Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I vote for letters of Marque.

I have a pirate hat and eyepatch ready to go, can I can I can I?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_John_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston is this the guy I take it?

Ah Disraeli...quite easily one of my favorite PMs to ever grace Whitehall. Far better then the Grand Old Man at any rate...

Empchild wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_John_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston is this the guy I take it?

Yes, that's the one.

I just did a quick google for the John Bright quote about Disraeli (which I've always loved), and came across some great old wisecracks. I'm going to go start a new thread with them.

Empchild wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_John_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston is this the guy I take it?

sorry, indeed it is.

I was referencing the Don Pacifico affair, specifically

. Palmerston delivered a famous five-hour speech in which he sought to vindicate not only his claims on the Greek government for Don Pacifico, but his entire administration of foreign affairs. "As the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity, when he could say, Civis Romanus sum [I am a Roman citizen], so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him from injustice and wrong."

aaahhh yes the one that didnt allow the recent canidate who won to actually take power... great system yet again don't have a clue huh.

At least form coherent sentences when you're blatantly talking out your rear and implying another poster doesn't understand a fairly easy to read up on regime.

The point I was trying to make was that the supposed hatred of the Muslim world is supposed to be largely based on suppport of the US for Israel. Israel uses the US as a big brother to help back it up. If the US says to Israel, you're on your own, we'll support you vocally, but if you upset you're neighbours it's down to you to sort out that could take some of the steam out of the anti US protests.

Why are you so involved with Israel? You have strong Irish and Scottish communities as well, but you never applied the same support to those two countries. You had Noraid, but you never gave military support to the forces of the Republic of Ireland? From a historical perspective our actions in Ireland are more brutal and current than supporting a nation that hadn't existed for nearly 2,000 years. When did supporting Israel become so important to the US and why?

What about Tibet and Taiwan? Surely both of those countries deserve the same support as Israel? They want their independance and freedom, why not give them the same support?

Stepping back from Israel won't fix everything, but it could take the wind out of the sails of a lot of people in the Middle East. Most people just want to is live their lives in peace and bring up their families... and I would imagine that applies to a big chunk of the Middle East. Obviously this wouldn't fix all the problems, but at least the west could put their hands up and say "hey, this is nothing to do with us". If they wanted to carry slotting each other then let them... just proves how full of s**t they really are.

Wolfstan wrote:The point I was trying to make was that the supposed hatred of the Muslim world is supposed to be largely based on suppport of the US for Israel. Israel uses the US as a big brother to help back it up. If the US says to Israel, you're on your own, we'll support you vocally, but if you upset you're neighbours it's down to you to sort out that could take some of the steam out of the anti US protests.

Why are you so involved with Israel? You have strong Irish and Scottish communities as well, but you never applied the same support to those two countries. You had Noraid, but you never gave military support to the forces of the Republic of Ireland? From a historical perspective our actions in Ireland are more brutal and current than supporting a nation that hadn't existed for nearly 2,000 years. When did supporting Israel become so important to the US and why?

What about Tibet and Taiwan? Surely both of those countries deserve the same support as Israel? They want their independance and freedom, why not give them the same support?

Stepping back from Israel won't fix everything, but it could take the wind out of the sails of a lot of people in the Middle East. Most people just want to is live their lives in peace and bring up their families... and I would imagine that applies to a big chunk of the Middle East. Obviously this wouldn't fix all the problems, but at least the west could put their hands up and say "hey, this is nothing to do with us". If they wanted to carry slotting each other then let them... just proves how full of s**t they really are.

As noted with the above, the legionaires there warned Dadman to not be away from base except in groups because his eye color alone would make him a target. That was long before the US supported Israel (technically about the time Israel was formed several thousand miles away).

ShumaGorath wrote:

At least form coherent sentences when you're blatantly talking out your rear and implying another poster doesn't understand a fairly easy to read up on regime.

Stop wasting your parents money. Drop out of college, work at a mcdonalds, and take your own advice.

As for the Isreal the U.S's role is the same as it is with Taiwan in the fact that we do sell arms to both of those country. The isreali's are more then capable to take care of themselves militarily as they have shown countless times over.

From a historical perspective our actions in Ireland are more brutal and current than supporting a nation that hadn't existed for nearly 2,000 years.

Not really old chum. Not really. Belfast looks nothing like Ramallah.


Anyway like I said earlier, moves are no doubt being made behind the scenes - the Iranians will have been 'told' in no uncertain terms, and the blokes will be home soon.
I think it's no coincidence that increasing tension in our relationship with Iran comes at a time when America and the UK are talking 'timetables for withdrawal' and trying to persuade other nations to up their troop commitments in Afghanistan. It's like we're freeing up personel - I think the UK gov't is and has been for some time anticipating conflict with Iran. How else can a country with the 3rd (or 4th, depending on where you get your figures from) highest defence budget in the world be only committing 500 extra troops and experiencing equiptment and vehicle shortages in Afghanistan? I don't think we're anywhere near fully committed. Military people I know (including mattyrm) have been talking up the the likelihood of war with Iran for about 5-6 years.

Food for thought.

Comparative defence budgets go up and down depending on the fluctuation of foreign exchange rates.

The reason why the UK has trouble supporting a few thousand troops in Ganners is that we spend immense amounts of money on very expensive, high-tech systems like the Eurofighter, new destroyers and aircraft carriers, which are nearly useless, and not enough on basic equipment needed everyday.

I was actually ashamed when Brown announced 500 more troops are going to Ganners. 500 people got on the same tube train as me this morning FFS.

Wolfstan wrote:The point I was trying to make was that the supposed hatred of the Muslim world is supposed to be largely based on suppport of the US for Israel.

It isn't so much US support for Israel, as the it is the fact that Israel exists. Insofar as the Middle East is concerned Israel is nothing more than a physical manifestation of Western Imperialism (the US is just the head of the pack in this regard), which so happens to be populated almost entirely by Jews (who are not regarded well in the region), and tends to conduct itself with a great deal of hostility (both deservedly, and undeservedly).

Wolfstan wrote:
Israel uses the US as a big brother to help back it up. If the US says to Israel, you're on your own, we'll support you vocally, but if you upset you're neighbours it's down to you to sort out that could take some of the steam out of the anti US protests.

It might, yes. However, I think anti-Western, and by extension anti-US, resentment will only dry up once anti-Israeli resentment does. And that probably won't happen until either the Jews are "driven into the sea", or the Palestinian conflict is resolved.

Wolfstan wrote:
Why are you so involved with Israel? You have strong Irish and Scottish communities as well, but you never applied the same support to those two countries.

Powerful Jewish lobby, strong ideological connection to the Reagan Revolution (and thereby the last 30 years of American foreign policy), and camaraderie left over from the regional struggle during the Cold War.

Wolfstan wrote:
What about Tibet and Taiwan? Surely both of those countries deserve the same support as Israel? They want their independance and freedom, why not give them the same support?

Politically inconvenient considering the global distribution of forces; otherwise known as we have a relationship of mutual dependency with China.

All that said, I'm definitely in the "No unconditional support for Israel" camp.

Frazzled wrote:
As noted with the above, the legionaires there warned Dadman to not be away from base except in groups because his eye color alone would make him a target. That was long before the US supported Israel (technically about the time Israel was formed several thousand miles away).

As in any impoverished region with low standards of education: racism, among other primal cultural forces, is quite prevalent in the Middle East.

Wolfstan wrote:The point I was trying to make was that the supposed hatred of the Muslim world is supposed to be largely based on suppport of the US for Israel. Israel uses the US as a big brother to help back it up. If the US says to Israel, you're on your own, we'll support you vocally, but if you upset you're neighbours it's down to you to sort out that could take some of the steam out of the anti US protests.

Why are you so involved with Israel? You have strong Irish and Scottish communities as well, but you never applied the same support to those two countries. You had Noraid, but you never gave military support to the forces of the Republic of Ireland? From a historical perspective our actions in Ireland are more brutal and current than supporting a nation that hadn't existed for nearly 2,000 years. When did supporting Israel become so important to the US and why?

What about Tibet and Taiwan? Surely both of those countries deserve the same support as Israel? They want their independance and freedom, why not give them the same support?

Stepping back from Israel won't fix everything, but it could take the wind out of the sails of a lot of people in the Middle East. Most people just want to is live their lives in peace and bring up their families... and I would imagine that applies to a big chunk of the Middle East. Obviously this wouldn't fix all the problems, but at least the west could put their hands up and say "hey, this is nothing to do with us". If they wanted to carry slotting each other then let them... just proves how full of s**t they really are.

Wolfstan, you clearly are slightly ignorant as to the history surrounding the founding of the sate of Israel. Allow me to fill in a bit of detail for you as to why that's hardly a viable option.

In the early 19th century, a group of influential Jews in the Uk began requesting the Foreign office to give a section of the Middle Eadt over to the Jews so they could have somewhere to live. With one thing and another, this was never approved. After World War 2, all the Jews pulled out of concentration camps were stranded. They'd been moved to camps in Cyprus, which in humanitarian terms, weren't that much better than the ones they'd occupied previously. No-one knew what to do with them. The Jews that returned home to Europe were butchered in pogroms across Poland, France and Eastern Europe. The States didn't want the, the British didn't want them, and neither did anyone else. The plan to resettle the Jews in the Middle-East was raised again, but the British opposed the idea. Just to hack the British off, the French decided this was desirable, and the States and many other nations sided with them. Hence Israel was born.

When the British pulled out of Israel, and left them to their own devices, half the Arabic world declared war on them. This was to be a regular occurrence over the next thirty years. Through American support, some amazing displays of tactical and strategical brilliance, and immense luck, the Israeli's have survived. But if you withdrew all support, how long they'd last is a matter of debate. The fact is, they're outnumbered fifty to one militarily by the various countries in the Middle East. Whilst they're not as dependant as they once were on American support, is it really right to withdraw support now when we were the ones who put them all there in the first place?

One fo the reasons the US in paticular is so involved with Israel is because it was the only area within the American sphere of influence in the Middle East during the cold war. The US gave their latest toys to the Israeli's, and the Soviets pumped their latest arms to the Arabs, and they got to see their new toys trialed in the field against each other via proxies. Not only that, but Israel is one of the (if not the most) democratic and stable nation in that region of the world.

The reason the Israeli's 'upset their neighbours' as you put it, is because everyone from Saddam used to, and still has it in for them, even if they're a bit more polite about it several military defeats later. If they show a hint of weakness, the state of Israel would be overrun, and cease to exist. If Iran gets a nuke, you know who it's first target will be? Not America. Israel. Isn't it understandable they're a bit more inclined to action, when they're the first ones on the hit list? The Israeli's have no desire to go 'slotting one another', they just want to have a secure nation without having missiles lobbed at them every ten minutes, something that all of us Westerners take for granted.

The West could put their hands up and say it had nothing to do with them, but it would be a lie, as the only reason Israel exists today is because of them. As such, they have a vested responsibility in the continued wellbeing of that state.

Ketara wrote:
The West could put their hands up and say it had nothing to do with them, but it would be a lie, as the only reason Israel exists today is because of them. As such, they have a vested responsibility in the continued wellbeing of that state.

It isn't quite that simple. The West may have founded Israel, but as soon as it became a sovereign nation the Israeli people became responsible for their own affairs. A certain degree of support is understandable, but there is no reason that support should contravene the interests of any particular Western nation. Indeed, for any state to act in that fashion goes directly against the primary responsibility of any republican government, which is the preservation of it's own people's well being.

Empchild wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

At least form coherent sentences when you're blatantly talking out your rear and implying another poster doesn't understand a fairly easy to read up on regime.

Stop wasting your parents money. Drop out of college, work at a mcdonalds, and take your own advice.

You sir, are a poet.

Radio 4 reports the sailors have been released.

Ketara wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:The point I was trying to make was that the supposed hatred of the Muslim world is supposed to be largely based on suppport of the US for Israel. Israel uses the US as a big brother to help back it up. If the US says to Israel, you're on your own, we'll support you vocally, but if you upset you're neighbours it's down to you to sort out that could take some of the steam out of the anti US protests.

Why are you so involved with Israel? You have strong Irish and Scottish communities as well, but you never applied the same support to those two countries. You had Noraid, but you never gave military support to the forces of the Republic of Ireland? From a historical perspective our actions in Ireland are more brutal and current than supporting a nation that hadn't existed for nearly 2,000 years. When did supporting Israel become so important to the US and why?

What about Tibet and Taiwan? Surely both of those countries deserve the same support as Israel? They want their independance and freedom, why not give them the same support?

Stepping back from Israel won't fix everything, but it could take the wind out of the sails of a lot of people in the Middle East. Most people just want to is live their lives in peace and bring up their families... and I would imagine that applies to a big chunk of the Middle East. Obviously this wouldn't fix all the problems, but at least the west could put their hands up and say "hey, this is nothing to do with us". If they wanted to carry slotting each other then let them... just proves how full of s**t they really are.

Wolfstan, you clearly are slightly ignorant as to the history surrounding the founding of the sate of Israel. Allow me to fill in a bit of detail for you as to why that's hardly a viable option.

In the early 19th century, a group of influential Jews in the Uk began requesting the Foreign office to give a section of the Middle Eadt over to the Jews so they could have somewhere to live. With one thing and another, this was never approved. After World War 2, all the Jews pulled out of concentration camps were stranded. They'd been moved to camps in Cyprus, which in humanitarian terms, weren't that much better than the ones they'd occupied previously. No-one knew what to do with them. The Jews that returned home to Europe were butchered in pogroms across Poland, France and Eastern Europe. The States didn't want the, the British didn't want them, and neither did anyone else. The plan to resettle the Jews in the Middle-East was raised again, but the British opposed the idea. Just to hack the British off, the French decided this was desirable, and the States and many other nations sided with them. Hence Israel was born.

When the British pulled out of Israel, and left them to their own devices, half the Arabic world declared war on them. This was to be a regular occurrence over the next thirty years. Through American support, some amazing displays of tactical and strategical brilliance, and immense luck, the Israeli's have survived. But if you withdrew all support, how long they'd last is a matter of debate. The fact is, they're outnumbered fifty to one militarily by the various countries in the Middle East. Whilst they're not as dependant as they once were on American support, is it really right to withdraw support now when we were the ones who put them all there in the first place?

One fo the reasons the US in paticular is so involved with Israel is because it was the only area within the American sphere of influence in the Middle East during the cold war. The US gave their latest toys to the Israeli's, and the Soviets pumped their latest arms to the Arabs, and they got to see their new toys trialed in the field against each other via proxies. Not only that, but Israel is one of the (if not the most) democratic and stable nation in that region of the world.

The reason the Israeli's 'upset their neighbours' as you put it, is because everyone from Saddam used to, and still has it in for them, even if they're a bit more polite about it several military defeats later. If they show a hint of weakness, the state of Israel would be overrun, and cease to exist. If Iran gets a nuke, you know who it's first target will be? Not America. Israel. Isn't it understandable they're a bit more inclined to action, when they're the first ones on the hit list? The Israeli's have no desire to go 'slotting one another', they just want to have a secure nation without having missiles lobbed at them every ten minutes, something that all of us Westerners take for granted.

The West could put their hands up and say it had nothing to do with them, but it would be a lie, as the only reason Israel exists today is because of them. As such, they have a vested responsibility in the continued wellbeing of that state.

I realise that my comments were somewhat simplistic and brutal in content, but it dosen't change the fact that Israel's existance is artificial to a degree. There are plenty of other populations around the world fighting for a homeland, but the US feels that they are the ones they have to give all their support to. I also know the reason why, as mentioned, there is a large influential Jewish population in the US that makes sure that this happens. It's very odd that we expect Muslim immigrants to put their new adopted home first and to fit in. Seems a bit one sided to me, especially as the US is founded on such enlightened principles.

Kilkrazy wrote:Radio 4 reports the sailors have been released.

No way, those fanatics would never do that!

Yea, that's pretty rough for them. I'm betting with this in the light they get released considerably faster. Iran doesn't have a particularly effective media clampdown, and once the reality sets in a bit it will no longer be politically advantageous for them to hold the sailors. They'll just look like dicks to their own peopl

Swish. Nothing but net.

Well, if CNN reported it I sure as hell wouldn't believe it.

Not sure about Radio 4 so I guess I can believe it.

CNN isn't usually inaccurate in a factual sense. No news agency is. More often its the decision to include certain facts as relevant, while excluding others as irrelevant, which will color a story. This is far more true of domestic politics than international.

I dislike in Iran that their religious leader can untie president of their power.Religion and state should not be joined.

Clarification:

Radio 4 reported that they have received reports from the Iranian new agency that the sailors have been released.

They are trying to get confirmation from their own correspondent in Iran.

British Yachtsman freed.

See? No sabre-rattling needed, just a 'quiet word' in the ear. That's why I'm proud to be British. This could have gone tits-up very easily, but it's been resolved without bloodshed and in relatively short order.

..and therefore, this thread is heading to locksville...

..right after the 12,345th reminder about the whole personal attacks thing. Yes it can be frustrating when another person doesn't agree or understand with one's arguments, but please don't stoop to attacking the poster rather than the content of the post itself. If in doubt... don't post.