I have my info correct. Karzai made a speech. But he has one more month in office. He can't give a definitive no, as he WON'T BE THERE at the end of the year. So, as I said, there is no current plan to withdraw all troops, and the current proposals are to leave 6 to 10 thousand troops. If Karzai's successor also refuses to sign an agreement, then it will be against America's wishes - so a banner stating that the U.S. should get out of Afghanistan wouldn't be silly, which was the point you made.

You may also want to check the history of empire. Most of Britain's empire came about through economic measures, with force used only where necessary. The U.S. is pursuing similar means to, basically, rule the world.

If America was doing most of the dangerous work, it actually would be new - in the wars of the first half of the 20th century, much of the dying had taken place before they entered, and then only under sufferance. Deaths per capita for the U.S. in WW2, for instance, were lower than the UK, Canada, Lithuania, Latvia, Singapore, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Greece, Germany, Estonia, Romania, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Bulgaria, Australia...

If you mean that when America decides to fight a war, and drag other nations with them, then they do most of the dangerous work, then yes. For example, it was mostly them in Vietnam, mostly them in Iraq, all them in Grenada, all them at the Bay of Pigs. It was also America - though mostly through the CIA - that overthrew democratically elected governments in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Brazil (1964), Chile (1973), supported a genocidal regime in East Timor (though the Brits helped there too), changed any number of regimes it didn't like in other nations, trained and supported death squads in Central and South America... They didn't invade, as Nuremberg made it clear that wars of aggression were crimes against humanity - they simply supported or put in place the most horrendous regimes who would make laws beneficial to the USA, using whatever measures were necessary to suppress opposition.

Britain, to our shame, and against the MASSIVE opposition of our population, has been involved in several of those wars. But most of the other countries involved were pressured into it.

"So now give me list of anywhere that the USA has taken over and held onto other than Mexico "
Well, see the above list of democracies where the government was overthrown by the CIA and replaced with dictatorships, but as I never said they had done this, I'm not sure why you want the list. They don't take them over and hold them, they simply install friendly (unelected) governments. Given the outcry over Iraq and Afghanistan, they did eventually have to install democracies, but then, I don't think they particularly want to stay there anyway, as holding the countries proved nigh impossible.

"you need to remember that America was populated then by incoming Europeans"
Oh, if only I'd known that. Wait. I mentioned it in the very post you're responding to. Wow.
The point being, if we're operating on the principle of getting the British out of Ireland, when some have been here for longer than there have been European settlers in North America, then why does the principle not apply to America too - why are all people of European descent not going home and turning the government and ownership of the land back over to the Native Americans?

And, yes, plenty of early settlers were Irish, Scots, English and Welsh. Is your point then that Britain was an evil empire builder, and I should feel ashamed for this part of my country's past? I do. Don't you? But the point is, while they came from Britain, they are the ancestors of today's Americans of European descent, and they are the ones who continue to hold onto the land.

So, either we say the descendants of all invaders need to give back the land, or we start from where we are, and operate on the principle of self-determination. This is certainly what the Irish people, North and South, agreed to in 1998 - the vast majority of Irish people do not demand that the English / British get out of Ireland. Why do Americans?

Actually, the Celts invaded and expelled or killed the original inhabitants. The Normans who invaded Ireland did so only a couple of generations after they invaded England, and took it from the Anglo-Saxons, who had invaded and taken it from...and so on and so on. The same happened across Europe, with some regions changing hands a dozen times in the same period. The only reason Ireland is a special case is because it is an island, so there is a clearly defined area which is seen as unchangeable.

Incidentally, the Scots were named from the Scotti who were Irish. They invaded the west of Scotland, setting up their own kingdom, then centuries on, some of them came back to the North of Ireland in the plantation. So is it OK that the Scots Irish are here? I mean, it was their land before they left. And should any Scots found to be descended from the Irish be sent back to Ireland?

The idea that the population almost a thousand years ago should decide the status now is insane, as is the idea that Ireland should be all one country simply because it is an island. Do you even know what the borders of France, Belgium etc were 800 years ago? Hint - you'll find it hard to get that information as, like Ireland, the idea of a single united country was only just developing, with most of Europe still only barely emerging from petty kingships and clan areas.

Terence, you may want to check your sources - there is no current plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the current proposals are to leave between 6 and 10 thousand.

There are, of course, other places where the U.S. maintain bases against the wishes of the people there. Of course, the fact that the U.S. itself began as colonies of the British, where land was stolen from the natives, then once it got its independence it proceeded to steal much more land from Mexico should give America pause about demanding that any country give back land to the 'natives.' If the U.K. had followed the U.S. example, they would never give back any territory except when forced to. We ended our empire - America continues to build its one.

As for leaving Ireland, the Irish people spoke in 1998. The vast majority agreed that the decision on the status of Northern Ireland should be decided by the people of Northern Ireland (though, obviously, if we decide on a United Ireland, the people of the Republic also have to agree). Currently, support for this in Northern Ireland is less than 1 in 5, according to reputable polls.

The country has two official names - Ireland and Éire, depending which language it's being discussed in. While Irish is the de jure first language, obviously English is the de facto one, meaning that almost all discussion of the country both within and outside of Ireland should be using the name Ireland, except where translated as Gaeilge (or when the discussion is actually in Irish, which is even rarer).

In 1989, the Irish Supreme Court decided not to enforce extradition warrants referring to the State as anything other than Ireland - including Éire.

There is no island Britain. The island is Great Britain. Britain is a term used to refer to the United Kingdom, often officially (the British Government refers to British passports and many other things British on its website). So, if Scotland leaves, it will be Great British (an adjective which is virtually never used) but not British.

It's the same confusion as over Ireland and Ireland. The country called Ireland (its official name) is what is often referred to as the Republic of Ireland, and is a political entity. The island of Ireland is a geographical entity. So people can be geographically Irish but not politically Irish, just as Canadians are geographically American (of the Americas) but not politically American (meaning from the United States of America, another adjective often used officially by the country itself).

Belfast people get attacked for being Polish? Man, those racists are even more stupid than I thought.

There've been attacks on many minorities for years, and in both nationalist and loyalist "areas". I'm sure that being Catholic doesn't help in loyalists ones.

Yes. Ridiculous woman went and stuck to her election principles, when all those people to the right of the TUV voted her in thinking she was only kidding, and was actually a screaming loyalist. I can see why those people will no longer vote for her, having done so in the past.

Incidentally - these types of services were promised in the 2010 manifesto. So, maybe her promises CAN be believed...like the one about the Union Flag (Designated Days being Alliance party policy long before the last election, and being DUP/UUP and PUP policy too until they did a U-Turn (at least, that's what they said in their submissions to the consultation on the new flag laws at the turn of the century).

"As a result of immigration, identity is constantly being shaped and reshaped by each phase of enrichment. Immigrants should not be asked to simply assimilate into existing culture but rather to integrate into society and in doing so positively enrich the nature of our shared society.
Alliance supports further investment in support services in order to assist this process. This includes resources for English language skills. Alliance believes that the needs of a more diverse population must be taken into account within future planning and policies consistent with equality, human rights and the creation of a shared future. Furthermore, there are areas of life where immigrants are particularly vulnerable due to limited ability to communicate, including accessing medical assistance and within the criminal justice system."

All those words to basically quote Eric Idle in Life Of Brian. All together now. .."Always look on the bright side of life..."

"clinging to the wisdom contained in my book"
This is her AFTER she was "humbled" to see her carrying the book. How full of herself was she before?!?