Why is Great Britain so unimportant on world stage?

[Technics 1210]

It was not sanctioned by the UN itself so I do not know why you would single out the UK. Russia also opposed it. Are they unimportant too?

You are wrong. The UN had a voice but was ignored by the USA. Look it up.

Why am I singling out the UK? Have you read the thread title?

You are odd.

 

[The_Odd_One]

You are wrong. The UN had a voice but was ignored by the USA. Look it up.

Why am I singling out the UK? Have you read the thread title?

You are odd.

Still does not make any sense why would you use it as an example against the UK only when the US did not even bother listening to the UN itself. Just because UK has less say than the US does not make them unimportant.

 

[Technics 1210]

Still does not make any sense why would you use it as an example against the UK only when the US did not even bother listening to the UN itself. Just because UK has less say than the US does not make them unimportant.

YOU are the one who stated the UK is on the Permanent UN security council as some indication of UK influence, and I just demonstrated how such a seat is neither a sign of power nor influence!

If this doesn't make sense, then question your own thinking!

 

[The_Odd_One]

YOU are the one who stated the UK is on the Permanent UN security council as some indication of UK influence, and I just demonstrated how such a seat is neither a sign of power not influence!

Ok, I get it. Being on the UN security council is no big deal and that is why both India and Pakistan do not have permanent membership despite begging for it for decades.

 

[Technics 1210]

Ok, I get it. Being on the UN security council is no big deal and that is why both India and Pakistan do not have permanent membership despite begging for it for decades.

LOL WHAT? You are now moving to some next tangent.

Until you provide examples of UK leadership in the world post 1947, I shall not respond to your insecurities.

 

[The_Odd_One]

LOL WHAT? You are now moving to some next tangent.

Until you provide examples of UK leadership in the world post 1947, I shall not respond to your insecurities.

You fail to understand a simple concept that US is the world power now and the UK has mostly played second fiddle to the US. However, it does not make UK an unimportant country in the world. So, instead of asking the same question repeatedly, you should perhaps ponder upon your faulty line of thought and for once think logically that how a country with the following attributes can be irrelevant.

Member of the UN security council
Member of NATO
5th largest spender on military which is ranked higher than Pakistan
The queen still rules over countries like Australia
British scientists and other personalities having a deep influence on world
2nd busiest airport in the world

 

[Technics 1210]

You fail to understand a simple concept that US is the world power now and the UK has mostly played second fiddle to the US. However, it does not make UK an unimportant country in the world. So, instead of asking the same question repeatedly, you should perhaps ponder upon your faulty line of thought and for once think logically that how a country with the following attributes can be irrelevant.

Member of the UN security council
Member of NATO
5th largest spender on military which is ranked higher than Pakistan
The queen still rules over countries like Australia
British scientists and other personalities having a deep influence on world
2nd busiest airport in the world

The bold is just a classic sign of importance! Not only is it a joke, but a bad one at that. Heathrow doesn't even make it into the top 5 busiest airports.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...passenger_traffic#Preliminary_2018_statistics

For those who are interested in facts, Bejing Airport is the 2nd busiest in the world

It's clear who needs to ponder, and needs to do their homework.

Also notice how the fallen mention Pakistan again. He will come back and ask who mentioned Pakistan! LOL!

 

[The_Odd_One]

The bold is just a classic sign of importance! Not only is it a joke, but a bad one at that. Heathrow doesn't even make it into the top 5 busiest airports.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...passenger_traffic#Preliminary_2018_statistics

For those who are interested in facts, Bejing Airport is the 2nd busiest in the world

It's clear who needs to ponder, and needs to do their homework.

Also notice how the fallen mention Pakistan again. He will come back and ask who mentioned Pakistan! LOL!

You have shot yourself in the foot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport

Heathrow is the second busiest airport in the world by international passenger traffic, as well as the busiest airport in Europe by passenger traffic, and the seventh busiest airport in the world by total passenger traffic.

Clearly, local Chinese traffic at the Beijing airport makes it more important than higher international traffic in London, right?

 

[Technics 1210]

You have shot yourself in the foot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport

Clearly, local Chinese traffic at the Beijing airport makes it more important than higher international traffic in London, right?

Oh my god.

You mentioned Heathrow is the 2nd Busiest Airport in the world. Your words! Where did you mention International?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...passenger_traffic#Preliminary_2018_statistics

Read the link. You are still wrong. Passenger wise, Heathrow is not in the top 5.

Now you are changing your tune again, and somehow try to cover your ignorance by claiming international traffic is more important, despite this nonsense not being relevant!

I am surprised you have not mentioned India and it's booming airport industry, yet! One can hope. LOL!

Where's the ignore feature?

 

[Technics 1210]

The 10 busiest airports in the world

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...worlds-busiest-airports-things-to-do-layover/

Guess where Heathrow is? Number 7!

 

[The_Odd_One]

Oh my god.

You mentioned Heathrow is the 2nd Busiest Airport in the world. Your words! Where did you mention International?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...passenger_traffic#Preliminary_2018_statistics

Read the link. You are still wrong. Passenger wise, Heathrow is not in the top 5.

Now you are changing your tune again, and somehow try to cover your ignorance by claiming international traffic is more important, despite this nonsense not being relevant!

I am surprised you have not mentioned India and it's booming airport industry, yet! One can hope. LOL!

Where's the ignore feature?

I do not need stats from Wikipedia to prove how important and busy is the Heathrow when common sense tells me that its geographical location ensures far more international traffic then let's say Beijing.

 

[Technics 1210]

I do not need stats from Wikipedia to prove how important and busy is the Heathrow when common sense tells me that its geographical location ensures far more international traffic then let's say Beijing.

Yet you cited a Wiki link to support your claim!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport

Post 88!

You do not even realise what you are posting!

Please stop!

 

[The_Odd_One]

Yet you cited a Wiki link to support your claim!



Post 88!

You do not even realise what you are posting!

Please stop!

I was forced to pull up Wikipedia to expose your false stats after you kept posting Wikipedia links. You need to use some common sense, ask anyone randomly here on PP, at least 6 out of 10 people may have used the Heathrow but not even 2 may have been to the Beijing airport.

 

[Technics 1210]

I was forced to pull up Wikipedia to expose your false stats after you kept posting Wikipedia links. You need to use some common sense, ask anyone randomly here on PP, at least 6 out of 10 people may have used the Heathrow but not even 2 may have been to the Beijing airport.

So you now concede you did use Wiki. This is just to easy.

My links are there for everyone to read. You call the stats false, why not call the stats gloomy? Or better still, change your claim midway!

It's been a barrel of laughs with you.

As someone else said, you really need to do your homework!

Good night!

 

[gazza619]

That's a silly question because you want to compare progress in early 1700s with late 1900s which does not make any sense.

Comparing a 1000 year old giant to a 70 year old toddler makes perfect sense in your book, doesnt it?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Americans also made the movie on Gandhi which went on to win the Oscar.

Anyways this logic would hold any water if British are the only “visible” people in America. But fact remains they recruit the best talents from all over the world; one of the main reasons for their world dominance.

They are far from being made of just British/ Irish.

Correction: Gandhi was British- Indian production but was a hit in North America; winning several prominent awards.

Americans appreciate “quality” regardless of subject matter or who made it or acted in it.

I don't know if my point went over your head or you just deliberately ignored it. I specifically mentioned the heroic roles that British stars play in American entertainment, where they idolise characters such as James Bond, Churchill, Rick Grimes from the walking dead, the entire cast of the greatest TV series ever made, Game of Thrones ( which was itself based on civil war in the British Isles).

Indian film stars don't get offered anything more than the odd terrorist role, that is how they are viewed, other than that there might be a nod to some spicy food and call centre pests. Let me remind you that it was your own kind who were whining about these negative depictions which led to the Simpsons producers to quietly retire Apu, the popular Indian store owner.

 

[Chrish]

I don't know if my point went over your head or you just deliberately ignored it. I specifically mentioned the heroic roles that British stars play in American entertainment, where they idolise characters such as James Bond, Churchill, Rick Grimes from the walking dead, the entire cast of the greatest TV series ever made, Game of Thrones ( which was itself based on civil war in the British Isles).

Indian film stars don't get offered anything more than the odd terrorist role, that is how they are viewed, other than that there might be a nod to some spicy food and call centre pests. Let me remind you that it was your own kind who were whining about these negative depictions which led to the Simpsons producers to quietly retire Apu, the popular Indian store owner.

Our definition of success and fame vastly differs. You consider entertainment as the hallmark of fame; while I consider intellectualism and monetary success also as a part of success.

I think it's cultural. Overseas Pakistanis have done well in the entertainment/ sports industry but not so much as far as producing scientists, intellectuals or rich businessmen goes. And you are viewing other non-Pakistanis in the same light.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Our definition of success and fame vastly differs. You consider entertainment as the hallmark of fame; while I consider intellectualism and monetary success also as a part of success.

I think it's cultural. Overseas Pakistanis have done well in the entertainment/ sports industry but not so much as far as producing scientists, intellectuals or rich businessmen goes. And you are viewing other non-Pakistanis in the same light.

Intellectual and monetary success are certainly important, but unless the community is actually recognised as such, then it is relatively worthless other than at an individual level. Entertainment shows are a great benchmark as they are a mirror of how the rest of the country sees each community.

As I said, Americans flock to watch shows such as James Bond and Game of Thrones with heroic British characters to satisfy audience expectation. Indian depiction is usually along the lines of "Thank you, come again!" Apu from the Simpsons, and the greasy Indian nerd in The Big Bang Theory.

 

[Robert]

Where's the ignore feature?

Members > Profile > My Settings.

 

[jewel1985]

In these modern times with current global economic system, there is only so much power and influence a country of 60 million can have.

Pound for pound we are still pretty influencial, moreso than any other country of equal size, but obviously nowhere near what we were during the age of Empires. And that goes for all the other major colonial powers like France, Spain, Holland etc too.

When you think about it, there is really only 2 or 3 countries with any sort of clout on the global stage. The rest are simply bit-part players.

 

[jewel1985]

Comparing a 1000 year old giant to a 70 year old toddler makes perfect sense in your book, doesnt it?

You're comparing apples to oranges.

A country doesn't just appear out of thin air 70 years ago or whatever length of time. You may have got your nationhood 70 years ago, but your region, your people and culture existed way before then, so why have you not progressed anywhere near as much?

 

[mustang]

Intellectual and monetary success are certainly important, but unless the community is actually recognised as such, then it is relatively worthless other than at an individual level. Entertainment shows are a great benchmark as they are a mirror of how the rest of the country sees each community.

As I said, Americans flock to watch shows such as James Bond and Game of Thrones with heroic British characters to satisfy audience expectation. Indian depiction is usually along the lines of "Thank you, come again!" Apu from the Simpsons, and the greasy Indian nerd in The Big Bang Theory.

Not sure why you would resort to comparing Indians and Brits when the thread is clearly about British prominence in the world. This only leads to someone stepping it further and comparing Indians and Pakistanis in the US which is a clear digression. Perhaps you were only responding to the other poster? I understand if so. Also interesting to see your selective bias here - you mention the nerdy big bang theory character as a "talking down" point but conveniently fail to mention the nerdy Silicon Valley character - is it because the Silicon Valley character is played by a Pakistani?

Bond movies - I can assure you that many contemporary Americans prefer movies like the Bourne series hands down over the James Bond movies. Bond movies were on the high in 60s/70s and maybe 80s. They started waning down from relative popularity then on. Now, they seem ludicrous and out of touch with global reality. British crown and it's eclectic spy has worldwide license to kill and is kow-towed by all other international agencies .... seriously?

I think some British people realize they are not a global power anymore while interestingly some still hold on to a fantasy that they are at the center of the world. Wish y'all could experience interactions with mainstream America - UK is a very minor after thought and that too not all the time. With a possibility of a hard Brexit, London risks losing financial firms to some other continental European city and with it UK will lose even more of its relevance.

We like all talent - be it British or Aussie (Gibson, Keith Urban ...) or Arab or Chinese. I would be curious to see if British or any European entertainment industry has as much of a diversity in talent as we do.

Game of Thrones - I love GoT too ... can't wait for final season to finish so I can binge watch from season 1 to end. Curious now ... which do y'all rate as better - GoT or Breaking Bad?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Not sure why you would resort to comparing Indians and Brits when the thread is clearly about British prominence in the world. This only leads to someone stepping it further and comparing Indians and Pakistanis in the US which is a clear digression. Perhaps you were only responding to the other poster? I understand if so. Also interesting to see your selective bias here - you mention the nerdy big bang theory character as a "talking down" point but conveniently fail to mention the nerdy Silicon Valley character - is it because the Silicon Valley character is played by a Pakistani?

Bond movies - I can assure you that many contemporary Americans prefer movies like the Bourne series hands down over the James Bond movies. Bond movies were on the high in 60s/70s and maybe 80s. They started waning down from relative popularity then on. Now, they seem ludicrous and out of touch with global reality. British crown and it's eclectic spy has worldwide license to kill and is kow-towed by all other international agencies .... seriously?

I think some British people realize they are not a global power anymore while interestingly some still hold on to a fantasy that they are at the center of the world. Wish y'all could experience interactions with mainstream America - UK is a very minor after thought and that too not all the time. With a possibility of a hard Brexit, London risks losing financial firms to some other continental European city and with it UK will lose even more of its relevance.

We like all talent - be it British or Aussie (Gibson, Keith Urban ...) or Arab or Chinese. I would be curious to see if British or any European entertainment industry has as much of a diversity in talent as we do.

Game of Thrones - I love GoT too ... can't wait for final season to finish so I can binge watch from season 1 to end. Curious now ... which do y'all rate as better - GoT or Breaking Bad?

It wasn't me who initiated the comparison of Indians with Britons, if you read through the thread sequentially you will see it was an Indian member who first referred to Indians being the highest earners in America of all the ethnic groups, perhaps we should ask why that was relevant in a thread about British importance in the world?

Truth be told I had no idea who the Big Bang Theory nerd was other than he was an Indian character, I don't watch the show. A quick check on google does confirm that he is in fact Indian and not Pakistani as you say. A British Indian at that.

I prefer Breaking Bad over GOT for what it's worth, there are some pretty good threads on here about tv shows, you should check them out if you feel like a break from the usual Indo-Pak handbag fights.

 

[Pete Rose]

Whatever man, I love London.