Britain has every right to declare war on the US

[KrazyHorse]

We were enroute to a successful and entertaining threadjack, MtG.

Nobody had yet answered him seriously because nobody felt the subject worthy of a serious reply, for good reason.

Anyway, for Emperor Fab the point is that the Brits have no extraterritorial claim to their citizens. Especially not when they were captured in battle against the US, and most especially not when numbers of prisoners were handed over by the Brits to the US to face the exact same treatment.

[Dinner]

They aren't really even British. They're just foreigners who hung out in Britain for a while and then went back to the old country to commit terrorist acts and be unlawful combatants. Would you be happier if we just shot them on the battle field or lined them up against the wall? The Geneva convention says this is allowable to people not in uniform who have weapons.

[Drake Tungsten]

We were enroute to a successful and entertaining threadjack, MtG.

It's somewhat my fault that we didn't complete the threadjack. A lengthy rebuttal/dissertation on the great moments in Welsh history on my part probably would've destroyed all memory of the original topic, but I just couldn't be arsed to write it. My apologies.

[KrazyHorse]

Rethink what you just said, Oerdin.

They have British citizenship and are as worthy of treatment as such both by their government and anybody else's as somebody who was born there.



EDIT: crap spelling

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

We were enroute to a successful and entertaining threadjack, MtG.

It's somewhat my fault that we didn't complete the threadjack. A lengthy rebuttal/dissertation on the great moments in Welsh history on my part probably would've destroyed all memory of the original topic, but I just couldn't be arsed to write it. My apologies.

And would have provided endless amusement as I poked fun at various parts of it...

[Drake Tungsten]

And would have provided endless amusement as I poked fun at various parts of it...

What could've been...

[Dinner]

You're right they are naturalized citizens and as such the government has to treat them the same but most people still think of being British or English or Scottish as being not just a nationality but an ethnic group as well.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Odin


When the UK was formed the King (James) was SCOTTISH. the scotts took over England, not the other way around.

This Lazurus And The Gimp reprint seems appropriate, somehow...

Historical filth- The worst job in history.

There have been some really foul jobs that have cropped up throughout history- notable examples being a nurse in plague-stricken London, or a Chinese Court Eunuch (as detailed in "Historical Filth- Eunuchs with balls"). To settle all disputes as to what was the worst job in history, the Historical Filth team have dusted off their journals and set to work. After exhaustive research they are now prepared to publish their conclusion, and their conclusion is that the Official Worst Job in History is...

King/Queen of Scotland.

Before any Hibernian readers start dusting off their Claymores I'll reassure them that I can prove it. Between Kenneth MacAlpin (reigned 843- 858AD) and James VI (reigned 1567- 1625) Scotland had 43 monarchs. These monarchs of Scotland faced three major foes, these being...

1- The Vikings
2- The English
3- Other Scots.

The hard statistics paint a damning picture. Of Scotland's 43 monarchs just about nothing is known of 6 (other than the fact that their reigns were ominously short). Of the remaining 37, 12 were killed in battle, 4 were murdered, 2 were executed, 4 spent long periods of their lives (and reigns) in imprisonment varying from "almost-comfort" to "hellish cesspit". So, of those 37 we know about nearly 60% had first-hand experience of the ****ty end of life's stick.

It gets worse. Of the remaining 15, 2 were brutally deposed after crushing and humilating defeats and were forced into exile. While "exile" for 20th/21st century royal types means a lifetime of interbreeding at the Ritz or Val D'Isere, we can safely assume it was a less appetising prospect 800 years ago.

So far, 13 monarchs appear to have deftly side-stepped the massive grudge fate holds against Scottish rulers. That's not to say they got off lightly, however. Of those 13, 3 had tragically short lives and died before the age of 32 (One of them, Margaret "Maid of Norway" was just 8 years old when she died on the journey to Scotland to get married).

Right- we're down to 10 who appear to be lucky. Or were they? Of those 10, the following had less than joyful lives...

Constantine II (reigned 900- 943AD) Scotland's 8th king and one of the most successful. He may have been the first Scottish king to meet his maker without first being hacked into several twitching lumps of flesh, bone and gristle. Undeniably a man of power and a great leader, his only great misfortune was that his reign coincided with that of King Athelstan, arguably England's greatest ruler. At the battle of Brunnanburh in 937, Athelstan kicked 7 shades of crap out of the combined forces of Scotland, Ireland and Iceland Danes, and Scotland never again posed a serious threat to England's existance. The disillusion Constantine saw his country forced into humiliating decline and he relinquished the throne in 944 to become a monk.

Alexander III (reigned 1249- 1286). Last of the Canmore dynasty, the "Golden Age" of Scottish Kings (Oh, the irony....). Became King at the age of 8, had notable military successes against the Norse and reconquered the Hebrides. However he saw all his children die before him, and had a singularly crap death at 45 when he accidentally rode his horse off a cliff. A death both poignant and embarrassing...

Robert the Bruce (reigned 1306- 1329). Justly famed for defeating the English at Bannockburn and freeing Scotland from English rule. Unfortunately this was not before almost his entire family was killed by the English. His reign after Bannockburn was ruined by poor health, and he died of leprosy at the age of 55. His heart is buried in Melrose Abbey, while the rest of his bits presumably rest wherever they happened to rot off.

Robert II Stuart (reigned 1371- 1390). Actually Robert had a better life than most Scottish Kings, but his reign has been described as "an anti-climax to his career". To describe being King as anti-climactic gives some degree of understanding as to why Robert II is considered one of the most boring and ineffectual kings of all time. In fact his son Robert III took over control of Scotland 4 years before Robert II died.

Robert III (reigned 1390- 1406). Was left crippled and bedridden from a horse's kick in 1388 and never had any real power. His eldest son, the Duke of Rothesay was a murderous pervert who died in imprisonment in 1402. Just before Robert died, he sent his son and heir (James I) to France to avoid assassins. Unfortunately James was kidnapped by English sailors on the way and Robert never saw him again.

James V (reigned 1513- 1542). Became King aged 17 months, he is described as a "cruel man" (and that's by the standards of 16th century royalty who were, nearly to a man, murderous butchers). He kicked off a reign of terror in Scotland, but made the classic mistake that many other Scottish Kings made- he attempted to invade England. His army was routed by Henry VIII's forces at Solway Moss, and James promptly went insane, and died shortly after at the age of 30.

That leaves just 4 Scottish rulers who appear to have had "normal lives". In other words, if you were unfortunate enough to be crowned king of Scotland you probably had a 90% likelihood of leading a crap life of disease and misery. The typical Scottish king was crowned in infancy, married in infancy to someone they had never met (let alone snogged), lead at least one horribly ill-advised invasion of England and uttered their last word "Uuurrrgh...." lying face-down in their own intestines. If there is a God, he really, really hated Scottish kings.

To round off in the grand tradition of "Historical filth", who was the unluckiest Scottish ruler of them all? That honour goes to Mary "Queen of Scots" Stuart.

Mary became Queen at just 6 days old. At the age of 5 she was packed off to France and the court of the French king Henry II. She became a tremendous beauty and married the heir to the French throne Francis at the comparatively late age of 16. At this point, it all started to go wrong. She was a widow at 18. On her return to Scotland, the Catholic Mary was an object of suspicion to the Protestant Scottish powers, viewed as a dangerous foreigner. Her second marriage at the age of 23 to her cousin Henry Stewart was a disaster- he was vicious, power-hungry scumbag who murdered her closest confidant in front of her very eyes. Henry Stewart was murdered in 1567 (his death was believed to have been arranged by Mary).
Afterf Stewart's murder, Mary was abducted and raped by the Earl of Bothwell, who married her shortly after. How much say Mary had in this matter is unclear, but within 3 months they were parted and Mary deposed. She spent the last 18 years of her life imprisoned by Elizabeth I of England and was beheaded at the age of 45.

A crap life, all in all. Mary was the last monarch of a distinct Scotland. To sum up, there are a few lessons to be learned from Scotland's history. Foremost of these is the fact that the worst misfortune that can befall any nation is to be situated next to England.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Not to mention that the only cultural contributions of the Welsh to the modern world are King Arthur and a funny way of talking...

That's two more things than Quebec has contributed to the world.

But Quebec has also contributed a funny way of talking...

[Dis]

I'd like to see you all try to burn Washington D.C. this time. not gonna happen.

[mrmitchell]

I'd like to see you all try to burn Washington D.C. this time. not gonna happen.

Sadly mistaken there Diss--it'd be much easier this time than last.

Last time, the British had to send huge armies over, win part of a war, and personally set fire to most of the buildings.

This time they just have to push the button.

(They have about 20 nukes IIRC.)

[Egbert]

Originally posted by Dissident
I'd like to see you all try to burn Washington D.C. this time. not gonna happen.

I wish someone would come and burn down our capital, Canberra. Why should the Americans have all the luck? They had their turn.

[Giancarlo]

Re: Britain has every right to declare war on the US

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
The United States is, without charge or reason, holding British citizens in a military prison. The foreign nationals are being held without access to a lawyer from their own country. They will be put into a military tribunal, away from British judgement, and will be judged without British consent.

The United States has no right to do this.

Britain is within its rights to declare war.

Troll.

Negative Eight trillion out of 10.

[Drake Tungsten]

I wish someone would come and burn down our capital, Canberra.

God tried to grant your wish earlier this year, but was thwarted.

[C0ckney]

i think that some (not very bright) posters on this thread, failed to realise that TEF is, in actual fact, an american...

and as for the welsh ever getting getting independence: