Northern Ireland 2125?

I-m not your mate and I never said the British were "wonderful." Sounds like you have white guilt as well about what white man did to the native populations of America, Asia etc. I agree the Belgians done awful things in the Congo relatively recently when the British were treating the people of Singapore with total respect etc. And Singapore is one of the leading countries in Asia today and the British are thought of there with respect.

When you repeatedly called me "mate" , even though I told you I was not your mate, and yet you called me mate again, I am well entitled to ignore the rest of your rantings, which have seemed quite racist in the past.

I said there was good and bad aspects to imperialism. Some countries had a better experience / beneffited more that others, or suffered less, depending on your point of view. eg compare Singapore with the Congo or Ethiopia.

In India, 2 sides to the story. Same as n. Ireland. A lot of Indian volunteers joined the British Indian Army, 2.5 million. Indian troops made a huge contribution to the war effort, winning 30 Victoria Cross medals for acts of bravery. Would they have done so if they were as anti-British as the author of the book? There are many other Indians who are not anti-British.

Wonder what the relatives of the 2,500,000 men from India who volunteered and fought in British uniforms for the allied war effort, in ww2 think of the rembererance day bombing in Enniskillen? I think they would have been disgusted by it and by posters here who would not condemn it.

Sole purpose? Rubbish. You do not know why all the European countries colonized others. It was for political reasons as well, and ideological reasons of course. eg spread of Christianity.

It was not just to gain control of resources but to establish new markets for their manufactured goods. Countries competed also for greater national prestige and military strength, by securing strategic locations such as naval bases, to protect trade routes and project power.

Was always the case. The Greek, Romans, Arabs all colonized. If you Google it you will find we the Irish even colonized part of Scotland.

Do you suggest de-colonisation and all white man should come back from America, Australia etc? Seems to me like you have white guilt if you are worried about what people did hundreds of years ago, in different times.

There was an even worse famine in India in 1770, with a death toll of 9 to 10 million , long before the UK seized India.

In 1943 the Japanese had rapidly conquered much of Asia and were actively invading Burma towards Bengal. Bengal at the time had got most of its rice from Burma but the Japanese had invaded and occupied Burma. Lots of other reasons too eg a Cyclone and crop failure .

Churchill begged Roosevelt for ships to get food there, but the US did not have any to spare. Food was even rationed in the UK in ww2 it was that scarce. Dark days for the whole world, not just countries at war trying to stop the conflict.

I remember the famime in Ethiopia in the 1980s. When there was not a world war going on or Japanese subs off the coast of Ethiopia. 1,200,000 people still starved to death then, and that was only 40 years ago. Who do you blame for that?

Not my reasoning. Everyone who dies of starvation is very sad. Does not matter if it was one of the 28,000 British who starved or died in Japanese capitity, or the people in the Bengali famine or the people in Ethiopia in the 1980s.

60% of those killed during the troubles were killed by Republicans, but they were all some mothers child. All.murder ( except killings in self defence) are wrong.

You did not answer, who do you blame for the 1.2 million who starved in Ethiopia only 40 years ago? There was no world war going on in the 1980s. Modern communications, no submarines sinking shipping.

In the 26 years between 1921 and Indian Independence in 1947, the Indian population increased by 89 million. Yes, 89,000,000, despite the famine. Was that the fault of the British for giving them too much food, because you seem to blame the British for everything else?

The Ethiopian famine of 1984 was primarily caused by a combination of drought, civil conflict, and bad government. But does that mean everyone else is in the clear? The world let it happen in front of tv crews, in an era when there was no world war, there were plenty of cargo airplanes and ships etc.

As noted before, there were numerous causes for the Bengali famine. Officially India was at war with the Japanese who had invaded much of Asia. 14 million Chinese alone were killed by Japanese aggression. The number of British starved by the Japanese was only a fraction of that. The British did not start WW2 in the far east. If the British were as bad as you say in India, 2.5 million would not have volunteered to fight the Japanese in British army uniforms. And the population of India would not have increased by 89 million in only 26 years. It did not decrease, it increased by 89 million. Nobody is saying the British are or were perfect. Far from it. They made plenty of mistakes. But 2 sides to every story. Not black and white like you claim.

The person in the link below given an honest evaluation on the effect Britain had on his native Singapore. He gives eight positive and six negative aspects of British rule. On balance, he thinks it was 60 per cent good and 40 per cent bad.

He says compared to the other colonial rules of Southeast Asia, the British were the least bad. In spite of all its faults, the British did leave Singapore with positive legacy. 

https://lawgazette.com.sg/feature/the-british-rule-of-singapore-an-evaluation/

He did not say that Singapore is the richest per capita, most successful country in Asia but afaik it is. Long time since I was there and even though I'm Irish, it was obvious the British legacy was well respected. They should know. The British were there until it was captured by the Japanese in 1942. Singaporeans had an brutal time between 1942 and 1945, until they were liberated by the 5th Indian Division and the Japanese surrendered to Mountbatten. I told them not everyone in Ireland agreed with the terrorist murder of Mountbatten and the civilians on his little boat.

Why is it when you lose the argument and cannot refute the facts, you make personal attacks?