tlmorg02
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reaction score
- 1,078
- Location
- Louisville, Ky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
The UK has revoked five export licences for equipment to the Israeli navy because of actions during Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza this year.
The British Foreign office said the exports would now contravene its criteria for arms sales, but denied that it had imposed a partial embargo.
The UK says it does not sell weapons which might be used for internal repression or external aggression.
Israel says its troops complied fully with international law during missions.
The 22-day operation which ended on 18 January has been widely condemned as disproportionate by critics.
What I do find disturbing is the way the UK so easily submits to the claims of propaganda organizations.
The UK, in its zeal to be tolerant, has lost its historic soul.
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told Israeli public radio: "We've had many embargoes in the past... We can manage. This shouldn't bother us."
Was our historical soul even that Brilliant? We were one of the most brutal and murderous world powers in history. After all we did invent the concentration camp in the Boer war.
My favorite quote,
I think that says it all in regards to Israel's feelings about this. Certainly Israel builds and develops it's own weapons, and I would venture that the U.S. is the number one provider of weapons to Israel. So ultimately, I would say this will amount to nothing.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | UK cuts Israel weapons contracts
Under pressure from Amnesty International and other groups, the UK has basically accused Israel of using their weapons to kill Palestinians in the Gaza strip, which is in violation of the terms of the agreements. Israel maintains that they never used the weapons in violation, yet the UK has still placed what many are calling a weapons embargo, on Israel. Thoughts?
Correct.Actually, you were brilliant. Unlike a lot of the European powers, the Brits at least laid a foundation for democracy wherever they colonized. If you look at their former colonies, they are all, for the most part, stable and democratic. More than I can say for any European nation.
That you even have to ask this question, Red Dave, is sad.
I think it is more the principle of the thing that I find troubling. Moral equivalency is something that people need to examine, skeptically, and reject, as a philosophy. Some morality is simply better than other morality. The UK used to understand this, and that appears to have been lost to a need to appear "tolerant."
Tolerance is overrated, in my estimation. There are some things that shouldn't be tolerated by civilized people.
Correct.
And very much unlike the Spanish, who simply took everything from the South-American colonies and became one of the all-time richest nations thanks to those colonies' treasures.
I think it is more the principle of the thing that I find troubling. Moral equivalency is something that people need to examine, skeptically, and reject, as a philosophy. Some morality is simply better than other morality. The UK used to understand this, and that appears to have been lost to a need to appear "tolerant."
Tolerance is overrated, in my estimation. There are some things that shouldn't be tolerated by civilized people.
There is tolerance and there is cultural self-hatred, and often times the latter masquerades as the former.
Until people learn to use a little reason in regards to WHAT they tolerate, they aren't really fostering tolerance at all, and make that double for those who have been hoodwinked into viewing their own western liberal culture as somehow inferior to those stuck in the stone age.
I mean, one can legitimately question the good of colonialization and imperialism, but all the major world powers were doing it at the time that the Brits were, and few left the stable legacy that the british empire did.
And yet, you rarely hear the Red Daves of the world throw stones at the French and Germans who caused most of the 20th Century's instability through their empire-building during the 19th Century.
Yes, I totally agree. We can think that Chomsky's and Ward Churchills of today for our blind self-hatred, which you can see manifested in Red Dave's posts.
I belive I criticised the French war in Algeria within the last two weeks and ive frequently criticised them over Rwanda. Still ild agree the we were more willing to decolonise then many other powers and im quite proud of what we achieved during WW2 [though operation ajax demonstrates how we quickly returned to our old ways in some respects] but our brutal repression against the Indians, the Irish and the Boers pretty much ammounted to genocide in some cases, and their only crime was wanting to run their own countries.
Yes, I totally agree. We can think that Chomsky's and Ward Churchills of today for our blind self-hatred, which you can see manifested in Red Dave's posts.
If people never spokeout against the wrongs of their countries, or the courses taken that they felt were wrong, there would not be democracy. I do not see Red Dave's comments, nor Chomsky's for that matter, as self hatred. But rather as the warning beacons of society. They look at the actions of their home nation, and as patriots, criticize what they see wrong. That is not cultural loathing, it is fighting for what one believes within the sphere of democracy.
This is going to sound harsh, but sh*t happens, man. You take your history, you learn from it, and move on. Focusing only on the negatives done by the British empire ignores many of the brilliant positive aspects of that era.
The fact of the matter is that the Brits, on the great scheme of things, were no less repressive, and considerably more civilized, than most of their peers in that era.
Re: the Indians and the Irish, they're damn lucky they weren't colonized by someone else. British dealings with these nations weren't always civilized, but they beat the hell out of their peers.
I am perfectly fine with criticizing one's government. That's our jobs, as responsible citizens. But, criticizing without recognition of the cultural sphere in which actions occurred is simply stupid. And, while the Brits have committed their share of negative acts, in the vast scheme of world history, they still remain a shining light. Failure to recognize this is strange.
The French and Spanish colonized parts of America, and that turned out alright.
The Spanish brutalized the native peoples of Mexico, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, and the U.S. in way rarely seen during history.
This is going to sound harsh, but sh*t happens, man. You take your history, you learn from it, and move on. Focusing only on the negatives done by the British empire ignores many of the brilliant positive aspects of that era.
The fact of the matter is that the Brits, on the great scheme of things, were no less repressive, and considerably more civilized, than most of their peers in that era.
Re: the Indians and the Irish, they're damn lucky they weren't colonized by someone else. British dealings with these nations weren't always civilized, but they beat the hell out of their peers.
Yeah, the African slaves had it way easier.:doh
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?