An Irishman has been bayoneted by a British soldier, and as the Mick dies slowly in a ditch the Brit kicks him over and over, cursing him and wishing him a painful, slow death. With his last breath the Irishman asks, “Why are you so angry at us?” The Brit leans down, whispers, “You swine, we will NEVER forgive you for what we’ve done to you.”

The one just before the British invaded Hong Kong, but after they expelled the indigenous Malvinos.

Isn’t there a quite brilliant historical documentary, starring Mel Gibson, that answers this question?

Or at least I would if Chris Betram had not already done so.

So Ted, when did the word British come into use?

Note also that many people in Enlightenment Edinburgh were calling themselves North Britons, back in the 18th century.

And which illegal war was Scotland occupied in? You do know that large numbers of Scotsmen fought on Cumberlands side at Culloden?

FWIW: Great Britain/British = England + Scotland + Wales and came into being when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England.

United Kingdom = Great Britain + Northern Ireland.

So Scots are British but Ulstermen are not (much to the chagrin of many of them).

Whether any of us (English, Welsh or Scots) actually like being British or strongly identify as such is another matter.

“Scotland is part of Britain.”

No.

Scotland is part of the United Kingdom.

The British occupied it in an illegal war.

I think calling a Scotsperson a britisher is a very rude insult.

It was forcably taken by arms the same way the brits stole Wales, Northern Ireland, the Malvinas, Diego Garcia and Gibralter and many other places they had to give up. Think Hong Kong.

So when will those fascist limey hooligans give these stolen lands back to their rightful owners? Not very sporting of the lobster backs is it?

Actually, if you believe Private Eye, he recently got sacked by the Torygraph and then reinstated.

Perhaps I’ve been duped by intel-agency-relay journalists, but I understand that other Iraqi politicians couldn’t abide Jafari, and after months of political deadlock the U.S. Embassy lent its weight to suggestions that he should step aside.

So, a British helicpoter crashes and kills 5, while locals express sentiments “less than grateful”, and this is a cause for soul searching about the mission?

While the US and British initiated a war based on lies, obvious even at the time, the Iraqis face chaos, insecurity and fear, daily, the sorrow of the relatives of the approximately 100,000 EXTRA dead people, and the roughly 50/50 probability that the death rate will drop below “Saddam levels” even ten years from now?….not as much?

It’s like burning a village to save it, while in the process stubbing your toe, so THEN deciding that the mission might not be worth it, and the locals are to blame (those ungrateful wogs might not deserve our help!).

I liken the philosophy in PNM and BPA as the New White Man’s Burden. And we’ll spread globalism at gunpoint, as necessary. Barnett claims that one every country in the gap has been brought into the core, then terrorism will wither away (hmm, where have I heard that “wither away” argument before? Fukuyama? Marx? Or was it Hegel?) and be a nuisance like organized crime, instead of a major threat.

A cynic might suggest that the United States can’t even do this in New Orleans much less in foreign countries. In fact, as the FMFM 1-A, Fourth Generation War, argues strongly, even if an outside force does everything right, the probability of success in such endeavors remains low. Why? As Russell Kirk wrote, there is no surer way of making someone your enemy than to announce you will remake him in your image for his own good. To many of the world’s peoples, what Barnett argues for in such blithe simplicity represents Hell, and they will fight it literally to their dying breath.

And the insurgents in Iraq are fighting it to their dying breath. Just like the “insurgents” in Iran will fight it to their dying breath. Have folks forgotten the riots that happen pretty much anytime the WTO happens to have a meeting? If first world people are so opposed to globalization, why should third world people be interested?

And before you poo-poo the notion that Barnett’s books have an influence on the folks in this administration, you might want to read the parts where he drops names and goes on and on and on and on about all those powerpointless presentations he gives. Or his own site where he talks about all the presentations and meetings he has with the folks in power. If you’re left wondering what his “sysadmins” and “development in a box” mean, then you’re not alone.