So Mrs T got something right then!

[petewood]

the EU could and never would threaten America in any way or vice versa.

Can I have a borrow of your crystal ball for the 2.30 at Newmarket on Saturday?

 

[petewood]

. The president of America is a king in the real sense of wielding the power and authority of the most powerful state the world has ever known..

I don't know about this, a king doesn't have to worry about re-election every few years. I seem to remember Bush mentioning about how nice it would be to be a dictator, though.

 

[Damocles]

Quite a few kings have been less worried about election results than a knife in th back. The alternative approach instead of the trouble of an election. The most important thing about kings is not how long they reign.

Under our constitution the prime minister performs the job of king while the monarch's job is to entertain visitors.

Oh philosophers may sing,
of the troubles of a king
but the pleasures they are many and the worries they are none.
And the culminating pleasure
which we treasure beyond measure
is to run on little errands for the ministers of state.

W S Gilbert. Though it was written as satire.

 

[kendor]

Get real damocles, the inference was there, you are becoming kendorised and in your nonsensicle posts.

as opposed to david and julieiorised into thinking you are always right in what you say!

 

[AdamW]

the most powerful state the world has ever known..

I think a sweet old lady by the name of Queen Victoria (wasn't she Empress Victoria also?) may disagree with you there! And "power" in this sense is not quantifiable. You can say that a country has the largest GNP, or the most military personnel, or the most untapped resources.

 

[AdamW]

Oh, and am I the only one who gets mildly annoyed at the "Leader of the free world" phrase that they use when announcing Bush is coming on stage. I mean come on. I'm feeling pretty free, and he isn't my leader (officially). It's a bit rich to claim that everyone outside the borders of the US isn't free!

I'm going to run for PM, and if I am elected I am going to have them say "Overlord of the leader of the free world" before I come on.

I get mildly annoyed very easily, but it smacks of advertisements that say "available in all GOOD shops"

 

[Damocles]

If you can not quantify power how can you consider that Victorian England was more powerful than America now? It is only meaningful if you can make some sort of judgement as to who has/had the most clout.

England had more clout than America in Victorian times. Since then America has improved quite a bit. (at least quantity of power-wise). England, or perhaps more properly Britain, has gone into a bit of a decline. Quite a bit of this decline has been America snaffling things which once were ours.

If you had a head to head of Victorian Britain against current America then plainly America has the greater fire power, manufacturing capacity, raw resources, wealth of its population. This is of course unfair comparison because Victorians had to make do with victorian technology. But the rise of Amereica has been because of its other assets, not technology. Raw resources and population.

The British Empire was probably a bit of a historical accident. It always relied on cunning at least as much as brute force to hold the Empire together. The trick is to keep the natives happy. Mr Bush really needs to be reminded of that one.

 

[felix]

The trick is to keep the natives happy.

Ah yes! The old bread and circuses trick, well known as far back as Roman times and probably even earlier. Keep the masses well fed and entertained and they won't give you much trouble.

It works too but here's a puzzle. Why do so many leaders, good or bad, self appointed or elected, do their best to suppress the best game ever invented. Listen carefully world leaders because I shall say this only once. IT'S FREE!