Breaking news: UK troops to come home

My bad, Grandson..

I was just testing you.. really.. see who picked up on that..

congrats I award you 1pt for the post!

I dunno, In my opionion, Harry isnt of Royal blood.
Diana had an affair, and he was the result...

maybe theyre sending him there because they know this too, and would rather he die in Iraq ' normally ' than be written of in a dubious car accident.


dem damn royals... they wish '' off with their head '' wasnt soo taboo nowa days.

posted by Ste2652

posted by marg6043
Well it is your fault that your country is so complicated.

Americans think England is the rough equivalent of a US State. Therefore, referring to the United Kingdom as 'England' is like referring to the entire United States as 'California' or any other single state. It's clearly not, since that excludes the other 49 states. Saying 'England' excludes the three other nations (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) which make up the United Kingdom. [Edited by Don W]

First, Marg6043 is my 'most favorite' poster on ATS. If she was not already happily married with family, I would have sent her roses on St. Valentine’s Day. But alas, I’m “too little, too late.”

Next, England was the first and is the largest part of what was to become the United Kingdom. I don’t know the populations, but I’m thinking England, 40 million, Scotland, less than 10 million, Wales, less than 5 million, and Northern Ireland, about 5 million. In the none too distant past, Scotland bore the unenviable distinction of being referred to as the poorest country in Northern Europe. (Whether or not due to the 1707 Act of Union I do not know.)

The Welsh are best known (over here) for having the longest words in any human language, which must make it impossible to remember the spelling. And surely it is not susceptible to the same pronunciation twice in a row or by two people.

Most of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland were poor Scots who got stuck in Belfast on their way to the United States. Gypped by sharp boat owners - their fellow Scots - and denied further transport until the passage fees were paid in advance, they have languished in Ireland ever since. And with not much more to do than to dispute the primacy of the Papacy with the natives. I trust this will explain why some of us abroad sometimes refer to the United Kingdom in linguistic shorthand as “England.”

With regards to the withdrawal, I think it's great news. I read in one of the reports that Blair spoke to Bush via [secured] videolink yesterday (Tuesday) and Bush was happy for it to go ahead - his national security spokesman said it showed how successful the operations in the south of Iraq have been. It can certainly be presented as a victory so I guess the Bush administration and Blair's government are eager to use it as such. I think another possible reason for the withdrawal is that Blair will have left office by September of 2007 at the very latest - he wants people to remember him in a good light, and this is one way to do it. [Edited by Don W]

Yesterday’s (Wednesday) commentators claim the Brits “lost” the Battle of Basra months ago and have ceded most of the nearby territory to the Shia militias. The UK forces recorded KIA #101 yesterday, certainly not a marker the Labour government wants to be associated with at the next election. Not when the general appraisal of the March 18, 2003 undertaking in Iraq is deemed a failure of the largest proportions. As I posted elsewhere, “When the Brits leave, can the Yanks be far behind?”


[edit on 2/22/2007 by donwhite]

Thanks DonWhite, you are a true champion.

I always have a problem with UK, britain and England, truly I have no clue if they are all the same or divided . . .

Because when I was in grade School we always refered to England as the nation or country and the British as the population.

Most like Uniteds states as the country or nation and Americans as the citizens.

I guess is more to that.

posted by marg6043

I have a problem with UK, Britain and England . . I have no clue if they are all the same or divided . . when I was in grade school we always referred to England as the nation or country and the British as the citizens. Much like “United States” as the country or nation and “Americans” as the citizens. [Edited by Don W]

I think you are right, M-43. We use “England” as a shorthand for old time Great Britain and now, for the United Kingdom. UK. After all, it is “English” that we speak, not “British.”

Well, yes and no Donwhite.

Your editing has actually changed the meaning of what I said

I was trying to compare the UK to America to see if it made the difference between 'England' and 'United Kingdom' any clearer.

Think of England as a rough equivalent of a state. New Mexico, Florida, New England, North Carolina... it's basically the equivalent of a single US state. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be seen in a similar way.

Now, think of the United Kingdom as the equivalent of the United States as a whole. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland make up the United Kingdom in the same way that Texas, Hawaii, California, Utah and all the rest make up the United States.

That's the easiest way I can think of to explain the differences to you in an American context... there are direct comparisons and I hope it helps American users with the differences (I understand it can get complicated due to all the history and so on, but the more you use it the clearer it'll become ), but let me know if you're still stuck.

Also, with regards to how to address the inhabitants... people who live in the United States are referred to as an 'American' for a single person ("I am an American") and 'Americans' for a group ("We are Americans"). Similarly, people who live in the United Kingdom are referred to as a 'Briton' for a single person ("I am a Briton" - though this is pretty uncommon. You're more likely to hear "I am British" instead, which is just as correct) or "British" for a group ("We are British" - though it can be used to denote a single person as I just mentioned... a quirk of the English language )

Back on topic, anyway, after I digressed quite significantly.

I'm actually glad Harry is going. He seems happy to do it (the BBC are reporting that it will be a six month tour of duty) and I think it does the Royals good to see what it's like for all the ordinary people in the UK as well as the US and other nations.

posted by Ste2652

Well, yes and no Donwhite. Your editing has actually changed the meaning of what I said. I'm glad Harry is going. He seems happy to do it (the BBC are reporting that it will be a six month tour of duty) and I think it does the Royals good to see what it's like for all the ordinary people in the UK as well as the US and other nations. [Edited by Don W]

Surely the editor’s first obligation is not to change the writer’s intentions. I apologize for bad editing. I have often said if generals had to live in the field, there would be fewer wars. Back in the old days - 1949-1951 - I was in a Army National Guard unit. We were in the field on exercises and were lining up to eat off the back of a 6X6 truck. The battalion commander rushed over and ordered all the officers who had taken positions at the front of the line, to the rear of the line. He lectured them that when in the field it was their duty to see that the men were fed and the best way to assure that was to eat at the end of the line. The cooks would not dare run out of food then. Needless to say, we loved him!

[edit on 2/22/2007 by donwhite]