Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

I would take issue with this and i would cite the three most recent interventions...Well, as I see it, while the motivations were selfish, the war was prosecuted by one government that had no democratic mandate (that being the government of Mr. Tony Blair), against another government with no democratic mandate. In essence, it was a war of terror against a terrible government, wherein the populace on both sides were the victims of vile oppression. Admittedly the people of Iraq suffered far more. The Americans, whose opinion on the war is naturally divided, cannot be so described, but they were, as they always seem to be, victims of a campaign of disinformation. As it stands, this avenue of reasoning causes many far deeper discussions on the nature of government to arise, which are not relevant to the debate. Afghanistan, as we have discussed, cannot really be commented on yet; for we have only very limited information on the cause of the war, and the nature of our foe.As regards the Libyan conflict, there is no evil involved. The use of air denial tactics is simply an opportunistic move by the North Atlantic Treatise Organisation's constituent governments. I think that it is an act of gross officiousness and entirely barren of better sense and judgement. We know near nothing of the rebels, and have thrown in out lot with them with almost no preparation. To interfere in a civil war may suit the French, but it is not behaviour becoming an Englishman, or an English government, and it quite surprised me. In hindsight, it seems also to be an extremely foolish move, as well as a reckless one; for it now seems that the forces of Gaddafi shall prevail, engendering a political situation far more precarious than the previous one. We certainly will not get our hands on the oil now, at any rate!The bastion of white wealth had very little to do with black slavery, that was merely a product of white wealth or dominance that further contributed to while wealth, as opposed to being the bastion of it.What is written above is exactly the case, sir. This is why reparations serve no purpose, and have no basis.It's pretty clear that whilte dominance was sustained by much more than just black slavery, besides even if what you are asserting is true (and it isn't, at least not in the way you are proposing) the people with the power (in this case white imperialists) would inevitably engineer some means to maintain that wealth/earnings/power/influence/privilege, and would also develop some means to compensate themselves for the loss of wealth/etc. experienced due to the abolishment of slavery, at least in those cases where the aforementioned imperialists relied heavily on the wealth/etc. obtained from the trade.I do not, sir, see how I can possible respond to this. It escapes me why you should contrive to defenestrate the situation that I have described as impossible and ludicrous. the collapse of all British financial and industrial institutions does not logically follow on from the independence of one of its coloniesIf what you have asserted to be the case is true, then I suspect it would have. India being by far the most prosperous colony, its loss would have utterly debilitated the British economy, had the exploitation of resources been its foundation economy. As I have said, it was not. There is no real national economic benefit to rapine exploitation of colonial resources. In fact, as we can observe in the history of Spain, a gratuitous influx of free luxuries, in this case gold, can be disastrous to the empire's prosperity.The wealth of the nation was built upon twin bastions of naval trade and industry. At the time of the empire, n other nation in the sphere of the world could boast the technological and maritime supremacy of Great Britain and the empire would have been but a dream without it. Remember, sir, that Rome was great and prosperous long before Her empire arose.It is an easy thing to say that the theft of resources made it rich, but it is not an easy thing to demonstrate. How exactly were they stolen? What exactly constitutes theft?As it happens, the only resource that seems to fit your parameters is the human being. The slave trade, while quite prevalent, was not a significant buttress of the greater edifice. Britains position as a wealthy developed country today is due in no small part to the colonisation of those countriesAgain, sir, that is not actually demonstrable, or even logical. If anything, the empire was detrimental to the development of Great Britain. The East India Company certainly enjoyed a monopoly over Indian trade, but monopolies suit only the companies that maintain them and raise the cost of living for the greater populace of their indigenous nation. It serves the individual to much, and the general mass too little.It is through competition that most advancement is made, and a period in which a nation has supremacy is ultimately detrimental to its extended development and prosperity. Consider Germany, for example. By 1939 it had achieved technological dominance and could easily have defeated the entire gathered strength of the still prodigious empire, excepting maritime theatres. Today, despite the frustration of its colonial ambitions, Germany is one of the most advanced nations in Europe. how many americans have really benefited from their countries empire I must object to the term, as there is technically no empire. I cannot abide the use of connotation to make a point.Im not blaming anyone, im saying that i understand pakistani or Indian immigrant's feeling some sense of entitlement when they travel to Brtiain given what was done to their lands by their former colonial rulers.As I have previously said, that is ridiculous and as I have above demonstrated, entirely unfounded. What exactly, may I ask, was done?