faux news

[777 fixer]

   

I guess it depends on ones vantage point. Giving up the monarchy may have shrunk the empire but it worked out better for the commoners in the long run.

 
The shrinking of the British Empire had more to do with being a colonial power than anything.

 

[delldude]

And what about over extending ones reach and being able to pay for it?

 

[777 fixer]

And what about over extending ones reach and being able to pay for it?

 
Like invading Iraq?

 

[delldude]

 
Like invading Iraq?

 
PTBS?

 

[Ifly2]

And what about over extending ones reach and being able to pay for it?

Issue for every colonial empire ever, long before any "government" provided any sort of social services

Correlation does not imply causation

Petey's gone off on another Rush-like excursion into absurdity

Y'all know that the material is deliberately aimed at a sixth grade reading and comprehension level, and then creatively written/scripted to "sound" intelligent and feed the Target Audiences' Confirmation Bias, don't you?

 

[777 fixer]

And what about over extending ones reach and being able to pay for it?

 
Fighting two world wars within a twenty five year time span is what bleed the British Empire dry.  Although in the end the result would have been the same.

 

[Ifly2]

The British Empire was already being bled dry fighting Napoleon and the fest of the world in the 18 th Century, and neither it nor colonialism ever recovered.

Why do you think a ragtag militia led by an amateur was able to win a war against the world's mightiest then-existent empire?

Yes, there was the decisive and vital help of the cowardly (so the current ignorant right image says...) French.