Iraq Regains Sovereignty

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
And NATO-countries can step in now to help and train the Iraqis. I think that's a possitive development too.

The quesion is - how much will NATO countries be helping though. There are a lot fo contempt here for the amount of "help" they are offering. "We'll train Iraqi soldiers and police, but we don't want to do it in Iraq."

Not to mention an important step for Belgium on the long road to independence.

The only reason why Napolean was so good for France was because France was so screwed up.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The quesion is - how much will NATO countries be helping though. There are a lot fo contempt here for the amount of "help" they are offering. "We'll train Iraqi soldiers and police, but we don't want to do it in Iraq."

The only reason why Napolean was so good for France was because France was so screwed up.

That, sir, is the most ignorant statement of the year and moreover it is coming from someone who can't even spell 'Napoléon' correctly.

[The Gaffer]

So, not too many historical inaccuracies, then...

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
The main reason for William & Mary's marriage was that James II feared war with the Dutch, as did parliament

The Dutch actually did invade, they even got the English to pay their expenses in doing so, and then renamed it the "Glorious Revolution", so maybe the analogy is not without merit

[Janny]

What's this little tiff between Cherac and Bush, then? It may not be the place for George to comment, but surely Jaques can let it slide when he must agree with what George is saying? Surely he would not claim that it is bad for Europe for a new country to join or for Europe to forge closer ties with the Islam world?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The only reason why Napolean was so good for France was because France was so screwed up.

France did have his problems at that time. But it speaks for Napoleon to stay in power as much and as long as he did. Although he caused much trouble at the time with the wars and so on, there are many good things due to the little corsican. But I'm digressing again (a bad habit of me it seems). Napoleon and his positive or negative influence on Europe and the rest of the world is another discussion. Let's stay on topic.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The quesion is - how much will NATO countries be helping though. There are a lot fo contempt here for the amount of "help" they are offering. "We'll train Iraqi soldiers and police, but we don't want to do it in Iraq."

Yes, that's a good question. I know we won't, one of our politicians already said that yesterday I think. I can understand why, though.

Still, any help is better than no help IMO. We'll see how it works out. But the fact that they can help is already a step in the good direction I think.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Radagast
That, sir, is the most ignorant statement of the year and moreover it is coming from someone who can't even spell 'Napoléon' correctly.

God forbid that I delete your flame and be accused of showing favoritism. These are the very comments and personal attacks that cause problems in this forum.

[BeardofPants]

Indeed, I find it interesting that that particular poster has the gall to accuse someone of ignorance. Something about the pot calling the kettle black? *sigh* Can't we just play nice, Radagast?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i move the notion that we all shake hands and have a cup of tea
come,come, we are all friends here, are we not?

And surely the main thing is tat Iraq has sovereignty now?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
And surely the main thing is tat Iraq has sovereignty now?

Absolutely. And it won't be long now, before I'll be allowed over there to liberate them of their pants.

Devonshire tea, anyone?

[Nerdanel]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
And it won't be long now, before I'll be allowed over there to liberate them of their pants.

You only have one thing in mind, don't you..

[BeardofPants]

No... I think of other stuff as well... You know? Food, pants, food, pants, food, pants, food, pants... essential stuff.

Er, anyway, back on topic... Iraqi sovereignty, anyone?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
Roundheads were not a political party,
it was a vernacular name for the New Model Army,
Cromwell's military force.
Cavalier's were not a political party,
it was a vernacular name for the Royal Army

During the Commonwealth, things did not go well at all
it was by military might that Cromwell kept the populus in line
[Drogheda Massacre - look it up!]

Cromwell's son left his power due to not having wanted to do any of it in the first place, Cromwell forced him into being his successor.

James II left the throne on his death
Mary was next in line, her husband was William of Orange
Ipso Facto; they acceded in the normal fashion, not being asked to by parliament!
The main reason for William & Mary's marriage was that James II feared war with the Dutch, as did parliament

The main result of the Act of Settlement was that England(incl. Wales) & Scotland joined together as the United Kingdom

Thank you. I meant to say the Roundheads were with Cromwell and the Cavaliers with the king.

James II left on his death? Not "the bloodless revolution"?

Was the Act of Tolerance = no Cath. on the throne?

[Hemel]

Was the Act of Tolerance = no Cath. on the throne?

That's the Act of Settlement too. So no Roman Catholic may ascend the throne, nor may anyone with an RC spouse. The sucession would go to the next in line.

This hasn't yet been repealed probably because the sovereign heads the Church of England, which is Protestant. By one of those historical quirks though, the sovereign is also 'Defender of the Faith' and this is a Roman Catholic conferment, given to Henry VIII by Pope Leo because Henry wrote a treatise against Martin Luther.

I did hear that Prince Charles wanted to become known as 'Defender of Faith' on accession, and thus to include minority faiths in this country also. But this was discouraged by the Archbishop of Canterbury because he said that the title referred to 'the Christian Church'. So slightly ambiguous perhaps

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Mercutio
James II left on his death? Not "the bloodless revolution"?

No, he didn't (I've finally worked it out!). Charles II, son of Charles I, returned to the throne after the Restoration and when he died without an heir his brother, James II, became king. He was a Catholic and a disaster, so there was a coup d'etat to get William and Mary instead (Mary was James' estranged daughter). James fled = Glorious Revolution = Bill of Rights and beginning of a constitutional monarchy.

It's all here

As The Gaffer said:

The Dutch actually did invade, they even got the English to pay their expenses in doing so, and then renamed it the "Glorious Revolution"

You were right the first time, Mercutio - sorry if this makes things even more confusing!