Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on December 09, 2006, 11:35:43 pm
-
http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/06/12/10/0151206.shtml
What do you expect when you try and cooperate with the US?
-
What do you expect when you try and cooperate with the US?
invasion?
-
invasion?
What could POSSIBLY make you think that we'd try to get back at you for 169 years (1607-1776) of occupation? :drevil:
-
Wait, I thought we were getting back at them for Elton John.
-
The UK is stupid for spending so much money on the JSF anyway. They should instead have pumped it into the Eurofighter and brought it up to par with the JSF (stealth, avionics, carrier capable etc). This just goes to show who really wears the pants in the "special relationship" between the US and UK. If they're not willing to hand over the source code to their closest allies, other nations better start wondering whether whatever they get will be just scraps from Uncle Sam's table.
-
Wait, I thought we were getting back at them for Elton John.
Well yeah, him and Mick Jagger.
-
eh... this is stupid, we have nothing to gain from this and a ****load to lose.
-
It was just a concern of security, really. I think this is being seen in the wrong light. Considering the chinese stole the Agaeis system using a subcontractor, I wouldn't be suprised the DoD would be hesitant about sharing likly a advanced piece of Software for the JSF. I don't blaming for them acting this way, although, it is slightly embarrising as they had to rely on Bush and Blair to work it out.
-
If the US can't even trust it's own allies with anything, then why are they allies?
-
Hence the slightly embarrising comment. But I think this is more a result of overzealous security concerns than outright distrust. I don't think their position is that the British are going to hand over plans and software to the chinese. Their concern is that it might be accidentally leaked or stolen.
-
The UK is stupid for spending so much money on the JSF anyway. They should instead have pumped it into the Eurofighter and brought it up to par with the JSF (stealth, avionics, carrier capable etc). This just goes to show who really wears the pants in the "special relationship" between the US and UK. If they're not willing to hand over the source code to their closest allies, other nations better start wondering whether whatever they get will be just scraps from Uncle Sam's table.
Well keep in mind that there has been a long standing relationship between the US and Britain as far as military aircraft goes. I would be hesitant to throw away that relationship. However, from this, although not intentional, we see the US doesn't seem to care about this. But keep in mind that this relationship has existed since the Battle for Britain.
-
The UK is stupid for spending so much money on the JSF anyway. They should instead have pumped it into the Eurofighter and brought it up to par with the JSF (stealth, avionics, carrier capable etc).
First of all, the F-35 and the Typhoon are completely different planes: the F-35 is a multi-role aircraft like the F-16, the Typhoon is an air superiority fighter, like the F-22 and the F-15. The F-35 is not stealth, is a "low observability" airplane, exactly like the Typhoon. They are much similar in avionic, the only advantage of the F-35 is that the pilot wears an helmet with a screen that enable to see outside of the airplane. And the Typhoon will never be carrier-borne: it has been a miracle that 4 nations developed a plane like a Typhoon, this miracle will not be repeated for a carrier-borne version (also because of the 4 developing nations, UK, Spain and Italy have carriers that can be used only by helicopters and V/STOL aircraft like the Harrier and the F-35, and Germany doesn't have carriers at all. Only carriers like American and French ones could use a naval Typhoon). Only France had been able to develop a naval Typhoon: the Rafale, that is based on the Typhoon (France was part of the EFA team, but abandoned it to develop the Rafale).
-
not to mention you don't just fund in stealth
you could not take an aeroplane that was not designed to be low observable\stealth and just throw money at it and make it stealth\low observable without a redesign of the whole skin and other elements, stealth and low observability are design doctrines that have to be integrated from the very beginning, it's not "we'l design the plane then you put the stealth on it later"
there is a reason the f-117 looks so unusual and has such unstable flight characteristics, there is also a reason it has such an incredibly small radar profile <well, several really> there is a reason the f-16 has such a large radar signature and flys in the manner it does, design doctrine
and I know RADAR, I'm just to lazy to caps it every time, same as LASER, which no one bothers to cap out anymore....
-
The UK is stupid for spending so much money on the JSF anyway. They should instead have pumped it into the Eurofighter and brought it up to par with the JSF (stealth, avionics, carrier capable etc).
First of all, the F-35 and the Typhoon are completely different planes: the F-35 is a multi-role aircraft like the F-16, the Typhoon is an air superiority fighter, like the F-22 and the F-15. The F-35 is not stealth, is a "low observability" airplane, exactly like the Typhoon. They are much similar in avionic, the only advantage of the F-35 is that the pilot wears an helmet with a screen that enable to see outside of the airplane. And the Typhoon will never be carrier-borne: it has been a miracle that 4 nations developed a plane like a Typhoon, this miracle will not be repeated for a carrier-borne version (also because of the 4 developing nations, UK, Spain and Italy have carriers that can be used only by helicopters and V/STOL aircraft like the Harrier and the F-35, and Germany doesn't have carriers at all. Only carriers like American and French ones could use a naval Typhoon). Only France had been able to develop a naval Typhoon: the Rafale, that is based on the Typhoon (France was part of the EFA team, but abandoned it to develop the Rafale).
"Never ask Darth DySkO something related to airplanes... It's asking for troubles..." - Admiral Edivad
-
Britian should have just gotten Mig29s, possibily in kit form to keep BAe bods busy, rather than all this collaberation nonsense.
-
there is a reason the f-16 has such a large radar signature and flys in the manner it does, design doctrine
IIRC, the F-16 has a lower radar signature than most fighters due to its blended wing design (only when not carrying weapons), but probably I'm wrong... I can't find the article where I read it.
Britian should have just gotten Mig29s, possibily in kit form to keep BAe bods busy, rather than all this collaberation nonsense.
I've read that refitting an airplane which uses meters, kph, liters and kilograms to use feet, knots, gallons and pounds may have the same cost as building a totally new airplane, not talking about weapon compatibility. But again, I may be wrong.
-
Britian should have just gotten Mig29s, possibily in kit form to keep BAe bods busy, rather than all this collaberation nonsense.
Even at the cost of millions that would be worth it for the look on the American's faces :D
-
the us doesnt want to share the code simply because they dont want other coutrys to find the kill switch they placed there :D
-
I've never understood why Britain, Russia and China don't just go "Y'know what? **** the US. Let's just incinerate them all...."
-
Do you know how hard it is to find a phone line to activate the product at 27,000 ft anyway? :p
-
there is a reason the f-117 looks so unusual and has such unstable flight characteristics, there is also a reason it has such an incredibly small radar profile <well, several really> there is a reason the f-16 has such a large radar signature and flys in the manner it does, design doctrine
BTW: According to the experts the F-117 has a larger radar profile than the B-2, F-22 and F-35.
This whole thing is silly...the British jointly developed the F-35 from the start. If anyone should have access to the software then it should be them.
-
BTW: According to the experts the F-117 has a larger radar profile than the B-2, F-22 and F-35.
I've read that the F-22 and the B-2 are much "stealthier" than the F-117 due to their curved surfaces, but I read also that the F-35 is only slightly stealthier than the B-1 (another "low observability" aircraft).
-
I dunno why someone doesn't design an aircraft that's covered in chrome and bells and whistles and just lights the entire ****ing RADAR spectrum up like a Christmas tree.
Try getting accurate readings when there's 15 wings of those ****ers moving towards your population centers.
-
/me just sighs and laments the fall of Britain's power
-
/me just sighs and laments the fall of Britain's power
Where have you been? British "power" has been going happily around the U-bend since the turn of the 20th.
To remedy this; who's up for going back in time and giving nuclear weapons to the British Empire at its height? :D
-
/me just sighs and laments the fall of Britain's power
Where have you been? British "power" has been going happily around the U-bend since the turn of the 20th.
To remedy this; who's up for going back in time and giving nuclear weapons to the British Empire at its height? :D
Actually I reckon it hit rock bottom after the disaster with the ERM...
-
What, Black Wednesday?
-
The-day-John-Major-ended-his-career.
-
The-day-John-Major-ended-his-career.
THATCHER is a disco ball
-
Meh, John Major was an idiot. Blair is an idiot. We need a strong leader who's more concerned with serving Britains own interests rather than giving a damn about what everyone else wants to turn Britain into.
The problem being that such a strong leader as one who could make that happen could easily use the publics desire to turn Britain into something powerful and make the country into even more of a Big Brother nation than it is now - just a more powerful version thereof.
Unfortunately right now we seem to be Americas lap-dog and half hearted dancing around the idea of being involved with Europe because we share waters with the area. The problem with that is that both the US and Europe are telling (Britain) what to do and we're happily obliging so as not to piss anyone off... which is great if you fancy rolling over and being politically dominated by other countries but absolutely terrible if you actually live here.
God save the queen? God save her nation more like...
(Once again I apologise for the outburst.. I do hate my country, you can tell.)
-
BTW: According to the experts the F-117 has a larger radar profile than the B-2, F-22 and F-35.
I've read that the F-22 and the B-2 are much "stealthier" than the F-117 due to their curved surfaces, but I read also that the F-35 is only slightly stealthier than the B-1 (another "low observability" aircraft).
the f117 was the first combat stealth aircraft. there were some minor stealth features on the sr-71, however they were secondary to its speed. it wasnt till the f117 that stealth was the primary purpose or an aircraft. i personally dont know why we use them, theyre small, slow weak, ****ty handeling, and have a tiny payload. none the less it was a proof of concept for stealth.
now the f117 was developed back in the 70s, computing power was pathetic. only with the rise in computing power was it possible to calculate every milimeter of surface area and which direction it should face. we also had the manufacturing capability to presisely lay composite in the way the design called for. and out of that we got the b2.
now the difference between low observability aircraft and stealth aircraft is more a matter of tactics than actual capability. a stealth aircraft is designed to avoid detection at all cost. its tactics are specifically designed for this. a low observability aircraft is designed to give it an advantage in combat (or whatever other misssion it may be designed for), so that it may get the first shot. now the actual radar cross sections of the planes are classified, noone on this board knows what they are and none of us are qualified to make judgments on which plane is stealthyer. we can only make assumptions.
-
Meh, John Major was an idiot. Blair is an idiot. We need a strong leader who's more concerned with serving Britains own interests rather than giving a damn about what everyone else wants to turn Britain into.
(http://www.horroria.com/i/nstills/37/58/53758/53758-191277.jpg)
(should have seen that coming, what with your avatar and all)
-
The problem being that such a strong leader as one who could make that happen could easily use the publics desire to turn Britain into something powerful and make the country into even more of a Big Brother nation than it is now - just a more powerful version thereof.
I did :p
-
Heh, the problem is that 'strong' is always viewed as being in the eyes of the beholder, in this case, other countries. We need a Prime Minister who is 'strong' enough to accept the fact that we aren't an Empire any more, whilst we are by no means a poor country, and no offence intended to our American members, but walking along and copying the Biggest kid on the Block is not doing either our reputation, nor our country in general any good. We have housing and healthcare problems, the tabloids coming up with new prejudices every day etc, our law system is archaic in some senses and ultra PC in others. The system needs a shake up, and, quite frankly, strong is not about following the herd, strong is about finding a way that works for us.
-
I can totally respect that, but I'd think of it more like the biggest kid on the block owning you bigtime, but that's just me.
-
There was an article on this in this month's Proceedings which put a different spin on it. The US won't turn over the source code because the code would then be accessible to EU members, not all of whom have proved entirely stable/trustworthy/friendly. Several Eastern European countries were mentioned by name, as was Turkey (which isn't a member but wants to be). The US wants assurances that the UK will keep the code to themselves first, which the UK is not willing to give for fear of pissing off the rest of Europe.
It's vaguely amusing in the abstract when you consider Spain was willing to give assurances on the subject when they expressed interest in possibly acquiring JSFs for the Princpe de Asturias. No word yet on whether the Spanish intend to actually do so, they're just considering it.
So yes, Kal is essentially correct; Mr. Blair is afraid too much of pissing off the rest of the world to properly pursue British interests.
-
Actually from your first paragraph it's even worse than I thought.
We (as a country) have actually managed to put ourselves in a position where whatever we decide to do, we'll end up upsetting someone. Europe wants our allegience and so does America - and there are member countries of both that don't trust eachother. So the upshot is we bend over backwards for both (at our own expense) but ultimately still come out the bad guys as we have to choose *a* direction sooner or later and that will inevitably end up upsetting whoever we don't side with... the only other option would be to sit on the fence, but that'd make us untrustworthy to both sides as there's no garuntee we'd support them on other issues.
-
The UK basically needs to choose goals for itself, then do what it takes to reach those goals. It also needs to learn how to say no to some things, and yes to others (in relation to both the EU and the US).
-
Actually from your first paragraph it's even worse than I thought.
We (as a country) have actually managed to put ourselves in a position where whatever we decide to do, we'll end up upsetting someone. Europe wants our allegience and so does America - and there are member countries of both that don't trust eachother. So the upshot is we bend over backwards for both (at our own expense) but ultimately still come out the bad guys as we have to choose *a* direction sooner or later and that will inevitably end up upsetting whoever we don't side with... the only other option would be to sit on the fence, but that'd make us untrustworthy to both sides as there's no garuntee we'd support them on other issues.
51st state FTW.
-
Either the 51st American state or the 51st European state (so to speak).
if your not going to go after power for your selves, your going to have to make alliances with someone who does, so you have three options, join the bigger closer empire, the further more powerful empire, or make your own empire.
which is it going to be?
-
I... choose... to remove my nations liberties, bend over backwards to the quiet little invasion of minority peoples (now majority peoples) and set about removing the money from the people and placing it into the pockets of the government.
Phew, glad I made the right choice there...
-
I want to move to Australia! Who's with me ?
-
No thanks. Hole in the ozone layer FTL.
-
Either the 51st American state or the 51st European state (so to speak).
if your not going to go after power for your selves, your going to have to make alliances with someone who does, so you have three options, join the bigger closer empire, the further more powerful empire, or make your own empire.
which is it going to be?
Empire building is Bad(TM), didn't you know? Part of what's wrong with this country is that the "caring" side of the political spectrum is too caring.
-
I... choose... to remove my nations liberties, bend over backwards to the quiet little invasion of minority peoples (now majority peoples) and set about removing the money from the people and placing it into the pockets of the government.
Phew, glad I made the right choice there...
And I'm scared as can be that Canada is the next one to slide. This is getting ridiculous with people down in the states now stating that it would be "ok to suspend freedom of speech to fight the terrorists" which is about as slippery a slope as you can find! And nobody is outraged about it.
I want the 90s back...
-
I... choose... to remove my nations liberties, bend over backwards to the quiet little invasion of minority peoples (now majority peoples) and set about removing the money from the people and placing it into the pockets of the government.
Phew, glad I made the right choice there...
so in other words, you are going to become subject to people who have no ancestry in your land and turn your government into a socialist state, sounds kind of like option one.
-
I want to move to Australia! Who's with me ?
Hooray, compulsory voting systems! That's a much better government to live under, one elected by people who have no idea what they're on about!
I... choose... to remove my nations liberties, bend over backwards to the quiet little invasion of minority peoples (now majority peoples) and set about removing the money from the people and placing it into the pockets of the government.
Phew, glad I made the right choice there...
And I'm scared as can be that Canada is the next one to slide. This is getting ridiculous with people down in the states now stating that it would be "ok to suspend freedom of speech to fight the terrorists" which is about as slippery a slope as you can find! And nobody is outraged about it.
I want the 90s back...
It's not that people aren't outraged, it's just simply that we haven't until recently had a chance to do anything drastic about. The US for the past six years has suffered through what has plagued the UK: a streamlined, effecient government. It's like Harry Truman said: "Where you have an effecient government, you have a dictatorship." Legislation such as the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act has gotten through Congress and the President simply because the two bodies were ruled by neoconservatives or Republicans who vote for their party. What that sort of united government does is ignore what makes American government effective: slow deliberation.
We should be seeing a lot less of this sort of legislation in the last two years of Bush's reign, with Congress now in Democratic control, however. Divided government FTW.
-
there is a reason the f-16 has such a large radar signature and flys in the manner it does, design doctrine
IIRC, the F-16 has a lower radar signature than most fighters due to its blended wing design (only when not carrying weapons), but probably I'm wrong... I can't find the article where I read it.
Britian should have just gotten Mig29s, possibily in kit form to keep BAe bods busy, rather than all this collaberation nonsense.
I've read that refitting an airplane which uses meters, kph, liters and kilograms to use feet, knots, gallons and pounds may have the same cost as building a totally new airplane, not talking about weapon compatibility. But again, I may be wrong.
ben rich, the leader of the lockheed martin skunk works at the time of the Have blue project used a barn as a comparison for the size for an f-16, not saying that isn't lower profile than it's contemporaries, probably is, but it's still incredibly big, especially compared to the f-117 which was compared to the size of a large birds eye or a ball bearing in terms of total cross section
there is a reason the f-117 looks so unusual and has such unstable flight characteristics, there is also a reason it has such an incredibly small radar profile <well, several really> there is a reason the f-16 has such a large radar signature and flys in the manner it does, design doctrine
BTW: According to the experts the F-117 has a larger radar profile than the B-2, F-22 and F-35.
This whole thing is silly...the British jointly developed the F-35 from the start. If anyone should have access to the software then it should be them.
I don't know about that, on one hand I can't imagine reasonable people using something as expensive and otherwise tacticly useless as the f-117, for the love of god, every time maintenance is done the composite coating has to be scraped off, the panel removed, maintenance performed, and the coating reapplied
now the question is, is the command structure of the USAF burdened with reasonable people?
BTW: According to the experts the F-117 has a larger radar profile than the B-2, F-22 and F-35.
I've read that the F-22 and the B-2 are much "stealthier" than the F-117 due to their curved surfaces, but I read also that the F-35 is only slightly stealthier than the B-1 (another "low observability" aircraft).
the f117 was the first combat stealth aircraft. there were some minor stealth features on the sr-71, however they were secondary to its speed. it wasnt till the f117 that stealth was the primary purpose or an aircraft. i personally dont know why we use them, theyre small, slow weak, ****ty handeling, and have a tiny payload. none the less it was a proof of concept for stealth.
now the f117 was developed back in the 70s, computing power was pathetic. only with the rise in computing power was it possible to calculate every milimeter of surface area and which direction it should face. we also had the manufacturing capability to presisely lay composite in the way the design called for. and out of that we got the b2.
now the difference between low observability aircraft and stealth aircraft is more a matter of tactics than actual capability. a stealth aircraft is designed to avoid detection at all cost. its tactics are specifically designed for this. a low observability aircraft is designed to give it an advantage in combat (or whatever other misssion it may be designed for), so that it may get the first shot. now the actual radar cross sections of the planes are classified, noone on this board knows what they are and none of us are qualified to make judgments on which plane is stealthyer. we can only make assumptions.
I agree with everything you say and simply would like to augment it
consider that on the f-117 the stealth goes to hell when the bomb bay doors open <citing ben rich's memoirs, "skunk works"> the doors form a 90* angle with the belly of the plane <I'm too lazy for unicode> wwhich lights up like christmas on radar, the the pilot has to time everything around deployment of his very limited payload very precisly so as to not get turned into burning carbon streaks
in an f-35 if you compromise our stealth signature your worrying about someone locking on you a few seconds sooner, or being able to lock onto you at all <don't know how low observable it is>
-
Either the 51st American state or the 51st European state (so to speak).
if your not going to go after power for your selves, your going to have to make alliances with someone who does, so you have three options, join the bigger closer empire, the further more powerful empire, or make your own empire.
which is it going to be?
Empire building is Bad(TM), didn't you know? Part of what's wrong with this country is that the "caring" side of the political spectrum is too caring.
Of course empire building is bad - what else could the subjugation of other peoples be?
-
Either the 51st American state or the 51st European state (so to speak).
if your not going to go after power for your selves, your going to have to make alliances with someone who does, so you have three options, join the bigger closer empire, the further more powerful empire, or make your own empire.
which is it going to be?
Empire building is Bad(TM), didn't you know? Part of what's wrong with this country is that the "caring" side of the political spectrum is too caring.
Of course empire building is bad - what else could the subjugation of other peoples be?
That depends on how you think of it. Look at India. Would it be where it is today without us?
-
That depends on how you think of it. Look at India. Would it be where it is today without us?
Perhaps we should invite the Americans or Chinese to administer the UK, then?
Look at Zimbabwe. Look at apartheid South Africa or the invention of the concentation camp during the Boer War. Or Afghanistan and Iraq. For example.
If we credit the British empire with Indias growth since independence, do we credit it with these 'achievements'?
Perhaps we should consider how many places volunteered to remain under British dominion? I mean, because i'm sure you wouldn't wish for a system that ignored the vast majority in favour of imposing a 'superior culture', would you?
-
That depends on how you think of it. Look at India. Would it be where it is today without us?
Perhaps we should invite the Americans or Chinese to administer the UK, then?
Look at Zimbabwe. Look at apartheid South Africa or the invention of the concentation camp during the Boer War. Or Afghanistan and Iraq. For example.
If we credit the British empire with Indias growth since independence, do we credit it with these 'achievements'?
Perhaps we should consider how many places volunteered to remain under British dominion? I mean, because i'm sure you wouldn't wish for a system that ignored the vast majority in favour of imposing a 'superior culture', would you?
In comparison to the other "empires" of the day, the British Empire was the most conscientious and humanitarian. Of course it had it's dark moments - and when innocent women and children suffered it's obviously wrong. However, what you are doing is trying to define the entire empire by those events. That's like defining the USA by it's actions in Iraq. You're missing out huge portions of the big picture.
The number of states that elected to remain under British rule, direct or otherwise, is not really a reflection of the historical rights and wrongs of imperialism - the empire was falling apart thanks to WW2 and a god awful economic in the UK mainland; This created economic incentive to seek independence. There is however a more interesting basis for the break up of the British Empire: The nations we previously ruled had developed strong, well organised state apparatus at our hands - which inevitably meant that complete local governance become an almost automatic evolutionary step in said nation's development.
On your last point, regarding "superior culture" being imposed on others:
Would you accept that the culture of the United Kingdom is superior to that of a state that practises stoning of women for adultery, or the decapitation of those who insult the state sponsored religion? If so then of course I believe that the imposition of one culture upon another is acceptable. But that's not what the empire was about.
No the empire, in the context of your question, was about power. It started with individuals seeking financial gain, and thus personal power, and evolved into imperial power as the nation began to nurture the sum of those individual ventures to become something bigger, and more unified.
-
So in other words, the vaunted superiority of the Uk comes down to 'lets screw them in case they screw us'? So would you accept a US heagemony? Becuase the US can cite superiority in certain ways, y'know - for one thing they have a constitution - and really superiority is a question of the beholder.
A lot of the instability, incidentally, in places like Africa can be traced to the forcible creation of nation states from a culture based on smaller tribal societies. how many African countries are models of democratic justice? It's been suggested that 40 million deaths from famine in India in 1769-73 were due to the destruction of traditional indian agriculture following the East India company imposing minimal wages and high taxation; is that an acceptable price for progress?
I'd suggest that you can only weight an empire by how it treats its occupied territories; an empire exists for one reason and one reason only - to subjugate an exterior population for the benefit of the interior (something wihich alone prevents equality and fair justice). The US holds territory to benefit the US, the British Empires' only interest in Anglofying the likes of India was to try and make a more compliant population that could be better taken advantage of.
(incidentally, Burma/Myanmar can be another former empire territory to consider - now one of the worlds most repressive regimes. Sudan is another former territory)
-
So in other words, the vaunted superiority of the Uk comes down to 'lets screw them in case they screw us'? So would you accept a US heagemony? Becuase the US can cite superiority in certain ways, y'know - for one thing they have a constitution - and really superiority is a question of the beholder.
Rather because they have more guns, and a bigger economy.
-
So in other words, the vaunted superiority of the Uk comes down to 'lets screw them in case they screw us'? So would you accept a US heagemony? Becuase the US can cite superiority in certain ways, y'know - for one thing they have a constitution - and really superiority is a question of the beholder.
Rather because they have more guns, and a bigger economy.
So it's not about actual moral or social superiority, but military or economic power used to force ideology. Like the British empire.
-
I'd accept jamaican hegemony......
what, no takers?
seriously though, the british empire was good for some nation states, it was terrible for others, the interaction of the cultures just worked that way, and that's how it will always work, it's not that empires are universally bad, or universally good, it is that they are a tool only useful in certain situations, mostly protecting itt bity nations from much larger hungry territorial nations
empires also foster greeat social integration which is nice, provides awesome real fusion cuisine, instead of that b.s. they try to pass off as fusion a lot of places, music too, but food was the first concept to mind
overall though, definitly in the bad category, necessary evil, but still evil
-
I'd accept jamaican hegemony......
what, no takers?
seriously though, the british empire was good for some nation states, it was terrible for others, the interaction of the cultures just worked that way, and that's how it will always work, it's not that empires are universally bad, or universally good, it is that they are a tool only useful in certain situations, mostly protecting itt bity nations from much larger hungry territorial nations
By having a larger hungry territorial nation taking it over? (!)
-
So in other words, the vaunted superiority of the Uk comes down to 'lets screw them in case they screw us'? So would you accept a US heagemony? Becuase the US can cite superiority in certain ways, y'know - for one thing they have a constitution - and really superiority is a question of the beholder.
Rather because they have more guns, and a bigger economy.
So it's not about actual moral or social superiority, but military or economic power used to force ideology. Like the British empire.
I never implied that the actual foundation of empire building was anything but technical superiority. I have merely pointed out the positive effects of that empire.
-
Wha, like the illegal drug running into china, slave trading and turning whole continents into penal colonies? How did your empire benefit the Mauris or Aboriginies? Or american indians for that matter? Apartheid South Africa and the current Israeli-Palestine problem are both attributable to the british empire, likewise the problems in my own country. Indias a bad example to be using for your civilising effect, they had their own empires when you boys were pegging stones at the romans. A few unintended side effects cant be used to validate the whole thing, it was done for the benefit of the British people, nobody else. Instead of asking where would they be without you, maybe you should ask where would you be without them, would your country really be in the position its in today without the wealth its overseas enterprises brought in?
-
So in other words, the vaunted superiority of the Uk comes down to 'lets screw them in case they screw us'? So would you accept a US heagemony? Becuase the US can cite superiority in certain ways, y'know - for one thing they have a constitution - and really superiority is a question of the beholder.
Rather because they have more guns, and a bigger economy.
Thing is, this has been going on since the village of Ug drove out the people of Og because they didn't worship the right tree or built their houses the wrong way or simply because they had more land to grow crops on.
Love it or hate it, Empire is here to stay, yesterday it was us, today it is the US, tomorrow it may be China (not that they really ever lost their Empire, the whole country is more or less an Empire by itself), or the Middle East or Russia again.
Empires are usually remembered by their atrocities, and the closer they are, the better documented those atrocities are. Rome is looked upon as a benevolent Empire, yet performed some terrible acts in the name of that Benevolence. People are so concerned about the size and speed of Alexander's Empire, that no-one remembers many of the acts performed in order to create that Empire so quickly. The difference is that the British Empire was around just as Media was starting to become far more available, thanks, in part, to a British invention (The Caxton Press and later on, the Television), that is why our atrocoties are recorded for all time, whereas before that stage, history was written by the victors, not by journalists.
-
Or maybe its because the Empire only just collapsed, as opposed to being ancient history.
-
Wha, like the illegal drug running into china, slave trading and turning whole continents into penal colonies? How did your empire benefit the Mauris or Aboriginies? Or american indians for that matter? Apartheid South Africa and the current Israeli-Palestine problem are both attributable to the british empire, likewise the problems in my own country. Indias a bad example to be using for your civilising effect, they had their own empires when you boys were pegging stones at the romans. A few unintended side effects cant be used to validate the whole thing, it was done for the benefit of the British people, nobody else. Instead of asking where would they be without you, maybe you should ask where would you be without them, would your country really be in the position its in today without the wealth its overseas enterprises brought in?
So many things to cover here...
The British Empire was first of it's peers to outlaw the slave trade and actively engaged in it's destruction.
India may well have had such empires, but they didn't have them come the 18th and 19th centuries.
I'm not even going to touch on the British involvement in Israel, since I've covered it in previous threads.
"likewise the problems in my own country" - And where might that be?
You're right in one regard - it existed in theory to serve the British people. Unfortunately, as you might find if you did some research, the British working class population was living in rather squalid condition - especially by the standards of some of the colonies.
Oh and before you once again ask what we should be thankful for as opposed to the world remember this: The British Empire burned itself out fighting against Nazi Germany - I'd say someone owes my ancestors a bit of thanks.
-
I'd argue the British Empire burned itself out fighting WWI, it just took some time to obviously decline...
-
I'd argue the British Empire burned itself out fighting WWI, it just took some time to obviously decline...
I think it's not unreasonable to say that post WWI the empire had a chance of rejuvenation, even if it was in some restructured form.
-
Sticking point seems to be software if I read this correctly. Bearing in mind the US has had bad experiences with shipping out some of its previous mainline aircraft (Iranian F-14's anyone?), I'd say the caution is well warranted.
Just as the UK wants to see whats under the hood and guiding this thing, the US most likely does not want anyone (not even their closest friends, for fear of a leak) to know how the mysterious little black box inside it ticks.
The UK has invested many millions in a program that costs many billions, so they deserve a great deal of respect as partner... but this is like buying a truckload of soda on the condition the company selling it tell you whats in their secret syrup.
The recipe is worth alot more than that.
-
the current Israeli-Palestine problem are both attributable to the british empire
Somewhat unfair. There would have been a problem wherever the Jewish homeland had been put. While it was admittedly ****ing stupid to put them somewhere they could make a prior claim to I don't doubt that there would have been issues regardless of whether the British were involved or not.
-
One question that does come to mind about this is, how long did it take for the British to share the details on Chobham with the US? Iirc it took quite a while?
-
Anyone remember how the US shafted the UK after WW2 when they agreed to share jet engine info ? And once the UK did so, those dodgy yankes were "ha!ha!suckers!*runs*"
And how many times do I have to tell you fools ? the empire didn't crumble, we just gave it back. ;)
The British Empire was first of it's peers to outlaw the slave trade and actively engaged in it's destruction.
Bloody annoying given certain quarters are now try it on for compensation
-
The British Empire was first of it's peers to outlaw the slave trade and actively engaged in it's destruction.
Stopping to do someting doesnt excuse doing it in the first place. And you werent, the french were.
India may well have had such empires, but they didn't have them come the 18th and 19th centuries.
The Mughal Empire was in India at the time of the East Indian Companys conquests.
I'm not even going to touch on the British involvement in Israel, since I've covered it in previous threads.
fair enough
"likewise the problems in my own country" - And where might that be?
Ireland.
You're right in one regard - it existed in theory to serve the British people. Unfortunately, as you might find if you did some research, the British working class population was living in rather squalid condition - especially by the standards of some of the colonies.
I didnt say all the british people.
Oh and before you once again ask what we should be thankful for as opposed to the world remember this: The British Empire burned itself out fighting against Nazi Germany - I'd say someone owes my ancestors a bit of thanks.
The Irish done their share of fighting in ww2, including some of my own ancestors. Playing that card doesnt work with us.
Heres one of the more famous:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery%2C_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein#Early_life
Somewhat unfair. There would have been a problem wherever the Jewish homeland had been put. While it was admittedly ****ing stupid to put them somewhere they could make a prior claim to I don't doubt that there would have been issues regardless of whether the British were involved or not.
Maybe, maybe not, its doubtful the Israeli state would have been established had the ottomans still been in charge, they did after all teach the germans how to commit genocide on a mass scale.
Btw, whys the postcount thingy say leet?
-
You had 1,337 posts. I was wondering what it meant until I noticed your current post count is 1,338.
-
"likewise the problems in my own country" - And where might that be?
Ireland.
Oh and before you once again ask what we should be thankful for as opposed to the world remember this: The British Empire burned itself out fighting against Nazi Germany - I'd say someone owes my ancestors a bit of thanks.
The Irish done their share of fighting in ww2, including some of my own ancestors. Playing that card doesnt work with us.
Firstly, I will point out that I never implied other nations didn't contribute to the effort. What I was drawing attention to was the fact that Britain gave up an Empire to win said war - that's no small sacrifice whether you like the empire or not.
Secondly, you're Irish. You've made it clear you don't like the Empire and blame modern (modern in the sense of post industrial revolution) Britain for unspecified but pretty obvious problems in your homeland. The feelings on both sides in the republic and N. Ireland aren't exactly rational - therefore, it's pointless us debating since we'll never reach a meaningful conclusion. No offence - but I've grown up in the West of Scotland, so I know this would be like banging my head off a brick wall.
-
You can hardly expect me to be grateful you lost something I dont think you should have had in the first place. The decline of the british empire has much earlier roots though, ww2 just sped it up.
As for me being baised against the british empire, maybe I am a bit, but you could take that as an indication of how the people on the other end of the effects of british civilisation feel about it. Ungrateful gits that we are.
-
In case anyone is interested in the original subject of the thread, the issue with the F-35 technology transfer has been resolved., to no one's great surprise.
Link (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/12/12/Navigation/177/211102/Breakthrough+as+UK+signs+technology+transfer+deal+with+USA+to+allow+Lockheed+Martin+F-35+JSF.html)
-
When are these things due to enter service anyways
-
About 2012 in the UK.
-
To coincide with the launch of the new aircraft carriers I think. Be a bit embarrassing to have a shiny new fleet carrier with no planes to put in it.
-
The British Empire was first of it's peers to outlaw the slave trade and actively engaged in it's destruction.
Stopping to do someting doesnt excuse doing it in the first place. And you werent, the french were.
I don't think abolishing it under duress after a massive revolt and then reintroducing it 8 years later really counts.
Maybe, maybe not, its doubtful the Israeli state would have been established had the ottomans still been in charge, they did after all teach the germans how to commit genocide on a mass scale.
Who said that the Israeli homeland had to be in the middle east? My point is that wherever you'd put them there would have been problems, whether the British Empire was involved or not. Unless you wanted to establish a Jewish state in Antarctica you were going to have to displace someone to do it. Whether by buying them out or by removing them buy force.
-
I'd accept jamaican hegemony......
what, no takers?
seriously though, the british empire was good for some nation states, it was terrible for others, the interaction of the cultures just worked that way, and that's how it will always work, it's not that empires are universally bad, or universally good, it is that they are a tool only useful in certain situations, mostly protecting itt bity nations from much larger hungry territorial nations
By having a larger hungry territorial nation taking it over? (!)
I was thinking hong kong \ britain\ china
I don't know all of the etails of any of that relationship, but it seems like it worked out better in the end
-
I'd accept jamaican hegemony......
what, no takers?
seriously though, the british empire was good for some nation states, it was terrible for others, the interaction of the cultures just worked that way, and that's how it will always work, it's not that empires are universally bad, or universally good, it is that they are a tool only useful in certain situations, mostly protecting itt bity nations from much larger hungry territorial nations
By having a larger hungry territorial nation taking it over? (!)
I was thinking hong kong \ britain\ china
I don't know all of the etails of any of that relationship, but it seems like it worked out better in the end
hong Kong was part of China ceded in the Convention of Peking following the 2nd Opium War. It's impossible to say if China would be the same nation as is now, had those wars (and the 'unequal treaties' resulting) not happened.
EDIT; also, it's worth noting Hong Kong island, for example, was a barren rock when first occupied by the British. IIRC rather than a nation state, the Hong Kong territories were mostly barren, with the total area ceded in the CofP having a population of (including Kowloon et al) about 120,000.
-
Who said that the Israeli homeland had to be in the middle east? My point is that wherever you'd put them there would have been problems, whether the British Empire was involved or not. Unless you wanted to establish a Jewish state in Antarctica you were going to have to displace someone to do it. Whether by buying them out or by removing them buy force.
Ancient history said it. It's not as simple as "okay, we're going to stick the Jews... here!" I know you're smarter than that, but it all has to do with religion. Where else would you want to put the Israelis other than in their historic homeland?
-
Who said that the Israeli homeland had to be in the middle east? My point is that wherever you'd put them there would have been problems, whether the British Empire was involved or not. Unless you wanted to establish a Jewish state in Antarctica you were going to have to displace someone to do it. Whether by buying them out or by removing them buy force.
Ancient history said it. It's not as simple as "okay, we're going to stick the Jews... here!" I know you're smarter than that, but it all has to do with religion. Where else would you want to put the Israelis other than in their historic homeland?
How many, do you think, of the WW2 Allies would be willing to give up territory in Europe or the Americas to house Jewish refugees?
-
The Russians probably would. Stalin backed the creation of a Jewish state as a way of giving the Brits the finger.
-
Ancient history said it. It's not as simple as "okay, we're going to stick the Jews... here!" I know you're smarter than that, but it all has to do with religion. Where else would you want to put the Israelis other than in their historic homeland?
Actually there were lots of other suggestions
Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andinia_Plan)
Uganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Uganda_Program)
USSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast)
Not to mention Canada, Australia, Iraq, Libya, and Angola. Many of these schemes were actually suggested by Jews.
In fact even the Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan) and Japanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugu_Plan) wanted to put them somewhere else.
Oh and while we're at it be careful about comments such as "I know you're smarter than that" just because someone disagrees with you. I've managed to avoid making comments about your intelligence. I expect you to do the same to me or anyone else on this thread.
-
Oh and while we're at it be careful about comments such as "I know you're smarter than that" just because someone disagrees with you. I've managed to avoid making comments about your intelligence. I expect you to do the same to me or anyone else on this thread.
I think that message came across as wrong. In context, I meant that I wasn't intending to insult your intelligence by suggesting something so trivial and obvious. So, basically, I was more complimenting than degrading you. :) My apologies if it came off as otherwise.
Who said that the Israeli homeland had to be in the middle east? My point is that wherever you'd put them there would have been problems, whether the British Empire was involved or not. Unless you wanted to establish a Jewish state in Antarctica you were going to have to displace someone to do it. Whether by buying them out or by removing them buy force.
Ancient history said it. It's not as simple as "okay, we're going to stick the Jews... here!" I know you're smarter than that, but it all has to do with religion. Where else would you want to put the Israelis other than in their historic homeland?
How many, do you think, of the WW2 Allies would be willing to give up territory in Europe or the Americas to house Jewish refugees?
That didn't have anything to do with my question.
Karajorma's examples show that the USSR was prepared to give up its territory near the Manchurian border for a Jewish state, as well as Canada and Argentina, though none of that was my point.
-
why couldnt the jews just kinda move in, in a peaceful, legal, non-militaristic fasion.
also, wouldnt putting them all together just make them easier to wipe out as a group?
also, werent they supposed to wait for the messiah to lead them back to the holy land?
-
I don't think abolishing it under duress after a massive revolt and then reintroducing it 8 years later really counts.
Unlike the British the French government at the time was not continuous, those were the actions of two seperate regimes. Irregardless, they were the first whether you think it counts or not. Did the British do more? yes, but like I said they were cleaning up their own mess.
Who said that the Israeli homeland had to be in the middle east? My point is that wherever you'd put them there would have been problems, whether the British Empire was involved or not. Unless you wanted to establish a Jewish state in Antarctica you were going to have to displace someone to do it. Whether by buying them out or by removing them buy force.
The British empire specifically promised the jews a homeland in the middle east in 1917 under the balfour declaration. Arguing that it would have happened anyways so its not the fault of the british is a non-starter when they encouraged it, long before it was on anyone elses agenda.
why couldnt the jews just kinda move in, in a peaceful, legal, non-militaristic fasion.
Because it wouldnt have worked?
also, wouldnt putting them all together just make them easier to wipe out as a group?
They're not altogether, Israelis are a minority among the jewish community
also, werent they supposed to wait for the messiah to lead them back to the holy land?
For religious reasons, zionism isnt based solely on that, the main reason behind it was to escape persecution in europe.
-
I don't think abolishing it under duress after a massive revolt and then reintroducing it 8 years later really counts.
Unlike the British the French government at the time was not continuous, those were the actions of two seperate regimes.
If you're going to use that argument you're still wrong about it being the French who were first. The Commonwealth of Vermont abolished slavery over 15 years previous to that. When they joined the US that was overturned but by the rules you're trying to claim for this that still pre-dates the French. Oh and while we're at it you can probably find much earlier cases throughout history where slavery was abolished and then later reinstated.
And you completely missed the point about why the French abolished it. The British abolition was due to the fact that there was a grass roots movement in the UK that slavery was morally wrong. The French did it because they were scared of other revolts like the one in Haiti. When that's the reason why you abolish something you have little proof that the same government wouldn't simply re-establish the practice as soon as they thought they had the power to do so.
Did the British do more? yes, but like I said they were cleaning up their own mess.
Yes. But afterwards they forced everyone else to clean up their mess too. Britain was notable in pressuring nations like Portugal to give up slavery in it's colonies.
The British empire specifically promised the jews a homeland in the middle east in 1917 under the balfour declaration. Arguing that it would have happened anyways so its not the fault of the british is a non-starter when they encouraged it, long before it was on anyone elses agenda.
Wrong. If you'd bothered to click the links I posted you would have noticed that several of those attempts to create a Jewish homeland pre-date the declaration. The British are responsible for choosing possibly the worst place in the world they could possibly have put the Jews but they aren't responsible for the zionist movement as that started long before they got involved.
-
If you're going to use that argument you're still wrong about it being the French who were first. The Commonwealth of Vermont abolished slavery over 15 years previous to that. When they joined the US that was overturned but by the rules you're trying to claim for this that still pre-dates the French. Oh and while we're at it you can probably find much earlier cases throughout history where slavery was abolished and then later reinstated.
Vyper specifically said peers, which i took to mean nations of similar and contempary stature, if you think Vermont counts as such I wont argue with you. And I'm not missing the point, if you read up on it you'll find that the emancipation was more due to the efforts of several leaders of the revolution who were abolitionists, Abbe Gregoire, Lafayette, Condorcet to name a few. The revolting slaves were incorporated into the french revolutionary army and fought against Napoleon when he tried to recapture the colonies, why do this if you're intending to enslave them again? You say I've no proof they wouldnt have reinstated it again yet provide no proof they would have, nor does anything I've read on the matter.
Wrong. If you'd bothered to click the links I posted you would have noticed that several of those attempts to create a Jewish homeland pre-date the declaration. The British are responsible for choosing possibly the worst place in the world they could possibly have put the Jews but they aren't responsible for the zionist movement as that started long before they got involved.
The only plan there that predates the balfour declaration is another british one, I'm discounting the argentinian one because it was a zionist one and not taken up by any government. The Oblast was formed in '28 and was for soviet jews, not the jewish people as a whole. Dunno why you'd think I'd hold britain for the start of zionism, possibly because of the it wasnt on anyone elses agenda remark? I was discounting zionism there because they were the ones who began the jewish homeland thing, obviously it was on their agenda. I quite clearly said it was the result of european persecution. And if the british are responsible for choosing the place of the jewish homeland why is it unfair to point this out? Do you think they were obliged to give the jews a homeland? Would a better course of action not have been to address the problems instead of dumping its victims on another continent?
-
Gank, I'm beginning to believe you hate every country :p
-
Equally though, I'm not prejudiced.
-
Equally though, I'm not prejudiced.
He's Irish alright... :p
-
That's exactly what I was thinking, but I didn't want to say it :p
-
Vyper specifically said peers, which i took to mean nations of similar and contempary stature, if you think Vermont counts as such I wont argue with you.
And I took that mean a regime that lasted more than a handful of years. Which neither post revolutionary France nor Vermont really qualify for. :)
Dunno why you'd think I'd hold britain for the start of zionism, possibly because of the it wasnt on anyone elses agenda remark? I was discounting zionism there because they were the ones who began the jewish homeland thing, obviously it was on their agenda.
But the fact is that Zionism pre-dates the Balfour Declaration by a pretty long time. So saying "The Jews wanted a homeland in the middle east cause of Britain" is a very poor argument. The declaration wasn't the start of Zionism. Merely another step on the road for it.
I quite clearly said it was the result of european persecution. And if the british are responsible for choosing the place of the jewish homeland why is it unfair to point this out?
Because with the Zionist movement gathering pace after WWII they would have ended up somewhere. The British made a bad choice of location but the Jews wanted a homeland after the war. They weren't packed off and sent to Israel against their will. As I said in my original post the blame the British have is for their choice of location not the fact that they decided to set up a Jewish homeland. That would have happened anyway and it would have caused trouble wherever it was.
Would a better course of action not have been to address the problems instead of dumping its victims on another continent?
You act as though the Jews didn't want to go to Israel and were sent there by the UK.
-
But the fact is that Zionism pre-dates the Balfour Declaration by a pretty long time. So saying "The Jews wanted a homeland in the middle east cause of Britain" is a very poor argument. The declaration wasn't the start of Zionism. Merely another step on the road for it.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying its their fault for encouraging them to take one.
Because with the Zionist movement gathering pace after WWII they would have ended up somewhere. The British made a bad choice of location but the Jews wanted a homeland after the war. They weren't packed off and sent to Israel against their will. As I said in my original post the blame the British have is for their choice of location not the fact that they decided to set up a Jewish homeland. That would have happened anyway and it would have caused trouble wherever it was.
Saying its not the fault of the British for helping them because they would have done it anyways is quite frankly stupid. Besides theres no guarantee they would have succeded without outside help, the ottomans and arabs werent exactly receptive to the idea, and its unlikely anyone else would have been to losing their land to europeans. If this was going to cause trouble wherever it was established then you're damned for supporting it at all, choosing to fix an injustice on one people with an injustice on another doesn't earn you credit. And if you're going to start putting ifs into it, the balfour declaration was made in return for help defeating the germans in ww1, the results of which brought about ww2, stick some ifs in there and you get interesting results.
You act as though the Jews didn't want to go to Israel and were sent there by the UK.
I'm acting as though the British choose to address a problem in a way which benefited them, not solved the problem.
-
I'm not saying that. I'm saying its their fault for encouraging them to take one.
Given that somewhere around 30,000 Jews moved to the country under the Ottomans during the first Aliyah and that the British government actually put quotas in place to try to limit the immigration I suspect that you're subjecting the British government to a case of damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Had they enforced immigration more firmly and thereby prevented the formation of the Jewish state I'm betting that today you'd probably be arguing just as bitterly that the British government's callous indifference to the Jews led to the death of hundreds of thousands in Nazi Europe.
Saying its not the fault of the British for helping them because they would have done it anyways is quite frankly stupid. Besides theres no guarantee they would have succeded without outside help, the ottomans and arabs werent exactly receptive to the idea
Except that as I pointed out above thousands of Jews did move to the area under the Ottomans too. Yes more moved to the region under the British but they also had more of a reason to move under the British that was nothing to do with encouragement and everything to do with wanting to get away from the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe.
If you think that the British should have enforced stricter quotas at the time I'd love to know what the **** they should have done?
-
Given that somewhere around 30,000 Jews moved to the country under the Ottomans during the first Aliyah and that the British government actually put quotas in place to try to limit the immigration I suspect that you're subjecting the British government to a case of damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Had they enforced immigration more firmly and thereby prevented the formation of the Jewish state I'm betting that today you'd probably be arguing just as bitterly that the British government's callous indifference to the Jews led to the death of hundreds of thousands in Nazi Europe.
You're completely ignoring the fact that the Ottomans told the zionists they could have a homeland in palestine over their dead bodies. 30,000 is a relatively small number compared to the native population at the time and its highly unlikely any further build up would have been tolerated or any attempt to establish one would have been successful. As for british attempts to curb immigration they werent very effective, the jewish population rose from 80,000 to 450,000 between the two white papers on the matter of 1922 and 1939. You had a change of ownership from one regime which was hosile to a jewish state on its territory and was just after commiting genocide on another ethnic group and a regime which had just openly supported it and you think this had a negative effect on immigration? Thats really not going to wash.
Had they enforced immigration more firmly and thereby prevented the formation of the Jewish state I'm betting that today you'd probably be arguing just as bitterly that the British government's callous indifference to the Jews led to the death of hundreds of thousands in Nazi Europe.
You could argue that anyways
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evian_Conference
Except that as I pointed out above thousands of Jews did move to the area under the Ottomans too. Yes more moved to the region under the British but they also had more of a reason to move under the British that was nothing to do with encouragement and everything to do with wanting to get away from the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe.
If you think that the British should have enforced stricter quotas at the time I'd love to know what the **** they should have done?
Yes jews immigrated to the area under the ottomans, were the ottomans sympathetic towards a jewish state? No. Whether or not it would have happened on somebody elses watch is pure speculation, you cant just insert country a instead of b and say things would have been the same, its far more complex than that. Britain took up the cause of the jewish homeland in palestine for their own political reasons, the fact that the strictest limits on immigration were passed in 1939 when anti-semitism was at its worst in europe clearly shows that wasnt a factor. When things got too out of hand they failed to come to a solution which pleased everybody they cut their losses and ran. The british were responsible for ruling that part of the world and the people who lived in it, they are directly responsible for the situation that came out of it.
-
Did you guys know that this thread was about this....
(http://www.whattofix.com/images/F35A.jpg)
You know...stealth...semi-stealth....VTOL...sometimes...many nations involved...US doesn't want to share the code with its closest ally...etc.
-
The situation was resolved, as was posted earlier in the thread - the US will be sharing the code with some caveats or something. Looks like that news got lost, however :p
-
Oh super...so the project goes ahead. Will be interesting to see what the end result is. With so many countries lined up to buy them.
-
(http://www.whattofix.com/images/F35A.jpg)
Non-technical comment:
:ick: I always said that this fighter is ugly.
Well, not extremely ugly as the X-32, but anyway... F-16 forever
-
You had a change of ownership from one regime which was hosile to a jewish state on its territory and was just after commiting genocide on another ethnic group and a regime which had just openly supported it and you think this had a negative effect on immigration? Thats really not going to wash.
When did I say it had a negative effect? I said that you can't claim that the effect was purely due to the British as the situation in Russia and Poland had changed ever those years making some kind of Jewish exodus from those countries much more likely.
And I notice you still haven't answered the most important question. What the hell should the British have done? Left the Jews to die in those countries?
Did you guys know that this thread was about this....
No one was talking about it though :) If they want to still I'll split the topic :)
-
Did you guys know that this thread was about this....
No one was talking about it though :) If they want to still I'll split the topic :)
I vote for splitting :) :D ;) :nod:
-
When did I say it had a negative effect? I said that you can't claim that the effect was purely due to the British as the situation in Russia and Poland had changed ever those years making some kind of Jewish exodus from those countries much more likely.
You seemed to be implying that. The situation in Russia had changed for the better as far as anti-semitism was concerned, the bolshevik revolution had a disproportionatly high number of jewish leaders due to the anti-semitism of the tsarist regime. The Balfour declaration was a response to this by the british in an attempt to distance the bolsheviks and the germans who were negotiating an armistice. Heres the wiki article on the balfour declaration I suggest you read it if you really do think the british took this up out of concern for the jews:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration%2C_1917
Given the circumstances and reasons this was made you cant help but wonder if it might have contributed to german anti-semitism in some way.
And I notice you still haven't answered the most important question. What the hell should the British have done? Left the Jews to die in those countries?
I have, as I stated above the British put the biggest limits on Jewish immigration in 1939, at a time when anti-semitism was reaching its height in europe. I've given you a link to an article in which the british and the US agreed not to pressure each other into taking more refugees. It looks like leaving the jews to die in those countrys is exactly what the british did. They picked up the cause of a jewish homeland when it needed them the least and dropped it when it needed them the most. What the hell should they have done? Not ****ed people around for their own gain maybe?