> New Hampshire:
> Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
>
> Massachusetts:
> John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge
> Gerry
>
> Rhode Island:
> Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
>
> Connecticut:
> Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
>
> New York:
> William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
>
> New Jersey:
> Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart,
> Abraham Clark
>
> Pennsylvania:
> Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George
> Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
>
> Delaware:
> Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
>
> Maryland:
> Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
>
> Virginia:
> George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison,
> Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
>
> North Carolina:
> William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
>
> South Carolina:
> Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur
> Middleton
>
> Georgia:
> Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton     ###
>




Did they really think that ALL men were created equal?  Plenty of children 
were born into slavery.  Maybe "equal" meant something different back then.

I can't help but think it only speeded up the inevitable [independance], 
considering the large numbers of people emigrating to America who had no 
cultural ties with the UK at all.  Right now there is barely any alleigance 
even to the language, many US areas approaching points where Spanish will 
soon push English into the minority.  I think independance would have 
probably happened anyway, perhaps by the end of the 19th century, definately 
by now.  It's an interesting "what if?" of history to wonder how things 
would have turned out if some accomodation had been reached between the 
America and Britain.  How would that have worked out?

TWP

TWP wrote:

> Did they really think that ALL men were created equal?  Plenty of children 
> were born into slavery.  Maybe "equal" meant something different back then.

Or "men".

> I can't help but think it only speeded up the inevitable [independance], 
> considering the large numbers of people emigrating to America who had no 
> cultural ties with the UK at all.  Right now there is barely any alleigance 
> even to the language, many US areas approaching points where Spanish will 
> soon push English into the minority.  I think independance would have 
> probably happened anyway, perhaps by the end of the 19th century, definately 
> by now.  It's an interesting "what if?" of history to wonder how things 
> would have turned out if some accomodation had been reached between the 
> America and Britain.  How would that have worked out?

Canada would be a lot bigger? Or lots of smaller dominions?

Try reading "A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah!" if you can find a copy 
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/transatlantic.htm

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

TWP wrote:

> 
> "Sydney of Astatula"  wrote in message
> news:Xns9C3D7E2BC28EDSYD@209.197.15.205...
>> IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
>>
>> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America:
>>
>> When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people
>> to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another
>> and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
>> station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
>> decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
>> declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
>>
>> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
>> that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
>> that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
>>
>> - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
>> deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
>>
>> - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
>> ends, it is the Right of....
>>
>>
>> ...the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
>> Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
>> powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
>> Safety and Happiness.
>>
>> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should
>> not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
>> experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
>> evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
>> which they are accustomed.
>>
>> But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
>> same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
>> is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
>> provide new Guards for their future security.
>>
>> - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is
>> now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of
>> Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a
>> history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct
>> object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
>>
>> To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
>>
>> He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for
>> the public good.
>>
>> He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
>> importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should
>> be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend
>> to them.
>>
>> He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large
>> districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
>> Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and
>> formidable to tyrants only.
>>
>> He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
>> uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records,
>> for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his
>> measures.
>>
>> He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with
>> manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
>>
>> He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others
>> to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of
>> Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;
>> the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of
>> invasion from without, and convulsions within.
>>
>> He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that
>> purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing
>> to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the
>> conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
>>
>>
>>
>> He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent
>> to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
>>
>> He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their
>> offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
>>
>> He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of
>> Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
>>
>> He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the
>> Consent of our legislatures.
>>
>> He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to
>> the Civil Power.
>>
>> He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
>> our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to
>> their Acts of pretended Legislation:
>>
>> For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
>>
>> For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders
>> which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
>>
>> For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
>>
>> For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
>>
>> For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
>>
>> For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
>>
>> For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
>> Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging
>> its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument
>> for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
>>
>> For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and
>> altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
>>
>> For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested
>> with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
>>
>> He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection
>> and waging War against us.
>>
>> He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and
>> destroyed the lives of our people.
>>
>> He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries
>> to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun
>> with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most
>> barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
>>
>> He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to
>> bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their
>> friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
>>
>> He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to
>> bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages
>> whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all
>> ages, sexes and conditions.
>>
>> In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in
>> the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
>> repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act
>> which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
>>
>> Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have
>> warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend
>> an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
>> circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to
>> their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the
>> ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would
>> inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
>>
>> They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We
>> must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our
>> Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in
>> War, in Peace Friends.
>>
>> We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in
>> General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
>> for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority
>> of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,
>>
>> That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and
>> Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the
>> British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the
>> State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that
>> as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War,
>> conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
>> other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
>>
>> - And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
>> protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
>> Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
>>
>> - John Hancock
>>
>> New Hampshire:
>> Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
>>
>> Massachusetts:
>> John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge
>> Gerry
>>
>> Rhode Island:
>> Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
>>
>> Connecticut:
>> Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
>>
>> New York:
>> William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
>>
>> New Jersey:
>> Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart,
>> Abraham Clark
>>
>> Pennsylvania:
>> Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George
>> Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
>>
>> Delaware:
>> Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
>>
>> Maryland:
>> Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
>>
>> Virginia:
>> George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison,
>> Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
>>
>> North Carolina:
>> William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
>>
>> South Carolina:
>> Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur
>> Middleton
>>
>> Georgia:
>> Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton     ###
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did they really think that ALL men were created equal?  Plenty of children
> were born into slavery.  Maybe "equal" meant something different back
> then.
> 
> I can't help but think it only speeded up the inevitable [independance],
> considering the large numbers of people emigrating to America who had no
> cultural ties with the UK at all.  Right now there is barely any
> alleigance even to the language, many US areas approaching points where
> Spanish will
> soon push English into the minority.  I think independance would have
> probably happened anyway, perhaps by the end of the 19th century,
> definately
> by now.  It's an interesting "what if?" of history to wonder how things
> would have turned out if some accomodation had been reached between the
> America and Britain.  How would that have worked out?
> 
> TWP

Probably we would have ended up pretty much as we are now, with British
sovereignty largely subsumed into the American Empire, and British forces
fighting under the US flag. Extradition from the UK to the US merely a
formality, and British financial and manufacturing institutions run from
Wall Street. Permanent US bases all over Britain, and permanent control of
British government through a pair of political parties who are no different
in placing supreme importance upon obedience to Washington.

George III's successors now live in the White House, as George III and Co.
had planned all along.


-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

Robin T Cox wrote in
news:X5D3m.51266$OO7.27045@text.news.virginmedia.com: 

> Probably we would have ended up pretty much as we are now, with
> British sovereignty largely subsumed into the American Empire, and
> British forces fighting under the US flag. Extradition from the UK to
> the US merely a formality, and British financial and manufacturing
> institutions run from Wall Street. Permanent US bases all over
> Britain, and permanent control of British government through a pair of
> political parties who are no different in placing supreme importance
> upon obedience to Washington. 
> 
> George III's successors now live in the White House, as George III and
> Co. had planned all along.
> 

Had Britain not conquered foreign lands for the sole purpose of 
extracting the wealth from the persons of those lands to subsidize the 
lavish needs of the King, perhaps there would not have been the cascade 
of rebellions that quickly dismantled the empire where the sun never set. 
Isn't it interesting that in the history of the world, every region of 
the world has had its turn at empire, and in each case each empire has 
ruthlessly destroyed the culture of the conquered and taxed the unhappy 
inhabitants into poverty. This is true of Greece, Ottoman, Persia, 
France, Britain, and Russia. And somehow, in the minds of the Liberals, 
America while not innocent, but has been quite mild with her power in 
comparison to the aformentioned brutal regimes, has been the target of a 
world that wishes to extinguish her power in favor of some new regime 
that will certainly quickly fill the vacuum. Have any of you thought 
about the likelihood of a much more malicious regime that will take her 
place? Will it be Russia?, China?,A new coalition of Iran, North Korea, 
and a few dictatorships in South America?. We should remember to be 
careful what we wish for, we might just get it.

"Sydney of Astatula"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9C3E6C806C282SYD@209.197.15.205...
> Robin T Cox wrote in
> news:X5D3m.51266$OO7.27045@text.news.virginmedia.com:
>
>> Probably we would have ended up pretty much as we are now, with
>> British sovereignty largely subsumed into the American Empire, and
>> British forces fighting under the US flag. Extradition from the UK to
>> the US merely a formality, and British financial and manufacturing
>> institutions run from Wall Street. Permanent US bases all over
>> Britain, and permanent control of British government through a pair of
>> political parties who are no different in placing supreme importance
>> upon obedience to Washington.
>>
>> George III's successors now live in the White House, as George III and
>> Co. had planned all along.
>>
>
> Had Britain not conquered foreign lands for the sole purpose of
> extracting the wealth from the persons of those lands to subsidize the
> lavish needs of the King, perhaps there would not have been the cascade
> of rebellions that quickly dismantled the empire where the sun never set.
> Isn't it interesting that in the history of the world, every region of
> the world has had its turn at empire, and in each case each empire has
> ruthlessly destroyed the culture of the conquered and taxed the unhappy
> inhabitants into poverty. This is true of Greece, Ottoman, Persia,
> France, Britain, and Russia. And somehow, in the minds of the Liberals,
> America while not innocent, but has been quite mild with her power in
> comparison to the aformentioned brutal regimes, has been the target of a
> world that wishes to extinguish her power in favor of some new regime
> that will certainly quickly fill the vacuum. Have any of you thought
> about the likelihood of a much more malicious regime that will take her
> place? Will it be Russia?, China?,A new coalition of Iran, North Korea,
> and a few dictatorships in South America?. We should remember to be
> careful what we wish for, we might just get it.



All empires are benevolent while they are getting their own way.

The US is having it's turn at empire, and has been doing so for a while.  We 
fought America when it tried to leave our union, the North fought the South 
when the South wanted to leave the US union, and both fought the Indians to 
have land to argue about in the first place.  It's all imperial.  Also there 
are many kinds of empires.  Ask Bill Gates.


TWP

Sydney of Astatula wrote:
> Robin T Cox wrote in
> news:X5D3m.51266$OO7.27045@text.news.virginmedia.com: 
> 
>> Probably we would have ended up pretty much as we are now, with
>> British sovereignty largely subsumed into the American Empire, and
>> British forces fighting under the US flag. Extradition from the UK to
>> the US merely a formality, and British financial and manufacturing
>> institutions run from Wall Street. Permanent US bases all over
>> Britain, and permanent control of British government through a pair of
>> political parties who are no different in placing supreme importance
>> upon obedience to Washington. 
>>
>> George III's successors now live in the White House, as George III and
>> Co. had planned all along.
>>
> 
> Had Britain not conquered foreign lands for the sole purpose of 
> extracting the wealth from the persons of those lands to subsidize the 
> lavish needs of the King, perhaps there would not have been the cascade 
> of rebellions that quickly dismantled the empire where the sun never set. 
> Isn't it interesting that in the history of the world, every region of 
> the world has had its turn at empire, and in each case each empire has 
> ruthlessly destroyed the culture of the conquered and taxed the unhappy 
> inhabitants into poverty. This is true of Greece, Ottoman, Persia, 
> France, Britain, and Russia. And somehow, in the minds of the Liberals, 
> America while not innocent, but has been quite mild with her power in 
> comparison to the aformentioned brutal regimes, has been the target of a 
> world that wishes to extinguish her power in favor of some new regime 
> that will certainly quickly fill the vacuum. Have any of you thought 
> about the likelihood of a much more malicious regime that will take her 
> place? Will it be Russia?, China?,A new coalition of Iran, North Korea, 
> and a few dictatorships in South America?. We should remember to be 
> careful what we wish for, we might just get it.

Valid points, its worth pointing out though that most of the natives 
never had it so go as when under British dominance.
Sure, there were some rough spots and hard feelings, they generally were 
not eating dirt and living in abject poverty though.
Most of them still don't have the 1st clue how to manage and exploit 
their own resources, and that task is still largely outsourced to 
western companies.

Any power vacuum will certainly be filled, I think it will be more 
localized though.
A look at a map will tell you that China is not a strong candidate for 
expansion ,,, And whatever happens to U.S. power, the U.S. Navy is not 
going to significantly diminish - China will never come close to the 
USN, and navies, of course, are still essential for empire building.

The idea od tin pot dictators and banana republics getting together to 
dominate the world is even more ludicrous, sorry.
They are becoming increasingly large local factors, but will never have 
the resource, finance and expertise to dominate outside of their little 
bailiwicks [thats still our job].

Jesse wrote in news:ZfM3m.274943$Xo1.37283@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com:

> Sydney of Astatula wrote:
>> Robin T Cox wrote in
>> news:X5D3m.51266$OO7.27045@text.news.virginmedia.com: 
>> 
>>> Probably we would have ended up pretty much as we are now, with
>>> British sovereignty largely subsumed into the American Empire, and
>>> British forces fighting under the US flag. Extradition from the UK
>>> to the US merely a formality, and British financial and
>>> manufacturing institutions run from Wall Street. Permanent US bases
>>> all over Britain, and permanent control of British government
>>> through a pair of political parties who are no different in placing
>>> supreme importance upon obedience to Washington. 
>>>
>>> George III's successors now live in the White House, as George III
>>> and Co. had planned all along.
>>>
>> 
>> Had Britain not conquered foreign lands for the sole purpose of 
>> extracting the wealth from the persons of those lands to subsidize
>> the lavish needs of the King, perhaps there would not have been the
>> cascade of rebellions that quickly dismantled the empire where the
>> sun never set. Isn't it interesting that in the history of the world,
>> every region of the world has had its turn at empire, and in each
>> case each empire has ruthlessly destroyed the culture of the
>> conquered and taxed the unhappy inhabitants into poverty. This is
>> true of Greece, Ottoman, Persia, France, Britain, and Russia. And
>> somehow, in the minds of the Liberals, America while not innocent,
>> but has been quite mild with her power in comparison to the
>> aformentioned brutal regimes, has been the target of a world that
>> wishes to extinguish her power in favor of some new regime that will
>> certainly quickly fill the vacuum. Have any of you thought about the
>> likelihood of a much more malicious regime that will take her place?
>> Will it be Russia?, China?,A new coalition of Iran, North Korea, and
>> a few dictatorships in South America?. We should remember to be 
>> careful what we wish for, we might just get it. 
> 
> Valid points, its worth pointing out though that most of the natives 
> never had it so go as when under British dominance.
> Sure, there were some rough spots and hard feelings, they generally
> were not eating dirt and living in abject poverty though.
> Most of them still don't have the 1st clue how to manage and exploit 
> their own resources, and that task is still largely outsourced to 
> western companies.
> 
> Any power vacuum will certainly be filled, I think it will be more 
> localized though.
> A look at a map will tell you that China is not a strong candidate for
> expansion ,,, And whatever happens to U.S. power, the U.S. Navy is not
> going to significantly diminish - China will never come close to the 
> USN, and navies, of course, are still essential for empire building.
> 
> The idea od tin pot dictators and banana republics getting together to
> dominate the world is even more ludicrous, sorry.
> They are becoming increasingly large local factors, but will never
> have the resource, finance and expertise to dominate outside of their
> little bailiwicks [thats still our job].
> 

I disagree. With an impotent US, China will certainly retake Taiwan and 
perhaps Japan. North Korea would take South Korea. Russia would retake 
Ukraine, Lithuania, and the rest of the states that were lost to 
perestroika. Chavez will join an alliance with OPEC and together they 
could choke off the oil supply whenever they want something. Iran will 
destroy Israel and take Saudi Arabia and probably Iraq becomming a 
formidable superpower. You are dead wrong if you think that an impotent 
America would not ignite a new world order where the "Real" bad guys take 
power. I know that it is very satisfying to attack the USA. It fulfills a 
basic human delight to beat up the big guy and root for the underdog. Its 
also satisfying to be an intellectual contrarian. There is no 
demonstration of special cognitive abilities when one agrees with 
mainstream thought. So those who take pride in their intellectual prowess 
tend to defy the mainstream, the obvious, what was said on the face of 
things. Instead they delve into underlying themes below the surface and 
sometimes concoct theories based on nothing more than images formed in 
their heads while applying what they know of human nature to the leaders 
themselves in order to ascertain the "hidden agenda". This was certainly 
the case with Bush when everyone in this group "knew" that Bush didn't 
believe in WMD and really wanted the oil. And now that the US has 
invested nearly a trillion dollars into Iraq, and is now leaving with no 
oil under the exact terms stipulated by Bush at the beginning of the war, 
these fine people with their special cognitive abilities still cling to 
their theories and anounce that the US couldn't even steal the oil 
correctly and thus the war was a failure. Sometimes I read the writings 
in this group and feel nauseous.

Sydney of Astatula wrote:
> Robin T Cox wrote in
> news:X5D3m.51266$OO7.27045@text.news.virginmedia.com: 
> 
>> Probably we would have ended up pretty much as we are now, with
>> British sovereignty largely subsumed into the American Empire, and
>> British forces fighting under the US flag. Extradition from the UK to
>> the US merely a formality, and British financial and manufacturing
>> institutions run from Wall Street. Permanent US bases all over
>> Britain, and permanent control of British government through a pair of
>> political parties who are no different in placing supreme importance
>> upon obedience to Washington. 
>>
>> George III's successors now live in the White House, as George III and
>> Co. had planned all along.
>>
> 
> Had Britain not conquered foreign lands for the sole purpose of 
> extracting the wealth from the persons of those lands to subsidize the 
> lavish needs of the King, perhaps there would not have been the cascade 
> of rebellions that quickly dismantled the empire where the sun never set. 

Where did those things happen? Shopkeepers don't tend to build great 
empires just to give the loot to someone else.

The rebellion that finished the empire was against a multi-national 
treaty signed in France and was led by a painter from Austria - which 
had never been British.

The empire outlived its time, it wasn't brought down by rebellions, 
whatever people who retrospectively call the mutiny the first war of 
independence would like to think. The battles the dominions fought 
before independence were on Britain's side, in northern France and 
western Turkey.

(And the sun still doesn't set thanks to Pitcairn, Diego Garcia etc)
-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"Sydney of Astatula"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9C3EA69C35FBASYD@209.197.15.205...
> Jesse wrote in news:ZfM3m.274943$Xo1.37283@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com:
>
>> Sydney of Astatula wrote:
>>> Robin T Cox wrote in
>>> news:X5D3m.51266$OO7.27045@text.news.virginmedia.com:
>>>
>>>> Probably we would have ended up pretty much as we are now, with
>>>> British sovereignty largely subsumed into the American Empire, and
>>>> British forces fighting under the US flag. Extradition from the UK
>>>> to the US merely a formality, and British financial and
>>>> manufacturing institutions run from Wall Street. Permanent US bases
>>>> all over Britain, and permanent control of British government
>>>> through a pair of political parties who are no different in placing
>>>> supreme importance upon obedience to Washington.
>>>>
>>>> George III's successors now live in the White House, as George III
>>>> and Co. had planned all along.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Had Britain not conquered foreign lands for the sole purpose of
>>> extracting the wealth from the persons of those lands to subsidize
>>> the lavish needs of the King, perhaps there would not have been the
>>> cascade of rebellions that quickly dismantled the empire where the
>>> sun never set. Isn't it interesting that in the history of the world,
>>> every region of the world has had its turn at empire, and in each
>>> case each empire has ruthlessly destroyed the culture of the
>>> conquered and taxed the unhappy inhabitants into poverty. This is
>>> true of Greece, Ottoman, Persia, France, Britain, and Russia. And
>>> somehow, in the minds of the Liberals, America while not innocent,
>>> but has been quite mild with her power in comparison to the
>>> aformentioned brutal regimes, has been the target of a world that
>>> wishes to extinguish her power in favor of some new regime that will
>>> certainly quickly fill the vacuum. Have any of you thought about the
>>> likelihood of a much more malicious regime that will take her place?
>>> Will it be Russia?, China?,A new coalition of Iran, North Korea, and
>>> a few dictatorships in South America?. We should remember to be
>>> careful what we wish for, we might just get it.
>>
>> Valid points, its worth pointing out though that most of the natives
>> never had it so go as when under British dominance.
>> Sure, there were some rough spots and hard feelings, they generally
>> were not eating dirt and living in abject poverty though.
>> Most of them still don't have the 1st clue how to manage and exploit
>> their own resources, and that task is still largely outsourced to
>> western companies.
>>
>> Any power vacuum will certainly be filled, I think it will be more
>> localized though.
>> A look at a map will tell you that China is not a strong candidate for
>> expansion ,,, And whatever happens to U.S. power, the U.S. Navy is not
>> going to significantly diminish - China will never come close to the
>> USN, and navies, of course, are still essential for empire building.
>>
>> The idea od tin pot dictators and banana republics getting together to
>> dominate the world is even more ludicrous, sorry.
>> They are becoming increasingly large local factors, but will never
>> have the resource, finance and expertise to dominate outside of their
>> little bailiwicks [thats still our job].
>>
>
> I disagree. With an impotent US, China will certainly retake Taiwan and
> perhaps Japan. North Korea would take South Korea. Russia would retake
> Ukraine, Lithuania, and the rest of the states that were lost to
> perestroika. Chavez will join an alliance with OPEC and together they
> could choke off the oil supply whenever they want something. Iran will
> destroy Israel and take Saudi Arabia and probably Iraq becomming a
> formidable superpower. You are dead wrong if you think that an impotent
> America would not ignite a new world order where the "Real" bad guys take
> power. I know that it is very satisfying to attack the USA. It fulfills a
> basic human delight to beat up the big guy and root for the underdog.

So that's not what you're doing when you call Britain a brutal regime?

Most of the greatest and in general, safest countries to live in on this
planet have been founded by Britain or had a large amount of British
involvment in their formation.  We must have got something right.  We worked
against slavery, we fought Napoleon and Hitler practically to our own
destruction.

TWP

TWP wrote in news:KsGdnSmlcpsRT9LXnZ2dnUVZ8nqdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk:

> 
> "Sydney of Astatula"  wrote in message 
> news:Xns9C3EA69C35FBASYD@209.197.15.205...
>> Jesse wrote in
>> news:ZfM3m.274943$Xo1.37283@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com: 
>>
>>> Sydney of Astatula wrote:
>>>> Robin T Cox wrote in
>>>> news:X5D3m.51266$OO7.27045@text.news.virginmedia.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Probably we would have ended up pretty much as we are now, with
>>>>> British sovereignty largely subsumed into the American Empire, and
>>>>> British forces fighting under the US flag. Extradition from the UK
>>>>> to the US merely a formality, and British financial and
>>>>> manufacturing institutions run from Wall Street. Permanent US
>>>>> bases all over Britain, and permanent control of British
>>>>> government through a pair of political parties who are no
>>>>> different in placing supreme importance upon obedience to
>>>>> Washington. 
>>>>>
>>>>> George III's successors now live in the White House, as George III
>>>>> and Co. had planned all along.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Had Britain not conquered foreign lands for the sole purpose of
>>>> extracting the wealth from the persons of those lands to subsidize
>>>> the lavish needs of the King, perhaps there would not have been the
>>>> cascade of rebellions that quickly dismantled the empire where the
>>>> sun never set. Isn't it interesting that in the history of the
>>>> world, every region of the world has had its turn at empire, and in
>>>> each case each empire has ruthlessly destroyed the culture of the
>>>> conquered and taxed the unhappy inhabitants into poverty. This is
>>>> true of Greece, Ottoman, Persia, France, Britain, and Russia. And
>>>> somehow, in the minds of the Liberals, America while not innocent,
>>>> but has been quite mild with her power in comparison to the
>>>> aformentioned brutal regimes, has been the target of a world that
>>>> wishes to extinguish her power in favor of some new regime that
>>>> will certainly quickly fill the vacuum. Have any of you thought
>>>> about the likelihood of a much more malicious regime that will take
>>>> her place? Will it be Russia?, China?,A new coalition of Iran,
>>>> North Korea, and a few dictatorships in South America?. We should
>>>> remember to be careful what we wish for, we might just get it.
>>>
>>> Valid points, its worth pointing out though that most of the natives
>>> never had it so go as when under British dominance.
>>> Sure, there were some rough spots and hard feelings, they generally
>>> were not eating dirt and living in abject poverty though.
>>> Most of them still don't have the 1st clue how to manage and exploit
>>> their own resources, and that task is still largely outsourced to
>>> western companies.
>>>
>>> Any power vacuum will certainly be filled, I think it will be more
>>> localized though.
>>> A look at a map will tell you that China is not a strong candidate
>>> for expansion ,,, And whatever happens to U.S. power, the U.S. Navy
>>> is not going to significantly diminish - China will never come close
>>> to the USN, and navies, of course, are still essential for empire
>>> building. 
>>>
>>> The idea od tin pot dictators and banana republics getting together
>>> to dominate the world is even more ludicrous, sorry.
>>> They are becoming increasingly large local factors, but will never
>>> have the resource, finance and expertise to dominate outside of
>>> their little bailiwicks [thats still our job].
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. With an impotent US, China will certainly retake Taiwan
>> and perhaps Japan. North Korea would take South Korea. Russia would
>> retake Ukraine, Lithuania, and the rest of the states that were lost
>> to perestroika. Chavez will join an alliance with OPEC and together
>> they could choke off the oil supply whenever they want something.
>> Iran will destroy Israel and take Saudi Arabia and probably Iraq
>> becomming a formidable superpower. You are dead wrong if you think
>> that an impotent America would not ignite a new world order where the
>> "Real" bad guys take power. I know that it is very satisfying to
>> attack the USA. It fulfills a basic human delight to beat up the big
>> guy and root for the underdog. 
> 
> So that's not what you're doing when you call Britain a brutal regime?
> 
> Most of the greatest and in general, safest countries to live in on
> this planet have been founded by Britain or had a large amount of
> British involvment in their formation.  We must have got something
> right.  We worked against slavery, we fought Napoleon and Hitler
> practically to our own destruction.

I have nothing but admiration for Britain. I am merely trying to make the 
point that this group has an irrational hatred of America. It accuses 
America consistently of Imperialism and misuse of power. I assert that 
America's influence in the world is subtle compared to other empires that 
directly invaded and occupied for the sole purpose of taxation. (When has 
America done this?) I also point out the hypocrisy of someone from 
Britain complaining about the forceful exploitation of another country. 
The people in this group cannot fathom a foreign policy based on an 
ideology in lieu of economic gain. A look at the history of America's 
wars since the revolution, the war of 1812 waged against Britain because 
the British Navy kept sinking American merchant ships. World War I, 
America lost 117,000 lives for the sake of Europe. World War II, America 
cutoff the fuel supply to Japan to help the allies, Japan waged war and 
we in turn defeated Japan and helped Europe defeat Germany. The Korean 
war, we entered to help the people of South Korea to maintain their 
democracy. Same for Viet Nam. Despite a clear record for entering armed 
conflict over an ideology in lieu of imperialistic expansion, we have yet 
to earn even the benefit of the doubt when it comes to our president 
saying he is invading Iraq to prevent the use of WMD. We were viciously 
criticized for having a hidden agenda to steal the oil. And now that 
we've lost 5000 soldiers and spent a trillion dollars, we are pulling out 
while trying to leave a democracy intact without stealing the oil. And as 
we do exactly what we said we were going to do, the benefit of the doubt 
is still not extended, instead we are criticized for bungling our real 
agenda of stealing the oil. And frankly, I am disgusted.

"Sydney of Astatula"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9C3EDAEBD2481SYD@209.197.15.205...
> TWP wrote in news:KsGdnSmlcpsRT9LXnZ2dnUVZ8nqdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk:
>
>>
>> "Sydney of Astatula"  wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C3EA69C35FBASYD@209.197.15.205...
>>> Jesse wrote in
>>> news:ZfM3m.274943$Xo1.37283@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com:
>>>
>>>> Sydney of Astatula wrote:
>>>>> Robin T Cox wrote in
>>>>> news:X5D3m.51266$OO7.27045@text.news.virginmedia.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably we would have ended up pretty much as we are now, with
>>>>>> British sovereignty largely subsumed into the American Empire, and
>>>>>> British forces fighting under the US flag. Extradition from the UK
>>>>>> to the US merely a formality, and British financial and
>>>>>> manufacturing institutions run from Wall Street. Permanent US
>>>>>> bases all over Britain, and permanent control of British
>>>>>> government through a pair of political parties who are no
>>>>>> different in placing supreme importance upon obedience to
>>>>>> Washington.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> George III's successors now live in the White House, as George III
>>>>>> and Co. had planned all along.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Had Britain not conquered foreign lands for the sole purpose of
>>>>> extracting the wealth from the persons of those lands to subsidize
>>>>> the lavish needs of the King, perhaps there would not have been the
>>>>> cascade of rebellions that quickly dismantled the empire where the
>>>>> sun never set. Isn't it interesting that in the history of the
>>>>> world, every region of the world has had its turn at empire, and in
>>>>> each case each empire has ruthlessly destroyed the culture of the
>>>>> conquered and taxed the unhappy inhabitants into poverty. This is
>>>>> true of Greece, Ottoman, Persia, France, Britain, and Russia. And
>>>>> somehow, in the minds of the Liberals, America while not innocent,
>>>>> but has been quite mild with her power in comparison to the
>>>>> aformentioned brutal regimes, has been the target of a world that
>>>>> wishes to extinguish her power in favor of some new regime that
>>>>> will certainly quickly fill the vacuum. Have any of you thought
>>>>> about the likelihood of a much more malicious regime that will take
>>>>> her place? Will it be Russia?, China?,A new coalition of Iran,
>>>>> North Korea, and a few dictatorships in South America?. We should
>>>>> remember to be careful what we wish for, we might just get it.
>>>>
>>>> Valid points, its worth pointing out though that most of the natives
>>>> never had it so go as when under British dominance.
>>>> Sure, there were some rough spots and hard feelings, they generally
>>>> were not eating dirt and living in abject poverty though.
>>>> Most of them still don't have the 1st clue how to manage and exploit
>>>> their own resources, and that task is still largely outsourced to
>>>> western companies.
>>>>
>>>> Any power vacuum will certainly be filled, I think it will be more
>>>> localized though.
>>>> A look at a map will tell you that China is not a strong candidate
>>>> for expansion ,,, And whatever happens to U.S. power, the U.S. Navy
>>>> is not going to significantly diminish - China will never come close
>>>> to the USN, and navies, of course, are still essential for empire
>>>> building.
>>>>
>>>> The idea od tin pot dictators and banana republics getting together
>>>> to dominate the world is even more ludicrous, sorry.
>>>> They are becoming increasingly large local factors, but will never
>>>> have the resource, finance and expertise to dominate outside of
>>>> their little bailiwicks [thats still our job].
>>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. With an impotent US, China will certainly retake Taiwan
>>> and perhaps Japan. North Korea would take South Korea. Russia would
>>> retake Ukraine, Lithuania, and the rest of the states that were lost
>>> to perestroika. Chavez will join an alliance with OPEC and together
>>> they could choke off the oil supply whenever they want something.
>>> Iran will destroy Israel and take Saudi Arabia and probably Iraq
>>> becomming a formidable superpower. You are dead wrong if you think
>>> that an impotent America would not ignite a new world order where the
>>> "Real" bad guys take power. I know that it is very satisfying to
>>> attack the USA. It fulfills a basic human delight to beat up the big
>>> guy and root for the underdog.
>>
>> So that's not what you're doing when you call Britain a brutal regime?
>>
>> Most of the greatest and in general, safest countries to live in on
>> this planet have been founded by Britain or had a large amount of
>> British involvment in their formation.  We must have got something
>> right.  We worked against slavery, we fought Napoleon and Hitler
>> practically to our own destruction.
>
> I have nothing but admiration for Britain. I am merely trying to make the
> point that this group has an irrational hatred of America. It accuses
> America consistently of Imperialism and misuse of power. I assert that
> America's influence in the world is subtle compared to other empires that
> directly invaded and occupied for the sole purpose of taxation. (When has
> America done this?) I also point out the hypocrisy of someone from
> Britain complaining about the forceful exploitation of another country.
> The people in this group cannot fathom a foreign policy based on an
> ideology in lieu of economic gain. A look at the history of America's
> wars since the revolution, the war of 1812 waged against Britain because
> the British Navy kept sinking American merchant ships. World War I,
> America lost 117,000 lives for the sake of Europe. World War II, America
> cutoff the fuel supply to Japan to help the allies, Japan waged war and
> we in turn defeated Japan and helped Europe defeat Germany. The Korean
> war, we entered to help the people of South Korea to maintain their
> democracy. Same for Viet Nam. Despite a clear record for entering armed
> conflict over an ideology in lieu of imperialistic expansion, we have yet
> to earn even the benefit of the doubt when it comes to our president
> saying he is invading Iraq to prevent the use of WMD. We were viciously
> criticized for having a hidden agenda to steal the oil. And now that
> we've lost 5000 soldiers and spent a trillion dollars, we are pulling out
> while trying to leave a democracy intact without stealing the oil. And as
> we do exactly what we said we were going to do, the benefit of the doubt
> is still not extended, instead we are criticized for bungling our real
> agenda of stealing the oil. And frankly, I am disgusted.


I know what you're saying, but you're being unfair in return.  That might 
make you feel better, but you aren't going to change anyone's minds.

I think the Iraq war was a mistake, but I'm thinking of the one in 1991, not 
2003.   I've had this discussion several times with others on this ng and I 
don't really want to go through it all over again, but the short version is 
that there was no UN mandate to depose Saddam in 1991.  I've never bought 
that entirely, I think there was grounds for siezing Saddam at the very 
least on the grounds that he was a suspected war criminal.   In the end he 
was hanged on that pretext, so you would have thought at the very least he 
could have been been arrested.  It would have taken Saddam out before AQ got 
started and saved thousands of Coalition and Iraqi lives taken by Gulf War 
II (not to mention the huge piles of cash it cost both the US and UK). 
There would have been no sanctions and there would have been no second war 
to do it all over again after the 11 Sept attacks.  I've been shot down on 
this train of thought so many times, but I just feel that making the effort 
then, risking our reputations then, for that, would have meant so much more 
and been so much more effective than anything we did in 2003.


This might interest you....

Oil companies reject Iraq's terms
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8125731.stm


The oil companies wanted $4 per barrel and got $2.  Sounds like the Iraqi 
government has some power in it's oil industry...



TWP

Sydney of Astatula wrote:
> Jesse wrote in news:ZfM3m.274943$Xo1.37283@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com:
> 
>> Sydney of Astatula wrote:
>>> Robin T Cox wrote in
>>> news:X5D3m.51266$OO7.27045@text.news.virginmedia.com: 
>>>
>>>> Probably we would have ended up pretty much as we are now, with
>>>> British sovereignty largely subsumed into the American Empire, and
>>>> British forces fighting under the US flag. Extradition from the UK
>>>> to the US merely a formality, and British financial and
>>>> manufacturing institutions run from Wall Street. Permanent US bases
>>>> all over Britain, and permanent control of British government
>>>> through a pair of political parties who are no different in placing
>>>> supreme importance upon obedience to Washington. 
>>>>
>>>> George III's successors now live in the White House, as George III
>>>> and Co. had planned all along.
>>>>
>>> Had Britain not conquered foreign lands for the sole purpose of 
>>> extracting the wealth from the persons of those lands to subsidize
>>> the lavish needs of the King, perhaps there would not have been the
>>> cascade of rebellions that quickly dismantled the empire where the
>>> sun never set. Isn't it interesting that in the history of the world,
>>> every region of the world has had its turn at empire, and in each
>>> case each empire has ruthlessly destroyed the culture of the
>>> conquered and taxed the unhappy inhabitants into poverty. This is
>>> true of Greece, Ottoman, Persia, France, Britain, and Russia. And
>>> somehow, in the minds of the Liberals, America while not innocent,
>>> but has been quite mild with her power in comparison to the
>>> aformentioned brutal regimes, has been the target of a world that
>>> wishes to extinguish her power in favor of some new regime that will
>>> certainly quickly fill the vacuum. Have any of you thought about the
>>> likelihood of a much more malicious regime that will take her place?
>>> Will it be Russia?, China?,A new coalition of Iran, North Korea, and
>>> a few dictatorships in South America?. We should remember to be 
>>> careful what we wish for, we might just get it. 
>> Valid points, its worth pointing out though that most of the natives 
>> never had it so go as when under British dominance.
>> Sure, there were some rough spots and hard feelings, they generally
>> were not eating dirt and living in abject poverty though.
>> Most of them still don't have the 1st clue how to manage and exploit 
>> their own resources, and that task is still largely outsourced to 
>> western companies.
>>
>> Any power vacuum will certainly be filled, I think it will be more 
>> localized though.
>> A look at a map will tell you that China is not a strong candidate for
>> expansion ,,, And whatever happens to U.S. power, the U.S. Navy is not
>> going to significantly diminish - China will never come close to the 
>> USN, and navies, of course, are still essential for empire building.
>>
>> The idea od tin pot dictators and banana republics getting together to
>> dominate the world is even more ludicrous, sorry.
>> They are becoming increasingly large local factors, but will never
>> have the resource, finance and expertise to dominate outside of their
>> little bailiwicks [thats still our job].
>>
> 
> I disagree. With an impotent US, China will certainly retake Taiwan and 
> perhaps Japan. North Korea would take South Korea. Russia would retake 
> Ukraine, Lithuania, and the rest of the states that were lost to 
> perestroika. Chavez will join an alliance with OPEC and together they 
> could choke off the oil supply whenever they want something. Iran will 
> destroy Israel and take Saudi Arabia and probably Iraq becomming a 
> formidable superpower. You are dead wrong if you think that an impotent 
> America would not ignite a new world order where the "Real" bad guys take 
> power. I know that it is very satisfying to attack the USA. It fulfills a 
> basic human delight to beat up the big guy and root for the underdog. Its 
> also satisfying to be an intellectual contrarian. There is no 
> demonstration of special cognitive abilities when one agrees with 
> mainstream thought. So those who take pride in their intellectual prowess 
> tend to defy the mainstream, the obvious, what was said on the face of 
> things. Instead they delve into underlying themes below the surface and 
> sometimes concoct theories based on nothing more than images formed in 
> their heads while applying what they know of human nature to the leaders 
> themselves in order to ascertain the "hidden agenda". This was certainly 
> the case with Bush when everyone in this group "knew" that Bush didn't 
> believe in WMD and really wanted the oil. And now that the US has 
> invested nearly a trillion dollars into Iraq, and is now leaving with no 
> oil under the exact terms stipulated by Bush at the beginning of the war, 
> these fine people with their special cognitive abilities still cling to 
> their theories and anounce that the US couldn't even steal the oil 
> correctly and thus the war was a failure. Sometimes I read the writings 
> in this group and feel nauseous.

You seem to be operating on pure supposition.
Define "impotent".
Look at the order of battle of the forces of the USA
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/9059/usaob.html
And tell me how all that is just going to melt away, leaving some omni 
potent power, or combination of powers, to pick up the scraps.
13 separate carrier battle groups, each one, in and of itself, more than 
capable of battling just about an possible opposing force ,, Not to 
mention combinations of carrier groups.
That is pure domination - Not potential, it is.
And you can't tell me China + Russia, together, are ever going to match 
that.

If you preassume that all of this is going to melt away, leaving the USA 
"Impotent", that is assuming a catastrophic economic and social collapse 
- Which, by the way, by necessity, would engulf the rest of the world.
The majority of Chinas income comes from selling slave labor produced 
goods to western nations, the USA 1st and foremost.
That, and western multi national companies setting up shop in China.
Take all of that away, China goes down the drain as well.

Also nice to write Israel off in a single sentence, leaving Iran 
unchecked, and free to dominate - You forgot one thing.
Nuclear weapons.
If the jew state goes down, they will take alot of folks down with them, 
including Iran - And I don't see alot of winners in a radiation engulfed 
mid east, including Iran.
Even conventionally, perhaps more so, Iran would be smacked around like 
a deaf stepchild by the USA and/or Israel.
They have been threatening to wipe Israel off the map for years, you 
ever wonder why they haven't tried it, to date ?
Perhaps a look at what happened to combined arab forces in the mate 60's 
and early 70's would be instructive, and the balance of power has not 
significantly changed since then - If anything, the forces of the jew 
state are even more dominant.

Banana republics, like this ridiculous Chavez character, forming some 
kind of alliance with the desperate despots of North Korea ... I am not 
going to even waste my time making arguments against that.
Alls it will take is a man with the will, he would be squashed like the 
little bug that he is - The views of Kenyan born socialists are not 
always going to be holding sway here.
NK can posture how she sees fit, if she feels like committing national 
suicide by attacking south, let them - And the notion of Japan feeling 
seriously threatened by China is also ludicrous enough to warrant no 
comment.

Sydney of Astatula wrote:

> TWP wrote in news:KsGdnSmlcpsRT9LXnZ2dnUVZ8nqdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk:
> 
>> 
>> "Sydney of Astatula"  wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C3EA69C35FBASYD@209.197.15.205...
>>> Jesse wrote in
>>> news:ZfM3m.274943$Xo1.37283@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com:
>>>
>>>> Sydney of Astatula wrote:
>>>>> Robin T Cox wrote in
>>>>> news:X5D3m.51266$OO7.27045@text.news.virginmedia.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably we would have ended up pretty much as we are now, with
>>>>>> British sovereignty largely subsumed into the American Empire, and
>>>>>> British forces fighting under the US flag. Extradition from the UK
>>>>>> to the US merely a formality, and British financial and
>>>>>> manufacturing institutions run from Wall Street. Permanent US
>>>>>> bases all over Britain, and permanent control of British
>>>>>> government through a pair of political parties who are no
>>>>>> different in placing supreme importance upon obedience to
>>>>>> Washington.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> George III's successors now live in the White House, as George III
>>>>>> and Co. had planned all along.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Had Britain not conquered foreign lands for the sole purpose of
>>>>> extracting the wealth from the persons of those lands to subsidize
>>>>> the lavish needs of the King, perhaps there would not have been the
>>>>> cascade of rebellions that quickly dismantled the empire where the
>>>>> sun never set. Isn't it interesting that in the history of the
>>>>> world, every region of the world has had its turn at empire, and in
>>>>> each case each empire has ruthlessly destroyed the culture of the
>>>>> conquered and taxed the unhappy inhabitants into poverty. This is
>>>>> true of Greece, Ottoman, Persia, France, Britain, and Russia. And
>>>>> somehow, in the minds of the Liberals, America while not innocent,
>>>>> but has been quite mild with her power in comparison to the
>>>>> aformentioned brutal regimes, has been the target of a world that
>>>>> wishes to extinguish her power in favor of some new regime that
>>>>> will certainly quickly fill the vacuum. Have any of you thought
>>>>> about the likelihood of a much more malicious regime that will take
>>>>> her place? Will it be Russia?, China?,A new coalition of Iran,
>>>>> North Korea, and a few dictatorships in South America?. We should
>>>>> remember to be careful what we wish for, we might just get it.
>>>>
>>>> Valid points, its worth pointing out though that most of the natives
>>>> never had it so go as when under British dominance.
>>>> Sure, there were some rough spots and hard feelings, they generally
>>>> were not eating dirt and living in abject poverty though.
>>>> Most of them still don't have the 1st clue how to manage and exploit
>>>> their own resources, and that task is still largely outsourced to
>>>> western companies.
>>>>
>>>> Any power vacuum will certainly be filled, I think it will be more
>>>> localized though.
>>>> A look at a map will tell you that China is not a strong candidate
>>>> for expansion ,,, And whatever happens to U.S. power, the U.S. Navy
>>>> is not going to significantly diminish - China will never come close
>>>> to the USN, and navies, of course, are still essential for empire
>>>> building.
>>>>
>>>> The idea od tin pot dictators and banana republics getting together
>>>> to dominate the world is even more ludicrous, sorry.
>>>> They are becoming increasingly large local factors, but will never
>>>> have the resource, finance and expertise to dominate outside of
>>>> their little bailiwicks [thats still our job].
>>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. With an impotent US, China will certainly retake Taiwan
>>> and perhaps Japan. North Korea would take South Korea. Russia would
>>> retake Ukraine, Lithuania, and the rest of the states that were lost
>>> to perestroika. Chavez will join an alliance with OPEC and together
>>> they could choke off the oil supply whenever they want something.
>>> Iran will destroy Israel and take Saudi Arabia and probably Iraq
>>> becomming a formidable superpower. You are dead wrong if you think
>>> that an impotent America would not ignite a new world order where the
>>> "Real" bad guys take power. I know that it is very satisfying to
>>> attack the USA. It fulfills a basic human delight to beat up the big
>>> guy and root for the underdog.
>> 
>> So that's not what you're doing when you call Britain a brutal regime?
>> 
>> Most of the greatest and in general, safest countries to live in on
>> this planet have been founded by Britain or had a large amount of
>> British involvment in their formation.  We must have got something
>> right.  We worked against slavery, we fought Napoleon and Hitler
>> practically to our own destruction.
> 
> I have nothing but admiration for Britain. I am merely trying to make the
> point that this group has an irrational hatred of America. It accuses
> America consistently of Imperialism and misuse of power. I assert that
> America's influence in the world is subtle compared to other empires that
> directly invaded and occupied for the sole purpose of taxation. (When has
> America done this?) I also point out the hypocrisy of someone from
> Britain complaining about the forceful exploitation of another country.
> The people in this group cannot fathom a foreign policy based on an
> ideology in lieu of economic gain. A look at the history of America's
> wars since the revolution, the war of 1812 waged against Britain because
> the British Navy kept sinking American merchant ships. World War I,
> America lost 117,000 lives for the sake of Europe. World War II, America
> cutoff the fuel supply to Japan to help the allies, Japan waged war and
> we in turn defeated Japan and helped Europe defeat Germany. The Korean
> war, we entered to help the people of South Korea to maintain their
> democracy. Same for Viet Nam. Despite a clear record for entering armed
> conflict over an ideology in lieu of imperialistic expansion, we have yet
> to earn even the benefit of the doubt when it comes to our president
> saying he is invading Iraq to prevent the use of WMD. We were viciously
> criticized for having a hidden agenda to steal the oil. And now that
> we've lost 5000 soldiers and spent a trillion dollars, we are pulling out
> while trying to leave a democracy intact without stealing the oil. And as
> we do exactly what we said we were going to do, the benefit of the doubt
> is still not extended, instead we are criticized for bungling our real
> agenda of stealing the oil. And frankly, I am disgusted.

You are wholly responsible for your own disgust, of course.

The truth is, you believe in the myth of American exceptionalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

It's time to discard such a discredited notion.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

"Sydney of Astatula"  wrote ...

> Isn't it interesting that in the history of the world, every region of
> the world has had its turn at empire, and in each case each empire has
> ruthlessly destroyed the culture of the conquered and taxed the unhappy
> inhabitants into poverty. This is true of Greece, Ottoman, Persia,
> France, Britain, and Russia. And somehow, in the minds of the Liberals,
> America while not innocent, but has been quite mild with her power in
> comparison to the aformentioned brutal regimes, has been the target of a
> world that wishes to extinguish her power in favor of some new regime
> that will certainly quickly fill the vacuum. Have any of you thought
> about the likelihood of a much more malicious regime that will take her
> place? Will it be Russia?, China?,A new coalition of Iran, North Korea,
> and a few dictatorships in South America?. We should remember to be
> careful what we wish for, we might just get it.

True, America's Empire has been short-lived, but that's mainly down to
America having shot herself in the foot. From a position of just over a
decade ago when people really believed that America did have some might, an
invincible and best equiped military, rag-headed peasants with pointy-sticks
in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown what an impotentent force America
actually has.

America's Empire rose in the wake of WWII, has lasted less than a century
and is crumbling as quickly as it arose. America rose to its heights of
top-dog super-power on the back of projected power but the failed Iraq and
Afgnaistan follies have shown that projected power to be entirely
illusionary. Russia, China and others who have super-power ambitions now
realise they were held in check through fear and illusion not reality. In
the new reality of the 21st Century, with the myth of American supremacy
blown-away, the western capitalist system in disarray and collapse, and
America being bank-rolled by China, the political arena is inevitably going
to change.

It's the one thing GWB can truly be thanked for; nose-diving American
super-power status into the chasm in just a few short years. God bless
America.

"Sydney of Astatula"  wrote ....

> So those who take pride in their intellectual prowess
> tend to defy the mainstream, the obvious, what was said on the face of
> things. Instead they delve into underlying themes below the surface and
> sometimes concoct theories based on nothing more than images formed in
> their heads while applying what they know of human nature to the leaders
> themselves in order to ascertain the "hidden agenda".

No, those capable of critical thinking pride themselves on being able to dig
through the evidence and tie up the dots. Whether the conclusion is that the
mainstream view is right or wrong is irrelevent in getting to the underlying
truth, nor is it driven by a desire to counter the mainstream.

As was the case that many outside the US were against the war on Iraq
disbelieved Bush's claim that Saddam had WMD and that war was the only way
forward, while 80%+ of Americans cheered invasion onwards.

As was the case when it was said that Powell was lying to the world in the
UN, well before Powell himself admitted that he later arrived at the same
conclusion.


> This was certainly
> the case with Bush when everyone in this group "knew" that Bush didn't
> believe in WMD and really wanted the oil.

The jury is still out on that, and there is plenty of evidence to support an
argument that the US was in it fro oil. PNAC, NeoCons, Alan Greenspan, etc
etc. People did not just invent this theory; it is based upon credible
published evidence and statements by those people.

> And now that the US has
> invested nearly a trillion dollars into Iraq, and is now leaving with no
> oil under the exact terms stipulated by Bush at the beginning of the war,

Please provide evidence of these "exact terms stipulated". Or are you simply
saying that and hoping we'll believe you ?

"Sydney of Astatula"  wrote ...

> Same for Viet Nam. Despite a clear record for entering armed
> conflict over an ideology in lieu of imperialistic expansion, we have yet
> to earn even the benefit of the doubt when it comes to our president
> saying he is invading Iraq to prevent the use of WMD.

And wasn't America dragged into Vietnam by lies and fabrication by America
herself ?

The same for Iraq.

And let's not play revisionists; it wasn't to "prevent the use of WMD", Bush
and Blair lied that Saddam "had WMD".

On Jul 4, 8:39 am, Sydney of Astatula  wrote:
> Robin T Cox wrote innews:X5D3m.51266$OO7.27045@text.news.virginmedia.com:
>
> > Probably we would have ended up pretty much as we are now, with
> > British sovereignty largely subsumed into the American Empire, and
> > British forces fighting under the US flag. Extradition from the UK to
> > the US merely a formality, and British financial and manufacturing
> > institutions run from Wall Street. Permanent US bases all over
> > Britain, and permanent control of British government through a pair of
> > political parties who are no different in placing supreme importance
> > upon obedience to Washington.
>
> > George III's successors now live in the White House, as George III and
> > Co. had planned all along.
>
> Had Britain not conquered foreign lands for the sole purpose of
> extracting the wealth from the persons of those lands to subsidize the
> lavish needs of the King, perhaps there would not have been the cascade
> of rebellions that quickly dismantled the empire where the sun never set.
> Isn't it interesting that in the history of the world, every region of
> the world has had its turn at empire, and in each case each empire has
> ruthlessly destroyed the culture of the conquered and taxed the unhappy
> inhabitants into poverty. This is true of Greece, Ottoman, Persia,
> France, Britain, and Russia. And somehow, in the minds of the Liberals,
> America while not innocent, but has been quite mild with her power in
> comparison to the aformentioned brutal regimes, has been the target of a
> world that wishes to extinguish her power in favor of some new regime
> that will certainly quickly fill the vacuum. Have any of you thought
> about the likelihood of a much more malicious regime that will take her
> place? Will it be Russia?, China?,A new coalition of Iran, North Korea,
> and a few dictatorships in South America?. We should remember to be
> careful what we wish for, we might just get it.

Britain would be in a sad state without all the Nutcases departing for
the US and Australia!