Most people have a healthy amount of patriotism and like for their native country. Chances are, if you asked around the world what country someone would like to live in, if it's a first world nation, chances are they would pick the one they are currently living in.

Having admitted that, what nation of the world (discounting your native country) do you have the most respect for? This can be based on whatever criteria you want - freedom, standard of living, scientific acheivements, military might, or just their place in history. It doesn't even have to be society that still exists today. If you want to make an arguement for the ancient Egyptians, go for it.

I think this can be an interesting topic as a means of complimenting another country, and also because it is interesting to see how people from other countries view people of your country.

While it pains me to admit this (and I can see Barmy gloating already), for me the answer would be the UK. I base this on their past and present acheivements, many of which are military in nature, but not exclusively so.

If I had to pick two words to describe the British spirit, it would be toughness and ingenuity. Let's take toughness first. Looking at thier military history, the British islands haven't been successfully invaded since 1066, when the Normans defeated the Saxons. Since then, the British track record is near-spotless even when up against fierce odds (as many times they were). Whether you're talking about the One Hundred Years War where their military was greatly out-numbered by the French, or facing constant Nazi air strikes during WWII, the Brits always seem to come out OK. (I also feel the need to point out that probably the greatest wartime speech in modern history was by Winston Churchill at the House of Commons regarding the defeat at Dunkirk in 1940: "We shall never surrender!") About the only war that I can think of that turned out poorly for Britain was the American Revolutionary War, but that doesn't really count, because it basically was a civil war - it was British people fighting other British people.

And that doesn't even scatch upon the military might needed to build one of the largest empires the world has ever seen. While the British empire doesn't exist today, they have left an indelible mark on the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Even though many people living in those countries today would not identify themselves as British, the reason that English is the dominant language is because of the British, and the foundations of all of those countries were built on the backs of people who were of British descent. (To be fair, Canada got an assist from France too.)

Now for the ingenuity. This one is a little hard to explain, but I can best sum it up by saying that Brits are rarely the best at anything, but seem to be very good at just about everything (and yes, that IS a compliment). They certainly aren't home to all of history's greatest scientific minds, but they have a knack for taking an existing idea and building on/perfecting it.

I suppose some examples are in order. The British weren't the first people to develop the bow and arrow and use it in warfare. That had been around for thousands of years. The British were the ones who figured out how to improve upon an age-old design and create the longbow. The British weren't the first to build large ocean-worthy vessels to explore the oceans of the world and colonize new continents. Instead, they took the existing galleon design and made a faster, more maneuverable ship that maintained good cargo size and ship armaments, and basically beat the Spanish at their own game. More recently, the democratization of Britain actually came a bit after that in the U.S. and France, but I would argue that today the British are more free and democratic than either France or the U.S. In other words, they weren't first, but they got it right.

I could go on, but this is already dreadfully long. For me, outside of my home country, I have the most respect for the UK.

My answer is Cuba. And it is followed by some other South America countries. I think you can guess the reason of that.

If I look back to the past, I can say Mayans, Aztecs, Ancient Egypt, Hittites etc. I think this list will be expanded when I see others people's responses; because I finished my physics midterm 40 minutes ago, so I can't think deeply.

Germany. For good beer, great cars, and surprisingly hot women.

My answer is Cuba. And it is followed by some other South America countries. I think you can guess the reason of that.I cannot guess why you would pick modern day Cuba. Please explain.

Norway. Heritage and all, dare I say most of the family still lives there as well. The fact that they arguably have the most effective economic model in the world only adds to that respect.

While it pains me to admit this (and I can see Barmy gloating already), for me the answer would be the UK. I base this on their past and present acheivements, many of which are military in nature, but not exclusively so. Ah, you know me Aldeth, I hate to disappoint!

If I had to pick two words to describe the British spirit, it would be toughness and ingenuity. Let's take toughness first. Looking at thier military history, the British islands haven't been successfully invaded since 1066, when the Normans defeated the Saxons. Well, in truth, the WHOLE of the UK has never been totally occupied by a foreign force. We've been, arguably, successfully invaded a time or two, but there has always been pockets of Britain that remained British. Examples, the Romans never took Scotland, the Vikings never subdued England and were eventually beaten by Alfred the Great etc. In truth, the only reason the Normans had a measure of success is because the Saxons were invaded by 2 countries at exactly the same time. King Harold had to muster an army to defeat the invading Harald Haldrade to the North, fight them at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, then force march his remaining force quickly South to take on the Norman invasion under William the Conqueror. He very nearly bloody won, too, despite it. We have always defended our island ferociously.

Since then, the British track record is near-spotless even when up against fierce odds (as many times they were). About the only war that I can think of that turned out poorly for Britain was the American Revolutionary War, but that doesn't really count, because it basically was a civil war - it was British people fighting other British people. The American war of independence wasn't really that much of a blow to the might of the British empire in truth. We were still having poor relations with France at the time and considered them our main rivals. Our holdings in Europe and India were under threat and needed solidifying. If we could have quickly gotten reinforcements to America, I'm sure we would have but it wasn't really feasible, so the armies there were pretty much on their own, as it were. Then we cut our losses and pulled out. I wonder if we decided to gather our full force and revisit America what might have happened...

And that doesn't even scatch upon the military might needed to build one of the largest empires the world has ever seen. THE biggest empire the world has seen, come on get it right Al me pal!

I could go on Please do, I'm enjoying this!

Actually, Ghengis Khan had the biggest empire in terms of land controlled.

Me, I think I'd say Germany, mostly for the cars and beer.

THE biggest empire the world has seen, come on get it right Al me pal! Well, the only reason I said one of the biggest was a couple of years ago, I saw a program on the history channel which stated that in terms of total land mass, the largest empire ever was the Mongol Empire, since it took up a good chunk of Asia, the middle east, and even parts of Europe. Now, if you want to argue which empire was more powerful, I'd go with the British, because in many ways the only thing the Mongols did better than the conquered people was fight wars. They didn't exactly have a knack for long-term governance.

EDIT: NOG beat me to it!

Well, are you going to go on land mass owned or population controlled? The 2nd seems the most prudent to me, when comparing empires. By around 1915 the British Empire had control of over 1/4 of the worlds population. No-one else has got close to that really.

Actual Ghengis brought his people from nomadic tribsmen with no written language or permanent structures to one who's intelectuals rivaled the Chinese of the time (mostly by learning from the Chinese, but...). If Ghengis had had a clearer line of succession, they may well have been remembered as one of the greatest empires of history.

I would choose New Zealand. Something new and different and I have wanted to wander all over looking for the places I have seen on TV.

Hey UKers, don't forget war of 1812. We won that one too even though you did get to set the White House on fire!

Exactly they were a barbaric nomadic people who pillaged, burned and lived off the land. They didn't bring progress, just destruction.

They also had a nice big starting base to go from. Britain is a tiny little island, and controlled a quarter of the world, bringing civilization and culture with it.

Anyroad, for mine I'd probably have to say Australia. For a country that started out as a collection of murderers, rapists and thieves, they've sure come along! They've got a relatively small population, but anything they turn their mind to they usually rule at. They're a very arrogant people but fiercely competitive. I don't know anybody who has a similar population size who can compare to them for sporting brilliance.

If Ghengis had had a clearer line of succession, they may well have been remembered as one of the greatest empires of history. Well it would have probably ended up in a civil war anyway. It's unlikely that any of his sons would have been accepted as his sole successor.

In any case I'll have to echo many others and vote for Germany. The beer is excellent and they are the engine of the EU economy. Plus they were the first to accept our independence. ;)

I cannot guess why you would pick modern day Cuba. Please explain. Communism

You'll outgrow that.

@Argohir - That was what my initial thought was, but why Cuba? Do you know what life is like in modern day Cuba? Cuba's current economy is in crisis mode, and has been largely since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989. If you were going to take an example of a communist country that's going strong, why pick Cuba? China would be the most obvious pick, but even Vietnam or North Korea would have been better options. I'm not coming down on you for picking a Communist country - I'm just very confused by the specific Communist country you've selected.

A country ruled by a prick probably no more innocent than Milosovic or Saddam. Great pick for respect, dude!

Finland. It's like Switzerland, except actually willing to fight (and do so intelligently). Not to mention it's where Ara and Morgy are from. ;)

Excellent choise, Felinoid!

You'll outgrow that. Maybe I growed enough and it is the result.

@Aldeth the Foppish Idiot: Yes, they are in crisis but it isn't because of them. It is because of the countries which hates communism. And I love their recent past. I don't see the others you say as communist. I also like Venezuela, Bolivya and some other S. American socialist countries.

A country ruled by a prick probably no more innocent than Milosovic or Saddam. Great pick for respect, dude! It is a far more better pick than any imperialist country. And I can count a lot of names of leaders which are more guilty than him.

I think AoDA and this topic isn't for discussing these. AoLS is for that.

Antarctica. Not completely tainted yet by humans.

Probably Japan, except for the whole WWII stint. Their history is interesting, their architecture is amazing, they're forerunners in technological development, most notably robotics, and their culture is utterly insane, but in a good way. Mostly.

Canada.

Freedom.

Probably Denmark or Norway, I like things stable and decent without any great extravagancies or great dips. I like what we in Sweden call "lagom" not too much and not too little. Generally cold rational and common sense carries the day and formed our societies. I like that. Very little flamboyance.

If Ghengis had had a clearer line of succession, they may well have been remembered as one of the greatest empires of history. It has been estimated that 12% of the world's population can trace their DNA back to the Khans. Those guys really got around. ;) Most of their cultural achievements came from absorbing other cultures. If you give them any credit at all it would be that they generally respected the cultures they absorbed instead of smashing them to bits.

As to the OP: Iceland.

Switzerland. They basically tell the rest of the world to go around them in all political struggles and leave them alone, and as a result, they have really low taxes...

Canada. America's mellow neighbour. I'd love to live there.

I'm trying to get an a univeristy exchange next year, which would put me in a university in Quebec. Then I could practice my French.

C'mon people there has to be a US fan somewhere in the world... Staying in the closet won't help :D

Chicken, do you want me to fetch you a blanket and some food, so you can camp here and wait?

New Zealand:

Free, democratic and secular country.
Not afraid to say No when they disagree with something (i.e. to the US with regards to Nuclear weapons).
Willing to commit troups when deemed necesary.
Progressive use of clean energy sources (Water, Geothermal)
Very good policies on (native) conservation.
Extremely nice people.

Running a close second would be the Scandinavian coutries, although I'm not sure how I'd rate one above another.

New Zealand for me as well. Sure we have our sporting fueds and jokes but they stuck by us in the trenches and helped form the most significant army in Australian history.

heh chicken livng in a country with next to zero social security, with a minimum wage that hasn't increased for over 30years and where almost 1/3 of the population dosn't speak the official language, no thanks :)

For me it would be the close nabours of either sweden or norway.

Depends... I generally respect countries, flags, anthems. If you mean something special among others, there are many I'd like to mention here but can't for certain reasons. I respect France for the history and mystique, but 14th July is not a day of celebration for me... more like a day of mourning on 1st Jan. I respect a lot in German history, including some post-WW2 stuff, but there are things I don't find agreeable - and this is not just WW1-2. I respect the USA a whole lot (yes, yes), but I have a hard time with some of its policies as well as the execution on some levels - for example, I can't respect the abuse of rights by the army, police and prison service on so many occasions, or the lying at the top, or jurisdiction claims of their courts - even more so, the many rogue lawyers who don't exactly sequuntur forum rei or the overgrown ties between politics and business. I tend to respect the smaller or even smallest countries for staying independent and building a strong community. Hello, Belgium, Luxemburg and all of you. ;) Maybe Japan for history and tradition, except I'm no fan of Japanese imperialism up until WW2, or some social-structure-related things. Honourary mention goes to Finland for pwning the USSR a bit... kudos to Mannerheim. But if you want me to name a country or five I respect without finding a reason to nod my head and sigh a bit... that's going to be difficult. ;) And no, I don't see my own as perfect and spotless in case you wonder. ;)

A propos English history, it's never been full outside conquest. For example, Harthaknut or however you choose to spell him, had to enter into arrangements and liaisons with powerful local nobles such as Earl Godwin. Duke William had a claim on the throne based on King Edward the Confessor's promise. His wife Matilde was descended from Alfred the Great, as well as his ally Eustace de Boulogne who ceded the claim in exchange for some lands. Powerful Saxon nobles of the North probably required as much diplomacy as pure strength to handle. In short, it was meddling with internal matters and pushing a somewhat grounded claim rather than a typical invasion. That Saxon nobles were quite soon reduced to simple knights or armigers or maybe even lower is another thing.

[ December 01, 2006, 13:01: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Greece. And I would be hard pressed to explain why. A country - in the now or in the past - and its people which inspire longing and adoration deep inside where there are no words.

While I could never fit in (we are worlds apart) they do have a propensity for partying. I find that very relatable. :) If there is a nation on the third rock I could even *consider* leaving Germany for it would have to be Greece. To be the alien among them, to breath their spirit instead of the exhaustion around here... yes. Perhaps, one day, I shall walk among the daughters and sons of the gods for a little while. :D

I guess the some of the Nordic Countries like Norway or Sweden. Other would be Holland or to a lesser degree England and Italy

Respect? Well, wouldn't that depend on what it takes to earn a person's respect? I can think of a lot of countries I would like to visit, several that I am sympathetic with, but no governments that hold a position of respect with me. On the other hand, my Naval experiences have left impressions on me:

Japan -- their Navy has the best seamanship and shiphandling in the world. No other nations even come close to the Japanese shiphandling skills.

The Austrailian Navy doesn't quite have the shiphandling skill of the US Navy, but thet're far more bold and extremely fun to work with (and go ashore with).

The British -- I'm afraid Her Majesty's Royal Navy is not that great. They have the history and REMIND YOU OF IT IN EVERY DAMN MEETING... but I digress. I find their shiphandling skills barely proficient and their damage control is somewhat lacking (anyone remember the Sheffield?).

I really didn't like working with anyone other than the Japanese and Aussies (and, of course, other ships of the US Navy).

Haha, I've seen it all now. An American talking about BRITISH military failings. If I had a pound for every time a thick-head yank 'accidentally' killed one of our boys in friendly fire, I'd be a rich man.

We ruled the seas for years and years, hundreds of years before anyone even dreamt up the idea of an American nation. Of course we're going to be proud of that and show it off. Who cares who's the best currently? How many wars are fought at sea nowadays? pml

That made me chuckle that did, I've had a stressful couple of days and needed that!

I think you could call me a fan of England. The place has so much history and several famous landmarks. They also helped make Australia and America into the countries they are today.

@ The Magister
Is that such a good thing? They may be great countries (or at least Australia is :D ) but they destroyed the identities of other races just to expand. If you have read the history of the Aboriginal people and how they were/are treated, you would think twice. The Africans who were also enslaved by the British who founded America were also treated extremely poorly.

None.

Sorry, but I don't find countries respectable. :bad:

Hooray for the three people who chose New Zealand! Respect!

Um, seeing as I can't choose New Zealand, I'll have to go with the countries that to me are most like New Zealand, namely Australia, Canada, England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. I'd also have to add Italy to that list, if only for their passionate approach to food.

Note that every country on this list has a rugby team that competes in the World Cup finals.

Why's that Kuemp?

HB, I definitely overlooked the Italians food. That's one thing to respect them for, for sure. They know their onions over there, quite literally.

Is that such a good thing? They may be great countries (or at least Australia is ) but they destroyed the identities of other races just to expand. If you have read the history of the Aboriginal people and how they were/are treated, you would think twice. The Africans who were also enslaved by the British who founded America were also treated extremely poorly. Thats what every Empire has ever done. It's a 'side effect' of military expansion yet the British are always picked out for it. The Romans, the Christian states, the Mongols, the Huns, the conquistador's aren't villanised in the same way. May I remind you how the new state the United States of America treat the native Americans (Britain also banned slavery whilst it was still commonly used in America). Not to mention the crimes of the Third Reich. So I just don't understand why the British are individually picked out for "destroying the culture of other nation's". :confused:

Because in a lot of those cases that you stated, their rule came to an end. Sure there is still traces of the time when they colonised countries like New Caladonia (sp?) and others (the Spanish in South America) but the ruling of those countries has mainly passed back to the original owners except for a few cases. Ask yourself this: How many African-Americans and Aboriginals do you see in politics in their respective countries compared to the white man?

PS: Out of those other empires that you stated, the only instance that one of them decimated another race that I can remember was when the Conquistadors invaded South America and pretty much eradicated the Aztecs but please feel free to correct me if I am wrong as my history on some of the other cultures is lacking.

None.

I like some nations more than others, but I don't respect any, maybe parts of them or individual people.

Because in a lot of those cases that you stated, their rule came to an end. Between 1918 and the 60's the British Empire gave each colony it's independence. Thats gave not having the Empire dragged to piece's like most Empire's in history.

Ask yourself this: How many African-Americans and Aboriginals do you see in politics in their respective countries compared to the white man?
The same is true for all European colonial Empire's. The last black leader of an African nation was removed when Mussolini
invaded Abyssinia.

Out of those other empires that you stated, the only instance that one of them decimated another race that I can remember was when the Conquistadors invaded South America and pretty much eradicated the Aztecs After Roman conquest's they tried to "rehabilitate" the native populations with the Roman way of life. This often involved forcing the native people's into slavery and giving the land to Roman nobles and in extreme cases the complete destruction of a civilisation such as Carthage. The USA killed the native American's almost to extinction, if that's not destroying culture I don't know what is. The third Reich exterminated between 6-8 million Jew's. Slavery was used on a much higher scale a thousand years before the British Empire, who later outlawed slavery which was enforced almost entirely by the Royal Navy until the League of Nations managed to bring an almost complete end to it. Yet the British Empire is considered the worst abuse of slavery in history. :confused:

Bah. All this talk of imperial domination of 'inferior' races is in itself racist and egocentric. Take a step back and you will see that the 'dominating' civilisations also no longer exist. The 'conquering' Spanish and English 'empires' no longer exist in the form they did 500 years ago. And, for example, just what is an 'English civilisation' anyway? The British Isles have been invaded, overrun, and infiltrated so many times over the last 2,000 years that no trace remains of the original inhabitants (if anyone can even remember who they were).

[ December 02, 2006, 20:18: Message edited by: Harbourboy ]

egypt

Only you have brought up the word 'inferior', hence you're the only one talking about racism. Talk about putting a round peg a square hole, lad!

heh chicken livng in a country with next to zero social security, with a minimum wage that hasn't increased for over 30years and where almost 1/3 of the population dosn't speak the official language, no thanksI'm happy enough with the wage, I live in a state with one of the highest... In January it'll be $7.93 an hour (6.54 Euro... I think).

Chicken, do you want me to fetch you a blanket and some food, so you can camp here and wait?Yes, yes I do.

6.54 euro minimum wage? wow, that's really low. That's like... what... £4? £4.50? I wouldn't piss on that. That really needs addressing.

Yeh I was just about to say that, when I work I get £5.65 an hour which is around 8 euro's? And I'm only a student.

Sorry, but I'm with Kuemper and Trellheim.

My definition of a 'nation' is a group of people organized ostensibly for mutual benefit and protection, yet are almost invariably misguided from these goals by those who control the nation.

I can list off individuals across the breadth of history from just about every background who can claim my respect, but I have yet to find a single nation (including those I call my own) that has earned any respect from me.

(maybe a poor choice of words there in the opener, Aldeth :( )

If we could have quickly gotten reinforcements to America, I'm sure we would have but it wasn't really feasible, so the armies there were pretty much on their own, as it were. Then we cut our losses and pulled out. I wonder if we decided to gather our full force and revisit America what might have happened...
England still would have lost. Look at the problems America has had with puny nations like Iraq and Vietnam (and that's with England's help). Great powers never learn how expensive it is in blood and treasure to occupy smaller countries that just don't want to be occupied. And keep in mind England had to hire Germans to help them fight the Revolution, and those "thick headed Yanks" still managed to run the English "lobsters" clear into the Atlantic ;)

Minimum wage is about that here. But then, I guess our cost of living is probably lower. Think the minimum wage is about NZ$10.50. As a student, I earn about US$7.80 (4 pounds or 5.9 euro) an hour, before tax.

Germans? You must be thinking of the KGL (King's German Legion). We didn't 'hire' them, they fled to Britain from Hanover when the French invaded. They swore loyalty to the English kings and were incorporated into the military. We had those around for years and years. As apposed to the French, who were o-so glad for the chance to have a pop at us again :lol: .

We just couldn't get more soldiers there and were outnumbered by more than 2:1 by the end of that war. It was inevitable we were going to lose, but the powers that be must have thought it not worth the effort of retaking/reinforcing, for whatever reasons. Perhaps it was considered too 'remote' part of the empire, I don't know.

It's also pretty iffy to compare 18th century warfare to modern day warfare! We had a long history of subduing nations who didn't 'want' to be occupied. It's something we excelled at :p nobody 'wants' to be occupied, we just had the sense not to change things too much in our new colonies. Let them live how they did before, we just install a British flag over the place.

Well, I guess it's all speculation and ifs and buts, but I think we could have kept a hold of our holdings in America if we really wanted to and didn't have other things on our plate at the time.

But what would have been the practical point of 'keeping hold of your holdings'? How would you personally have benefited from that?

I'm not sure I get what you mean. I would have benefited nothing. Why would I? I just find history interesting and do a lot of 'what if' wondering. I'm just fascinated by it all. I mean, the bravery of these men is beyond my comprehension. Going into war is something, but standing in a perfect line, just waiting for the enemies musket volley. It was astonishing courage and discipline really. I think I for one would've tried my hand at desertion!

I guess what I am saying is: what difference does it make whether England held onto America or not? It probably wouldn't have been worth the bother anyway. Imagine trying to administer the thing. Nightmare.

In "The Wealth of Nations" (spring 1776), Adam Smith actually advocated either granting the American colonies representation in the British Parliament, or granting them full independence. He argued that representation in proportion to the taxes the colonies paid would only be fair, and independence would create a USA which would forever be grateful and friendly to Britain.

OK, this was :yot: .

If I had to point to a single country that I respected above any other, it would be the Republic of Ireland, for the economic miracle they have created over the last 20 years - going from being one of Europe's poorest nations to one of the most affluent.

As a country, I love Norway. I hope I can live there when I retire someday. It's a beautiful country with friendly people.

6.54 euro minimum wage? wow, that's really low. That's like... what... £4? £4.50? I wouldn't piss on that. That really needs addressing. The Finnish minimum wage is actually 5.5 euros, so it's even less. Not to mention that Finland is a more expensive country. Also atleast according to Wikipedia the British minimum wage is also 4.5 pounds. ;)

nobody 'wants' to be occupied, we just had the sense not to change things too much in our new colonies. Indeed and you did not change much when you left either leaving all your colonial possessions to take care of themselves, setting the stage for civil wars, genocides and poverty that continue still today. I really hope you are proud of the greatness that the British Empire brought to Africa. :rolleyes:

Also atleast according to Wikipedia the British minimum wage is also 4.5 pounds. Wikipedia's inaccurate. It's £4.45 for people below the age of 22, whereupon it becomes £5.35.

I respect Japan most. They have a powerful economy, have a high standard of living, and have a very unique culture.

Not sure but Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and many other countries of middle Asia ending with -istan would be easiest places for me to live. Because we have similar culture (especially language).

I have great respect for Vietnamese people. I don't think any other nation could defeat USA. They are brave people. I don't think we could resist like them if our country was invaded by USA. Even though we've a much greater army, we also have lots of cowards (like me :grin: ) and traitors.

@ Morg - Africa asked for independence from British rule. We gave them that. It's not our fault that they can't support a semi-decent economy. They should have thought about that before they asked for independence ;) .

I guess what I am saying is: what difference does it make whether England held onto America or not? It probably wouldn't have been worth the bother anyway. Imagine trying to administer the thing. Nightmare and the nail is hit on the head, if the king wanted to hold onto the new world, he would have, it simply wasnt worth the trouble.

England or the UK, whatever you want to call it. No other country has left such a legacy on the world today than the British Empire. Indeed the land mass they controlled was less than the Mongolian empire but the British Empire at one point in time controlled 2/3rds of the SEA.

Even though the Commonwealth has long since lost its political standing one just needs to attend a Commonwealth Games event and count the countries that attend. Each one was once occupied/owned/controlled by the British Empire.

The one needs to simply look at the size of Britian, such a small country with limited land mass and resources did so much.

Another country I think deserves respect would have to be Japan, certainly they were right bastards during World War II but look how far they have come in 60 years from being a backwards Empire/Monarcy to a major player in world economics.

I really hope you are proud of the greatness that the British Empire brought to Africa. The state Africa is in now has developed SINCE Britain gave it it's independence. Infact the major British colony in Africa, South Africa is the most developed both economically and in living standards / health care, they are also holding the next FIFA World Cup. So your point is completely biast and anglophobic.

You said:

and the nail is hit on the head, if the king wanted to hold onto the new world, he would have, it simply wasnt worth the trouble. I won't spend a lot of time arguing the Revolution here (since it's not on topic) but let me say that that is not even close to being correct:

George III obstinately tried to keep Great Britain at war with the rebels in America, despite the opinions of his own ministers. Granville Leveson-Gower, 2nd Earl Gower and Thomas Thynne, 3rd Viscount Weymouth both resigned rather than suffer the indignity of being associated with the war. Lord North advised George III that his opinion matched that of his ministerial colleagues, but stayed in office.

In 1781, the news of Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess Cornwallis' capitulation at the Siege of Yorktown reached London; the Tory Lord North subsequently resigned in 1782. George III accepted the defeat in North America, and authorized the negotiation of a peace. The Treaty of Paris and the associated Treaty of Versailles were ratified in 1783. The former treaty provided for the recognition of the new United States by Great Britain. The latter required Great Britain to give up Florida to Spain and to grant access to the waters of Newfoundland to France.
It was a severe military defeat that convinced George III to give up the war.

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

Well, I'm not Shoshino - who you're replying to - but I'll throw a few gambits in anyway (wouldn't want to let people down!)

The problem here Channy is that in 1650 (some plenty of time before the American Revolution) there was a civil war in England that essentially removed the absolute monarchy we had and replaced it with a kind of 'constitutional' monarchy. Essentially, the King was basically a puppet and important matters were decided by a system of government. So, regardless of what King George wanted, he wasn't likely to get it (also bearing in mind that it was well known at the time that king George was a sandwich short a picnic if you get what I mean).

I'd take a guess that what happens is as follows: News gets back to England that a revolt has started in Newfoundland. The government got together and decided that the 6000 troops or so we had stationed there should be able to deal with it. Matter solved as far as they were concerned. Then, a bit later, news reaches them that Lord Cornwallis has been forced into a surrender. The options there were to either pull troops from our (closer to home) European holdings to try and retake America. Or, to just leave that as a bad job and concentrate on the increasingly aggressive French empire. They opted for the latter. A big part in this decision was probably the fact that 6000+ good men, under a fine commander, were soundly outnumbered and comprehensively beaten. This meant that retaking Newfoundland would be a hard and protracted war probably needing well in excess of 20,000 men to win. I would bet that they decided just wasn't worth the amount of time and resources to do, not considering that we had a much bigger and more powerful threat a lot closer to home. The French.

Infact the major British colony in Africa, South Africa is the most developed both economically and in living standards / health care, they are also holding the next FIFA World Cup. So your point is completely biast and anglophobic. Anglophobic eh? What I'm trying to say is that colonialism was not good for the countries and is a partial reason to the condition the countries are in now. Britain is certainly not more guilty than other colonial masters. All colonial masters held the adminstration firmly in their own hands not letting the natives take care of it which in the end led to incompetent African governments incapable of governing efficently. So basically it's the same logic that certain neocons are adapting to Iraq, first invade them and make a mess of them and then cut your losses and leave. Afterwards you can conveniently blame the locals for future failiures and tragedies that your actions helped to set up.

The reason why I critizised the British is because I don't see any French, Dutch, Spaniards, Portugese or Belgians here bragging about their colonial mastery. I find such absolutely distasteful and appaling. If there were you would find me lashing out against them equally.

EDIT: And if I were you I would not represent South Africa as a shining example of the greatness of British colonialism. Apartheid was abolished only twelve years ago and it's legacy continues to haunt the country. Poverty in the country is still largely defined by skin color. Not to mention that AIDS is a growing problem with over 20% of the country's population being HIV infected. The country is in a horrible shape, in better hape that some other African countries sure but still nothing to be proud of.

[ December 03, 2006, 18:07: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

I'd take a guess that what happens is as follows: Well, that was a guess, but not really what happened. But if you would bear with me, this is off topic, and out of respect for the other memebers, we should take this topic a separate thread, Bamy.

I have spent years studying the history of the Revolution. I'm not saying that to hold myself up as some kind of authority, but because I would really relish a thread on the Revolution in the Alley (it could even get my bLood pumping a bit). Please feel free to craft one, and I will meet you there, mate. :grin:

@ Morg - It wasn't a case of 'invade, make a mess of then leave' by any stretch of the imagination. What would anybody, in the Age of Discovery (as the early part of it was known) gain from such wreckless sacking? pretty much nothing, really. Far better to give them some semblance of culture so that they might become a fully fledged part of the empire with it's own defences, structure and more importantly, a taxable population. That's what we aimed for. Just look at India, which was one of our biggest colonies. It had a large population which were well under control and we were recruiting and training the population in order to form an effective fighting force (The British East/West India Companies became quite the shock troops under our leadership and successfully defended British rule in India quite a few times).

Now, from around the start of the 20th century and onwards, a few of our colonies asked for their independence, which they were given. Out from under our protective wing (and without our tax subsidies and other financial help I should add) some countries deteriorated. How can Britain be blamed for that? What else could we have done? If a colony asked for independence and the empire said "No, you'll only ruin yourselves" we would be being called tyrannical now.

@ Chandos - I'm a bit of a plank on some things, but I take quite an interest in British history and would like to think I know a bit in that particular field :p . When it comes to the American Revolution, I know a little bit, but you have to realize that whilst that was monumental in American history, it was just a snippet in British history (honestly without trying to sound condescending). Whilst plenty know that I like to enter a debate that takes my eye with the gusto of a hound dog, I don't think I'd have much left to offer there :p . So wouldn't be able to justify making a thread on it pal. But you go ahead and I'll offer what I can!

[ December 03, 2006, 18:21: Message edited by: Barmy Army ]

The reason why I critizised the British is because I don't see any French, Dutch, Spaniards, Portugese or Belgians here bragging about their colonial mastery. Nobody is doing that at all.

This meant that retaking Newfoundland would be a hard and protracted war probably needing well in excess of 20,000 men to win. I would bet that they decided just wasn't worth the amount of time and resources to do, not considering that we had a much bigger and more powerful threat a lot closer to home. The French. Barmy - That's a little low, because in July, 1776 George III launched the British invasion of the colonies, which began in response to the Declaration of Independence, crafted earlier that month:

The British war fleet arrived in New York Harbor, like a "great forest of masts" and unloaded close to 30,000 soldiers and some 9000 marines and sailors on Staten Island, where they set-up their HQ. The Howe brothers, commanding, marched on Long Island and then ocuppied New York City and chased Washington all the way to the Delaware River. Everyone knows what happended next: on Christmas morning, Washington regrouped and counter attacked at Trenton, NJ. The rest is history. But the notion that there were only 6000 soldiers is very low. I think that there were at least that amount surrounded in Boston Harbor, the previous year, after the battles at Lexington and Concord.

[ December 04, 2006, 03:21: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Besides NZ (my adoptive homeland), I rate the Netherlands as my favourite country. I would so love to live there, for obvious reasons...

Other than that, I really respect Cuba. That's another great country.

barmy, chandos.. there is one major thing i learnt in history - it changes depending on who wrote it. i have no doubt that any history taught in the US about the revolution greatly overexaggerates the victory, while history taught in the UK underexaggerates the loss

Well that was just a number off the top of my head (don't as me why!). One thing I do know though is that the biggest battle, in terms of units engaged, was the battle of Long Island. 20,000 British troops pushed 10,000 Americans out of New York. This was, by far, the biggest army we took to field in the American Revolution. The next largest was at the Battle of White Plains. After that though, the armies numbered 4 figures. We had 1,800 men at Concord and Lexington for example. When you compare this to the size of the armies we were facing in The Peninsula War, for example 150,000+. There's quite a difference.

And keep in mind England had to hire Germans to help them fight the Revolution, and those "thick headed Yanks" still managed to run the English "lobsters" clear into the AtlanticPossibly maybe because Germans fought on both sides? :p

Australia...

Why?? The country has never, EVER been majorly involved in any international conflict...

I know, they participated in World War II (ANZACs) and all...but what I mean is, they are not responsible for stuff like genocide, ethnic cleansing, warfare like India and Pakistan, half the Slavic countries, USA, Iraq etc...

So as a country and a culture, I really like the Aussies!

I'm happy enough with the wage, I live in a state with one of the highest... In January it'll be $7.93 an hour (6.54 Euro... I think).
just goes to show it :) minimum wages in denmark is 87kr. with the dollar being worth around 5.5kr/dollor and me a student getting 95kr for my silly shop job. i get around 17-18$ pr hour. even after our much higher taxes (50% but i can earn 3600 each months that isn't taxed) i earn more then your states minimum wages on mine and thats after i have paid my taxes. and my health insurance, school money and so forth are paid through the taxes :)

@Faraaz, Im an Aussie by birth, and I know that Australia certainly has had its fair share of genocide. We never learnt about it at school when I was a kid in the mid 80's, but now I think kids do learn about the horrible Australian history. They treated the natives like animals. In Tasmania they white settlers lined up and walked across the island shooting every native person they could find. The government stole native babies and made white couples adopt them. Australia has had a notorious past when it comes to ethnic cleansing and genocide.

And to make things worse, the government wont apologize...they think they did nothing wrong.

Hmm, interesting topic. One question though, why does the US have the largest immagration in almost any way you want to measure it, but yet is looked at so disdainfully?

Personally, I wouldn't live anywhere else unless I was kicked out, but if that happened I would probably beg for asylum in Australia. It isn't so much an issue of politics for me, but one of freedom and weather. I just couldn't stand most of the rest of the world for one of those 2 reasons.

Why do people think that Australia is a land with freedom? It's nothing more than a little US clone now...

Probably for the same reason that many people consider USA the land with great freedom. ;)

I would not mind living in some states in the US as long as I had a nice job with enough income to get by. However there are plenty of countries I would rather choose if I was put in a roulette which determined to which income class I would be born. ;)

Why do people think that Australia is a land with freedom? It's nothing more than a little US clone now... I guess it would depend on how you define freedom. My definition of freedom is synonymous with liberty. to borrow from Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberty)
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice In my opinion socialism is a direct contradiction to freedom as it removes much of my freedoms of choice, with the classic example being medical care, but there are many other freedoms that have to be relinquished in the name of socialism. For this reason I will have more respect for nations that value individualism and freedom over those nations who value cultures of entitlements and engage in direct wealth redistribution via fiat.

@BA - I still find it hillarious your use of 'Newfoundland' when referring to the the rebellion of the American colonies and their subsequent secession from the British Empire.

Seeing as it's about 1300km between St. John's and Boston (the closest 'American' population centre involved in the Revolution) a distance akin to that between London and SEVILLE, SPAIN.

No WONDER Cornwallis lost if 6000 men were sent to the migratory fishing grounds of Newfoundland! ;)

Basically Nfld never really had any sort of revolt until 1800; nineteen Irish soldiers mutineed - almost definitely in feeling for the failed uprising in Wexford - and ended up on the run for a period of a few weeks before all but two were rounded up.^1 Doesn't really compare, does it? :)

(We're a dour, fatalistic lot, to be honest - This (http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/rev_rejected.html) tends to explain why...)


Footnote: 1. though it DOES make me wonder about the subsequent fates of the Sgt. Kelly and James Murphy... :hmm:

Haha, sorry, for some reason I had the idea in my head that that's what the European settlers / traders / explorers called the American mainland that they discovered. I don't know why I had that idea my head... !

One of the really funny similarities between conservatives and leftists is that they can both quote upon freedom and use the word to define their ideas. The only difference being how that freedom is implemented. Personally I find the word freedom to be irrelevant when comparing democratic states. They all have the freedom of choice to choose its leaders and policy so I really don't get what would make one more free than the other.

Australia...

Why?? The country has never, EVER been majorly involved in any international conflict...

I know, they participated in World War II (ANZACs) and all... "Anzacs" also fought against Ottoman Empire in WWI with English.


Edit:
In my opinion socialism is a direct contradiction to freedom as it removes much of my freedoms of choice, with the classic example being medical care Can you please explain it, especially that medical care part?

Can you please explain it, especially that medical care part? Sure! In most socialized medicine plans I have seen you are dependent upon the government to determine your level of care. They decide what doctors you see and what procedures you are eligible and when you are eligible to receive them. In the US (for the moment) you have the freedom to see any Dr. you want at any time (though you do have to pay for it), and you do not have the government telling you that you will have to wait 6 months for a critical procedure as can occur in a socialized system. There are many Canadians who come to the US for medical care, especially critical things like heart bypasses or transplants.

As a funny note, if we were under Hillary Clinton's health care plan it would be possible that she would be a widow as President Clinton was given a heart bypass operation within hours of the Dr's deciding he needed one. Of course that might have been her plan! ;)

I prefer to invest for my own retirement and pay for my own medical care rather than have a higher tax rate and have those things taken care of for my by the government...but then I am a paraniod individual who has no trust in the Government.

Sorry, know I am :yot: . If anyone wants to travel down this well beaten path feel free to start a thread and I will be happy to participate if you would like!

@Darkwolf: Yes, I understand what you are trying to say. Waiting for months for a critical operation is really very nasty. But I think you "assume" everyone has enough money to pay to medical care. What if you don't have enough money? It isn't a problem in socialist approaches to medical care; moreover, I don't think a well-planned socialist medical care would make you wait for it.

To answer the original question: none.

It's been some time since my last post here. And when I came back, I read this post filled with people that admire country for their military achievements. There're so many things to say about that. Sigh.
Anyways, my vote goes to Japan. I barely know anything about it, but I'm starting Japanese this summer, cause I love the sound of it, so I'd so much like to be there just to learn faster. The downside is the number of people living there, but I guess I can withstand that. Also, I think we know so little about Asia in general, that getting familiar with it would help us (Occidental people) improve a lot (for instance, and this is way off topic, I always wonder in which labor conditions many toys were made. I guess the answer would be really depressing).
That's all.
PD: talking about incomes, I certainly do not want to tell you how much I earn now. Those numbers you guys mention are so astronomic for us here. :(

@Nataraja: Yes, I realise that they did participate in genocide...to be honest, it completely slipped my mind. But honestly?? In today's world, I find it hard to find a country which is as respectable as Australia.

Well, I've lived there for three years while I was doing my Bachelor's degree so I liked it there. And a major point which swung it for me is that they are not as anti-Islam as the US or the UK...atleast, not openly towards Muslims during my time there...

a major point which swung it for me is that they are not as anti-Islam as the US or the UK... yeah,. and i havent heared of islams bombing underground rail stations in australia

Your point is??

And a major point which swung it for me is that they are not as anti-Islam as the US or the UK i thought my reply to this had a clear point, the people of aus have no reason to worry about islam, the people of the UK have a healthy reason for anti islamic sentiment - because they kill us

im sure that if there were bombings in aus there would be plenty of anti islamic sentiment

the people of the UK have a healthy reason for anti islamic sentiment - because they kill usExcuse me for being callous, but drink driving has killed way more people than the muslim terrorists in the UK, and I don't see a strong anti-pub sentiment emerging.

Following your reasoning, you should also condone all the killings of British troops by those they were trying to conquer in the years of the Empire, shouldn't you? After all, the British were killing their people too. Or are the British exempt from that simple 'because they kill us' rule of yours? :rolleyes:


The people of the UK should have a healthy reason for being anti Al-Qaeda. They planned the bombings in their twisted parody of Jyhad, not Islam. I would say that there are many more muslims living in the UK that are against the bombings than those who are in favour.

The fact that there are people in the world gullible enough to follow blindly the orders of a self-proclaimed religious leader is not the fault of the religion they choose. How many crazed 'holy warriors' do you think would join the Pope, should he cracked up and decided to call a Crusade against the Arab world? Quite a number, I bet.

1) Canada!! They put up with USA and are the only country to have defeated us! Besides their precriptions are cheaper then ours.

2) Finland and Norway. Don't hit the news much. Seem pretty stable and stay out of major trouble.

3) From ancient times. Rome. I would pick the Northlanders (Vikings) but they weren't a country.

One of the really funny similarities between conservatives and leftists is that they can both quote upon freedom and use the word to define their ideas. Yes, it is a contradiction that both sides draw upon that term to describe their respective utopian ideals. It depends on the application of the word "freedom." For instance, political freedom may mean something different than individual freedom. With political freedom ultimate power derives from "the People;" meaning that the "government" and the "People" are really the same thing, since the government is put in place and governs by the consent of the people. And that they have the right to change that government whenever it no longer suits them. It's pointless from this perspective to speak of the government and the people as if they are two different institutions. It's when an individual decides that he or she does not wish to be governed, or held accountable by policy under the majority of the people that it suddenly becomes "the government."

Individual freedom is freedom from the tyranny of the majority, or from the institutions put in place by the will of the people to craft policy and to govern. For instance gay people may want the same rights as everyone else, yet the majority of the people may not approve of the gay lifestyle and what it means to its institutional "values" (I won't even touch social freedom here, since it is almost a contradiction in terms).

It was the same thing with salvery: When the Declaration of Independence declared individual freedom, many of the slave holders claimed that it was still their "right" as indivdiuals to own slaves, regardless of the "all men are created equal" statement. They claimed that the "government" had no right to tell them if they should have slaves or not (notice that it was the "government" because they disagreed with the direction that the majority of Americans were beginning to move in regarding the issue of solving the political and moral problems presented by slavery).

The great argument is not over "freedom," but who decides upon which side should have the greater weight: the majority of the people or the individual. In either case, you can't please all the people all the time, but at the same time we should have a set of principles upon which we agree and have as a standard to solve the issue regarding certain rights between the majority and the individual, so that both can be protected.

@Shoshino: Hmm...so if I understand you correctly, because of the bombings in the UK by Muslim terrorists, it is the default position of all people there to blindly hate Muslims?? Hmm...no wonder its Australia I like! :nono:

And as for your point...no. I choose to give the Aussies the benefit of the doubt because I believe they would be responsible enough to blame the terrorists responsible for these attacks, rather than just any and all Muslims. You know, in a way, you've just shown me what I was talking about...

That was very eloquent Chandos.

@ Faraaz, don't take what Shoshino said too literally. I think it's just the nature of the human race to bracket and pigeon hole.

Like, for example, if I was once attacked by a guy hanging on a street corner somewhere and he took all my money, from that point on I'd be a bit wary of anyone I see hanging out on a street corner. He'd probably be completely innocent and not mean any harm, but I'd still be a bit dodgy.

Another (albeit poor) example would be English football fans. A few cause trouble and be arseholes, and that means that all traveling England supporters are treated with suspicion.

Humans just think that way naturally, to an extent. Some people will be wary of Muslims ever since the bombs we've had go off in our country killing innocent people simply because it was Muslims who committed the act. I'd bet the majority of Muslims are just as appalled as everyone else by terrorist attacks. But you can understand why it could make people a little bit wary.

There are loads and loads of Muslims ans Asians in Britain though and on the whole, they're treated with every respect and courtesy, and just as another member of society. There's all sorts of people of all races and creeds and all walks of life in Britain. It's quite a 'colourful' country in that sense of things. Everyone is treated the same.

Also, don't be fooled into thinking that Australia is non-racist. No country is completely clean of all racism. In cricket games alone, I've seen cases of extreme racism. I also heard cases of mosques being attacked over there after the London bombings.

True...but then, I'm not defending Australia to the point of saying they will be completely innocent am I? I was just extending Shoshino's statements logically to show him the weakness of his opinion...which is that the average Australian doesn't feel as though Muslims are dangerous and violent, or in any case if he does...he doesn't show it.

Look, I thought the London bombings were a terrible thing too! But then, branding an entire community to be responsible for it, when the odds are that a significant number of those killed/injured were Muslims themselves seems naive at best.

Finally, @Barmy: I don't think all of UK is like that, but then again, racism (relatively more than some other Western countries at least) is not a problem in the UK which has only risen since the London bombings, has it?

There's no more racism in the UK than there is in other countries, I'm sure. Any hint of racism is SERIOUSLY clamped down on in this country (to the point of political correctness gone mad).

Did you know that the Christmas speech (a tradition in the UK) on UK's Channel 4 is to be presented by a Muslim woman in a full veil (not sure what the proper name for it is... hijab? something like that? not sure) so that Asians don't feel alienated by it. A lot of people feel that Britain is losing a lot of it's national identity for the sake of making non-Brits welcome, so to call us the most racist Western country could be quite offensive.

I'd say we were quite the opposite, on the whole.

Thanks, DW. Good to see you back. :wave:

i was putting in a short post because i had to go to work, barmy said it better then me with the quantity of his writing.

a perfect example here would be a friend of mine for this well just call her 'chris'.
when chris was 12 she was hit by a car on a pedestrian crossing, he didnt stop at the red light, she spent sometime in a coma and everyone thought she was going to die, but thankfully she didnt. now, chris will not cross the road at pedestrian crossings, she doesnt trust that cars will stop for her, so she crosses in the middle or the road instead when i asked her why she feels safer doing that she said "because i know the cars wont stop for me there". because of something that has happened in the past, and the unknowing that it may happen again she wont even take the chance.
similar situation, because islams have killed people here, and they werent obvious, there is a thought in the back of the head "i wonder if he's got a bomb under his jacket". and i never said anything about blind hate.

i would like to say that i am not anti islamic, i have friends who are islamic, i just understand the way the human brain works, to quote tommy lee jones from MIB "people are dumb, stupid, panicky individuals and you know it"

Time to roll up my sleeves and give my :2c:

UK - I'm anglophilic. There isn't much that I could add to what's being said about UK here before.
New Zealand - First country to give voting rights to women. That alone is reason enough.
Canada - Why wouldn't you like Canada? I find it to have a lot in common with Finland. And any country that has given us something like Alanis Morrisette deserves warm feelings from me. :shake:
USA - The whole multiculturality thing. I still consider the States to be this melting pot of cultures. And the massiveness of the whole country is something that in itself makes it impossible to ever be a completely homogenic culture.
Japan - Technology, and like said, the culture there is just crazy, in a good way. I also have a huge respect for their traditions and how they manage to assimilate almost anything into their culture.
Sweden - The culture of open discussion. At least they have that more than we have here in Finland.

I could consider living in any of these countries and in a few other countries as well.

I respect many countries because of their traditions and history, but not necessarily the current state that they are in.

A lot of countries get my respect because in spite of their shortcomings they're still able to manage somehow, despite the political and cultural hindrances that are clearly against them. But that being said, it's not necessarily the countries, but the people who get my respect. Cuba could be considered to be one of these countries.

Ireland - A country that has always held its own with the mightiest empires the world has even known. On equal terms, no-one can defeat Ireland.

Bolivia and Venezuela are the 2 countries I respect most these days.

Poland. For all that the polish people have overcome and thier integrity.

but one of freedom and weather. I just couldn't stand most of the rest of the world for one of those 2 reasons. I could name a few countries that have more freedom. Besides, while the US is a great place to visit, its far too restrictive and conservative for me to relocate to. My partner also feels the same and she gave up living in Pittsburgh for sunny N.Ireland.

My partner also feels the same and she gave up living in Pittsburgh for sunny N.Ireland. Actually, having grown up in PA, I have to say that N. Ireland may be an improvement weather-wise from Pittsburgh. You see, Pittsburgh is located not far from Lake Erie (one of the Great Lakes) and because of this, virtually every front that passes over the lakes picks up precipitation and dumps it on Pittsburgh. So that means you get a lot rain, and in the winter, a whole lot of snow. My brother lived in western PA north of Pittsburgh for a few years, and he said it basically starts snowing shortly after Thanksgiving, and doesn't stop until April. In many places, you just end up driving on snow pack, because you can only pile up the snow on the sides of the roads so high.

Well, I really don't know if its gonna hurts other canadians, but I'll take my chance. The answer in my case would be Quebec, its my province but I consider it my country due to many attempts from the federal-government to assimilate us forcefuly to english(which they have failed since we're still speaking french even 400 years after england invaded the former new-france which we used to be) and to eradicate us completly. And I do not consider myself a french-Canadian, but a Québécois, and I'll consider myself a Québécois 'til death I say ! It seem that half the province still consider or prefer to be called themselves french-canadians though, that is mostly because a_ they're ignorant of the many historical reasons and low-hits of the rest of canada agaisnt us or b)they just want to stay colonized I guess, since they prefer to be 'canadians' rather then 'québécois' in their ego-maniac hearts.


Of the many colonized people of older generations, which is about half the province if chk the stats from the last referendum, (but again that was when liberal party of canada cheated its way with illegals votes from other provinces inviting canadians outside of Quebec, or ancient/former/exiles québécois to vote, including the thousands of illegal immigrants who received their canadian citizenship(is that a word btw?) 3 years before the normal date and of course the infamous ads-scandal which allowed 3 times the normal budget of the 'no' camp despite knowing the rules of the refenrum-law) WAY TOO MUCH PEOPLE prefer to remain canadian, especialy for rather their financial interest or their little selfish lives, again many reasons include the fact to stay here and continu to live in english, because its the most spoken language on earth as they claim. Whats even worse, waves and waves of immigrants keep coming here, year after year and they refuse to integrate themselves and to learn french of course, which is slowly but most likely causing its death. In 20 or so years, I predict that Québec will as red as the other provinces, heck its started since the last referendum.

Is there still hope for Québec's independance and/or Sovereingty as the most 'soft' separatist like to call it? I doubt it, but who knows maybe ? if the current PQ chief resign, André Boisclair(which will most likely be the case at the next provincai election) and is replaced by a far more competent leader(Gilles Duceppe or Pauline Marois comes to my mind), we may still have hopes, otherwise I really doubt it.

Yes, yes I'm a very hardcore separatist, and some of you(especialy people from Ontario it seem's ) might even call me a 'redneck' but i don't care, thats how I am, and thats how I'll stay 'til my last days.

Vive le Québec libre comme le disait si bien Charles de Gaule en 1967 lors de sa venu à Montréal.

For those of you who don't understand french that meant : Long live free Quebec, like Charles De Gaule said i 1967 when he came to Montreal.

[ December 24, 2006, 15:50: Message edited by: DarthOne ]

wasn't charles de gaule that frenchman who spent most his time hidding in england during world war 2? ;)

and the most spoken language woul be chinese :p

Yes thats him, I dunno why he did that though, but I suppose he had good reasons, so shouldn't judge a national hero too hard on what you heard. Most ost it are purely speculations and rumors though.
Chinese ? Hardly ! I mean perhaps in Japan or in China, but not in north-america or in Europe.

over 1/6 of the worlds population speeks chinese as there first language (at some parts of china its more like a second/semi first). secondly it has a lot of nabours, who deals with them in chinese. trust me on this one. english is mainly used as a trade language in europe, and of cause has its native speakers in some countries :p

But south America uses spanish for trading for instance and so does Russia/asia a lot.

Mandarin is the 3rd most spoken language in Ireland.

over 1/6 of the worlds population speeks chinese as there first language Over 1/6 of the world's population uses Chinese as its written language. There are hundreds of dialects in China, and while they all use the same written language, the spoken language is extremely different. It's not like dialects in most countries where it's the same basic language with a different intonation (like the New England dialect or the Southern drawls in the U.S). In China, most of the dialects are so different that people who speak two different dialects cannot understand each other (although they could communicate in writing).

Moreover, it was never stated that English was the most spoken first language - just that it was the most spoken. English is by far the most common second language spoken. Add this with the great many native English speakers (U.S., most of Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and a good chunk of Ireland), and I can easily see that English is the most spoken langauge in the world.

no over 1000 million has mandarin listed as first language, thats twice as many as english.

http://www.krysstal.com/spoken.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0775272.html

as for second langauge, its clearly a battle between english and spanish (russia learns spanish and i asumme the porteguise parts of south america does too). And as far as i know, spanish is still the trade language in large parts of asia.

in europe you will be surprised about how few actually speak english.

There is a lot of Spanish speakers here. Catholics typically learn Spanish, while the Protestants usually learn French. I used to joke that Protestants prefer French because of the colours of the French flag.