The slow, painful death of UK armed forces

[Ed Anger]

the Spanish-American War was a response to international terrorism.

Mr. Hearst, I thought you were long dead!

We smoked those evildoers out of their holes.

George CountdeMoney Bush. I like this Seedy.

[Josquius]

Apart from the Dominions, which British colonies were self-governing? 

Most of them.
Dominion status was just the unification of several pre-existing colonies. A recognition they were more important than mere colonies and via being unified were on a better path to full independence.

The US established self-government in The Phillipines something like 20 years after annexation.  Which European colonizer did the same?

1: Largely because the US couldn't hold the Phillipines.
2: There are a few examples of Britain and France doing the same.

The US made it illegal for Americans to purchase property in The Phillipines.  Which European colonizer did the same?

No idea. Sounds a bit mad.

The US granted The Phillipines independence about 40 years after annexation.  Which European colonizer did the same?

Britain and France.

Other than those things, I agree.  Exactly the same.

The Phillipines really aren't the prime example of American imperialism. That would be the US' conquest of the continental US.

[Ed Anger]

1: Largely because the US couldn't hold the Phillipines.

[Admiral Yi]

You're not even trying Squeeze. 

[CountDeMoney]

1: Largely because the US couldn't hold the Phillipines.

  For a couple years in the 1940s?  Funny, I don't recall many Euros holding on to their shit then, either.

[Sheilbh]

France and Britain granted independence when faced with an exhausting series of colonial wars right after a devestating, bankrupting World War.  That's a different set of changed circumstances and ideologies than what prompted the US to grant independence.  The US had already set the timetable for eventual independence before entering WWII.

That's not very accurate.  I don't think it's true that there was a different set of ideologies, I think there was a move against colonialism in that arc of history bending towards justice way.  What wars were they faced with?

France fought a couple of exhausting colonial wars immediately after the World War it didn't stop the thirty glorious years, it also inaccurately explains French decolonisation everywhere but Indochina and Algeria or de Gaulle in Brazzaville.

Similarly the UK passed the Government of India Act which granted far wider self-government in India in the 30s, Congress were successful in India and in changing the debate in the UK throughout the 30s and I believe all parties agreed to Indian independence in the 1945 election.  Your description doesn't accord at all with British decolonisation in Africa either.  All British governments after 1945 planned independence for all African colonies - it happened far quicker than they envisioned - but that was the policy goal.

In general it's the areas where there was potential for conflict, or actual fighting, that colonial powers stayed in the longest - normally until the Americans could take over because Communists were involved.

I'm not defending European imperialism but I'm struggling to see the significant difference between much European colonisation (as in imperial Canada, Australia, Argentina etc) and what Americans did in their own country.  Or between what the US did in 1898 with any number of European colonial wars.  My view on the Mexican-American war is simply that of Grant and the Whigs that it was a nasty expansionist war, as imperial as carving up Poland or seizing Alsace-Lorraine.

[Josquius]

Its a very widespread historical misunderstanding that Indian independance just magically came about because of Ghandi and Britain being exhausted after WW2.
Indian independence was an evolutionary process. The history of British rule in India is one of ever more reform towards democratic independance.

It is so often forgotten that the reason Churchill was out in the political cold in the 30s was that he was a backwards racist bigot who wouldn't stop ranting about the Indians being incapable of ruling themselves when it was clear to everyone else that India becoming a dominion at the least was just around the corner.

1: Largely because the US couldn't hold the Phillipines.

  For a couple years in the 1940s?  Funny, I don't recall many Euros holding on to their shit then, either.

Not at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine–American_War

[grumbler]

America was just as imperialist as any other 19th century country. Not just its wars with Mexico and Spain, its take over of native American lands clearly counts as well.
Just because its empire, like Russia's, was largely landbased rather than overseas and they followed a model of direct integration rather than self-government doesn't make it any less colonial.

I love it when the Brits try to draw bullshit analogies about Imperialism to make themselves feel better about what Britain was engaged in! 

[Josquius]

I love it when the Brits try to draw bullshit analogies about Imperialism to make themselves feel better about what Britain was engaged in! 

That makes no sense.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm not defending European imperialism but I'm struggling to see the significant difference between much European colonisation (as in imperial Canada, Australia, Argentina etc) and what Americans did in their own country.

This I agree with.

Or between what the US did in 1898 with any number of European colonial wars.

This I don't, for the reasons I laid out before.

[grumbler]

That makes no sense.

I'm sure if you show it to the barman at your local, he can explain it to you.

[Syt]

I thought the chapter in Barbara Tuchman's "The Proud Tower" that dealt with the domestic ramifications of acquiring the Philippines as a colony was very interesting.

[CountDeMoney]

Its a very widespread historical misunderstanding that Indian independance just magically came about because of Ghandi and Britain being exhausted after WW2.
Indian independence was an evolutionary process. The history of British rule in India is one of ever more reform towards democratic independance.

It is so often forgotten that the reason Churchill was out in the political cold in the 30s was that he was a backwards racist bigot who wouldn't stop ranting about the Indians being incapable of ruling themselves when it was clear to everyone else that India becoming a dominion at the least was just around the corner.

1: Largely because the US couldn't hold the Phillipines.

  For a couple years in the 1940s?  Funny, I don't recall many Euros holding on to their shit then, either.

Not at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine–American_War

Nigga, please.  You're going to use an insurrection that didn't even take anything? 
Yi's right;  you're not even trying. 

Bet you think the Brits lost the Zulu Wars, too. 

[CountDeMoney]

I'm not defending European imperialism but I'm struggling to see the significant difference between much European colonisation (as in imperial Canada, Australia, Argentina etc) and what Americans did in their own country.

At least you're not jumping on Tyr's wagon.  It's like talking to Mongers, circa 2004.

[Neil]

The world is within range of Trident.  And what more do you really need?

Anything.  Trident is of significantly less value as a weapon than a slingshot, although it's valuable from a political standpoint.