Why has England not objected to the invasion of Papua by the Indonesians?
396861
The western half of the island of New Guinea (the bit under Indonesian control) was a DUTCH colony.\n\nThe eastern half (the bit that was, in part, a German and British colony and from the early 20th century under Australian administration) is now the independent state of Papua New Guinea.\n\nI'm all for West Papuan Independence, unfortunately it doesn't seem to be high on 'The Wests' agenda.\n\nSadly, the Independence movement there is in for a long struggle - remember East Timor.
429411
The British Empire is only one in a long line of expansive failed empires.  We could look to Greece, the moors and the Romans to get examples of others.\nHistory is too much like philosophy in that there isn't always one right answer.\nIt is clear though that large empires are very hard to maintain. There is a natural tendency for such to become apathetic, ignoring a peoples natural tendency to resent foreign rule. This makes governing impossible.\nI would say Afghanistan is more a function of their support of the "Yanks" more than colonialism...remember the years of the IRA, the US stopped the group's funding maybe it was a payback.
860687
The islands have been known to be part of the Philippines Islands... and nobody cared. Now however, there is the possibility there maybe oil over there. Bringing China and Vietnam into the picture. In fact a few Filipinos actually lived there subsisting mostly by fishing. \n\nHistory has shown again and again that regardless of International Law, possession and power decides ownership. Witness Brunei, a possession of the Sultanate of Sulu and by extension the Philippines. This terrritory was rented in perpetuity by Great Britain for something like $30,000 Malaysian a year. The Philippines tried unsuccessfully to assert ownership thru the International Court. \n\nIf the pattern continues, then China will most likely prevail, unless the Philippines could creatively checkmate it.
890774
David (above).. I'd like to make a small correction to your assumption, if I may.\n\n90+  percent of the UK population did not support the UK government in its decision to send UK troops into the Iraq invasion.  Hence, you can take it that the UK does _not_ support George Bush today, either.  His only real ally is Tony Blair, who is about to lose his position as Prime Minister mainly because of his support for Bush. If you were to read the serious political commentators, the leaders in many newspapers, discussions on TV and radio, and listen to the conversations of ordinary Brits, you would find that Geo Bush is not supported by the majority of UK people.   Indeed, it would be nonsensical to  support a person whose precipitous and misjudged action has destroyed a sovereign country (forget about Saddam being a bad person - there are plenty of places with wicked heads of state);  whose decisions have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people; who has (according to his own intelligence people) made the threat of terrorism in the West much worse; who has increased the number of terrorist recruits way above that which existed prior to Iraq;  who has spent over $350 Billion of US taxpayers money on this fiasco of a war (and will probably end up by paying even more in order to rebuild Iraq); who has curtailed the civil freedom of his own countrymen, and who has made America not only hated more intensely by the Muslim world, but diminished its standing in the eyes of its Western friends.    No wonder he got a hammering yesterday!
51453
Tony Blair has caught a lot of criticism from his fellow countrymen, much like that other leader . . . George W. Bush.  The majority of his critics, like in President Bush's case, is from the opposition party to that which is in power.  Although I am not British, I have kept up with their news, and it appears that Prime Minister Blair is doing well.  The media, (remember it's the liberal media, while Bush & Blair are respecitvely conservatives), has been attacking both of the leaders for about the last three years.  Gee, I guess that's why the U.N. military commander in Bosnia is the "FORMER".  I haven't read any positive news concerning Bosnia and the U.N. involvement.  So, putting two & two together, the proverbial statement holds true, "Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones."  Or to reference the Word, "He who is without sin, may cast the first stone."  If anyone would like to forward this to that FORMER U.N. military commander in Bosnia, you have my full permission . . . . if President Bush or Prime Minister Blair are doing so poorly, then I'd like to see you do better!  Come on, you've got my vote.  I'm sure your response is something like the following:  "No, I don't want that job!"  Good, then sit back, shut up, fasten your seatbelt, enjoy the ride and just use sunscreen!  Sorry, I'm a history major and love to argue politics.  Although evidently biased, maybe it shed some light on your question.
992658
The only conflict that I can think of where the British attacked someone of Asian descent was the First Opium War in China(1839-1842).  The war happened because English traders from the British East India Company could no longer sell opium in China, the only goods the English could get the Chinese to buy in mass so the English could make a profit on the tea they bought from China.  Since opium was illegal in China the Qing Dynasty arrested the flow of opium causing the British to go to war in China.  China was defeated and in 1842 they signed the Treaty of Nanjing giving the British full rights to control trade in China and establish Western quarters in Chinese cities where Westerns were subjected to their own law not Chinese law.  I know their was a second Opium War against China I believe started by the French, my Asian history is not as good as my European history so I can't say if there were any other attacks outside of the English attempting to hang onto their colonies in Malaysia and Indonesia after WW II.
375925
No, not at all.  Bush, definately.  But, I know, they're allies.  But you know, Aussies don't have nuclear weapons.  Doesn't it make sence to be allied with the ones that could protect them if the need it, rather than be against them?  Just logic to me... Besides, though I don't agree with the War on Iraq, ect. they did start it.  I do hate bush, but I don't feel that John Howard is a criminal by any means.
736499
In their eyes, they are protecting their loveones from.... us.\n\nIf you look at it from their perspective, you can't blame them.   It's no different than the Brit's occupation of America or Northern Ireland.    \n\nNo one has a right to enter another country and impose it's will.
83657
Papua NG relies on assistance from Australia to keep out illegal cross-border activities from primarily Indonesia, including goods smuggling, illegal narcotics trafficking, and squatters and secessionists. Indonesia and Australia have unresolved border disputes as well.
581909
I think it is stupid for any country to eliminate their standing military forces. There will always be some country out there wanting what some other country has. England of all countries should know that, with the number of wars they have been direct participants in (as either attacker or attackee).
499935
A better question would be, "Does it matter?" \nGreat(?) Britain owes it's existance to the United States! During WWll America poured tons of money, goods and man power into keeping Britain free from Germany and as yet the people of Britain haven't even paid the interest on the loans that were given to them!\nIn fact if it wasn't for America, Great(?) Britain wouldn't even exist!\nIf England want's to go it alone against the rest of the world then I say, "Lot's of luck!"
1082357
Why are other nations prejudice against British?\n\nIt goes both ways....it's called human frailty.
312267
haha ur juz jealous. without their ancestors they might never hav England on the map
451487
No it's not an island, it's still part of England.
367796
This kind of question really pisses me off, apparently it's only England fans that fight and cause trouble is it? Totally blinkered. The so called "ultras" of Italy and Holland have been making plans for violence for ages, as have the Turkish.\nThe Germans also have a hardcore of hooligans who will be active at home and the Polish hooligans have actually been quoted that they are going to target England fans at every opportunity.
771115
This war came to a climax last month. With the change of power in the elections and Tony Blair's resignation, the support for the President and the war has fizzled. In Britain, the people have been opposed to the effort since its inception which lead to low troop commitment. They are not worried about "perception of being weak" as America is. The only thing left for America is to figure a way out without looking too bad.
16383
Overall this war was casued due to the economic policies of the British Empire.  \n\nThere are also political causes such as the feelings of a lack of political representation within the English Empire, which then resulted in the above said economic policies.  This argument would be disputed by historical materialists.