Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

And I'd respond that it was the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, that got us into WW2.

Of course, but why did the Japanese (or Germans, depending on which history one believes) attack PH?

One thing a colony affords is a "colonial governor", and his staff.  It can be a sinecure to send unwanted nephews.  I'm not saying that's the main reason of course.  But it could be a factor.  Why did France try and retain Algeria for so long?  Not much there, and it came back to bite France.

Places like Egypt I can understand, and Iraq, etc.  But apparently places like the UAE were never colonies, officially, but that was before the black gooey stuff was found.  Why does Qatar even exist?  

The only country in Africa never colonized is Ethiopia.  Italy tried.  Maybe it's a kind of status symbol.

One thing I’ve always wondered, what does colonies give, long term, back to the main country?  I can envision it something like Vietnam. Why were the French there ?  Obviously some places have natural resources or only certain things that can be grown like rubber or tea. But what did France get out of Vietnam?  Prestige?  Labor? Taxes ?  And why did they want to hold onto them so badly ?  Maybe it was something they needed for strategic purposes?  Same goes for the other places like the Philippines or Korea etc.

This was an argument raised in England during the decolonization era.  India was referred to as the "Crown Jewel" and English opponents of Colonialism pointed out that it was an awfully expensive jewel to maintain.  

I think you answered your own question.  Egypt was important to Britain strategically because of the Suez Canal.  Other colonies were strategically important due to rubber plantations and whatnot.  

By the 20th Century most European nations simply lacked the brutality to actually make colonies profitable.  They had banned slavery in the early 19th century (before we did).  Once they weren't using slave labor and they were no longer looting and pillaging the natives, Colonies effectively became VERY expensive status symbols.  

There is also a lot of ideological and bureaucratic inertia involved here.  The British (and other national) colonial offices had existed for a long time and there aren't a lot of cases of large bureaucracies facilitating their own demise.  Similarly, England had been a Colonial power for centuries.  There were a LOT of English leaders who found it difficult to just give that up voluntarily without necessarily knowing why.  

Churchill once made a statement (during his post-war stint as Prime Minister) that he "did not become Her Majesty's first minister to preside over the dissolution of Her Majesty's empire."  This was obviously a statement by him in opposition to de-colonization but the reality was that in effect he HAD become Her Majesty's first minister to preside of the dissolution of Her Majesty's empire.  In the post-war world the English simply didn't have the funds to maintain their Colonial empire so the argument became moot because there wasn't enough money regardless of what the leadership believed *SHOULD* be done.  

I think Belgium profited off the Congo HUGELY.  They were not doing it in a humanitarian kind either.

I think Belgium profited off the Congo HUGELY.  They were not doing it in a humanitarian kind either.

Didn't consider them humans...

Is that a team snapshot of Wyatt,Morgan,Virgil,Doc? Along with the Clanton's & McLaury's before their little disagreement down the street from the ball diamond

One pitch goes high and inside and then everyone's shooting all over the place!