Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Britain Complains To US Over Israel Bomb Transit  
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1825 times:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...AST-BRITAIN-USA.xml&archived=False

ROME (Reuters) - The British government will make a formal complaint to the United States over its use of a British airport for transiting bombs to Israel, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said on Wednesday.

British media reported earlier on Wednesday that aircraft carrying "bunker-busting" bombs from the United States to Israel refueled at Prestwick airport in Scotland over the weekend.

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1776 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
ROME (Reuters) - The British government will make a formal complaint to the United States over its use of a British airport for transiting bombs to Israel, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said on Wednesday.

British media reported earlier on Wednesday that aircraft carrying "bunker-busting" bombs from the United States to Israel refueled at Prestwick airport in Scotland over the weekend.

Really? Maybe next time the Brits need our assistance to keep the Argentines out of the Falklands, we should remember this complaint.


User currently offlineDaleaholic From UK - England, joined Oct 2005, 3207 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 days ago) and read 1768 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 1):

Maybe Britain doesn't want to play any kind of role in the Middle East Crisis!?!?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 1):
Really? Maybe next time the Brits need our assistance to keep the Argentines out of the Falklands, we should remember this complaint.

History...



Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8060 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 days ago) and read 1759 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 1):
Really? Maybe next time the Brits need our assistance to keep the Argentines out of the Falklands, we should remember this complaint.

What a nasty thing to say. And untrue - the US did little or nothing to help. And most importantly, Argentina was the aggressor, not the UK. The UK was defending it's own land.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 days ago) and read 1735 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 3):
What a nasty thing to say. And untrue - the US did little or nothing to help. And most importantly, Argentina was the aggressor, not the UK. The UK was defending it's own land.

Hmmm. I'm surprised you know so little of your own history. While the US assistance was small in scale, it was critical. Among other things, it included satellite intel the UK didn't have access to otherwise, the use of Ascension Island as a staging base and airfield, and sending a load of the latest model Sidewinders for the Harriers.

Oh, and we ignored a treaty responsibility to come to Argentina's aid. Instead, we supported our other treaty partner, the UK.

Since you are bringing aggression into the mix, what about Hezbollah aggression? That doesn't count?

the bottom line is this. We came to your aid when we were asked to. You've come to our aid when we asked you to. At this point, to complain about a aircraft load of weapons is worse than the French refusing our request for overflight when we attacked Libya, and unbecoming of a loyal ally.


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1683 times:

If you read other reports you will see that the complaint is not that US is supplying arms to Israel via a UK airport, but that Dangerous Goods Regulations have not been followed.

User currently offlineRobertNL070 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2003, 4532 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1677 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 4):
Ascension Island

... is a dependency of Saint Helena, an overseas territory of the United Kingdom since 1815. Wideawake Airfield is a joint facility of the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force.

 bouncy 



Youth is a gift of nature. Age is a work of art.
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1666 times:

Quoting ANother (Reply 5):
If you read other reports you will see that the complaint is not that US is supplying arms to Israel via a UK airport, but that Dangerous Goods Regulations have not been followed.

Well, that's a reasonable complaint. We should have followed the rules.

Quoting RobertNL070 (Reply 6):
... is a dependency of Saint Helena, an overseas territory of the United Kingdom since 1815. Wideawake Airfield is a joint facility of the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force.

Hmm. I thought the airbase was leased at the time to the US, and that the US had to agree to let the RAF back in. If that wasn't the case, my bad.

In any event, we clearly supported the UK, in a situation where we had treaty obligations to both combatants.


User currently offlineLegoguy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3312 posts, RR: 40
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1656 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 4):

Is it really that bad that Britain does not want weapons that are going to be used to kill innocent people within its airports.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 1):
Really? Maybe next time the Brits need our assistance to keep the Argentines out of the Falklands, we should remember this complaint.

And that really has nothing to do with it... its things like these comments which can spark wars...



Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1645 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 7):
Hmm. I thought the airbase was leased at the time to the US, and that the US had to agree to let the RAF back in. If that wasn't the case, my bad.

It was leased to the US at the time, with a clause that the RAF had full access if and when required for as long as required.

Yes we bought sidewinders from you, but we also went up against US weaponry in that little spat, and since then we have accompanied the US into at least two largescale military operations standalone from the international community so its quite amusing that you try to bring up minor involvement in a territorial conflict 24 years ago in order to belittle us.


User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1924 posts, RR: 33
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1636 times:

It's amazing that you have forgotten how much the UK supported the US in the past few years in overseas conflicts.

User currently offlineTERRA From Iraq, joined Aug 1999, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1621 times:

Don't really matter if it's a UK airport or not seeing as the UK is on planet America!!!!!!!!

User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1610 times:

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 8):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 4):

Is it really that bad that Britain does not want weapons that are going to be used to kill innocent people within its airports.

If that is the position of the UK - and apparently it isn't - then we have the right to take that into account the next time the UK asks for our support.

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 8):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 1):
Really? Maybe next time the Brits need our assistance to keep the Argentines out of the Falklands, we should remember this complaint.

And that really has nothing to do with it... its things like these comments which can spark wars

It has everything to do with it. Nations always act in their self interest, but that self interest has to be tempered with the realization that if you want assistance from a foreign country, that request - if acted upon - comes with the expectation that at some time in the future, that favor will have to be repaid.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 9):
It was leased to the US at the time, with a clause that the RAF had full access if and when required for as long as required.

Yes we bought sidewinders from you, but we also went up against US weaponry in that little spat, and since then we have accompanied the US into at least two largescale military operations standalone from the international community so its quite amusing that you try to bring up minor involvement in a territorial conflict 24 years ago in order to belittle us

I thought the comparison was apt - our minimal support to you in the Falklands conflict and your minimal support to us in supplying weapons to a third party. I'm in no way equating the Falklands with the Gulf War. For the assistance you've provided there, we owe you a huge debt.

BTW - this whole thread is pointless, now that we've been advised that the source of the disagreement was apparently not due to philosophical concerns of HMG. but on procedural grounds that we didn't follow the proper regulations. Which we should have.


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8693 posts, RR: 43
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1593 times:

Sigh... the point is that neither the Bush admin nor the Olmert admin is going to care, and no one can do a thing about it. The war will continue, people will get killed ("murdered" if you prefer that word) and hatred will keep growing. It would take a WW2-like disaster to make people in that region realise war or terrorism are not the solutions for their problems.


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1557 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 12):
If that is the position of the UK - and apparently it isn't - then we have the right to take that into account the next time the UK asks for our support.

What an astonishingly arrogant, self-centred comment that is.  Yeah sure

Firstly, if the US wants to stop off at UK airports, you follow our rules, and if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else.

Secondly, who made you President? If your government was as obnoxious and conceited as that over every perceived slight, you'd have the whole world ranged against you. Whatever the criticisms that might be levelled at them, thank God they aren't,

Thirdly, if the support of an American like yourself is conditional on us not objecting when you do somthing in our territory that you don't like, then frankly you can go and climb a tree, because it's not worth having.

Fourthly, I seem to remember that the US has been reliant on British support rather than the other way around over recent years.

I know perfectly well that a great many Americans will be cringing at your apparent "How dare you object" attitude, which is why I would never tar an entire nation with the same brush; but quite frankly, such a perspective is more likely than anything to make me think "Get stuffed" than anything else.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineBHXFAOTIPYYC From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1548 times:

I think the BBC website explains it better.


Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1523 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
Firstly, if the US wants to stop off at UK airports, you follow our rules, and if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else.

I guess you missed the post where it was stated that the reason for the UK's concern was over following rules, not politics, and how I stated that if that was the case, we were wrong.

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
Secondly, who made you President? If your government was as obnoxious and conceited as that over every perceived slight, you'd have the whole world ranged against you. Whatever the criticisms that might be levelled at them, thank God they aren't

I never said I was President. If anyone is being obnoxious about this issue, it isn't me. My original comment was based on the understanding that the concern filed by the UK FM was politically motivated. Once I found out it wasn't, I admitted we were wrong if we didn't follow UK procedure. How is that obnoxious?

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
Thirdly, if the support of an American like yourself is conditional on us not objecting when you do somthing in our territory that you don't like, then frankly you can go and climb a tree, because it's not worth having

That is indeed your choice. And if helping us in a given situation is contrary to your values and national policy, then you have every right to say no to our request. Just like we have the right to say no to one of your requests we don't agree with. Why that simple concept has infuriated some of you is unclear.

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
Fourthly, I seem to remember that the US has been reliant on British support rather than the other way around over recent years.

LOL, I'm not going to go down the "who owes who more" route. Lord knows we've beaten that dead horse more than once. I'll just once more point out that I did note for the record that we are in your debt for the support over the past decade. So while you attempt to demonize me, don't overlook that.

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
I know perfectly well that a great many Americans will be cringing at your apparent "How dare you object" attitude, which is why I would never tar an entire nation with the same brush;

Oh really? They've all just been jumping off the page, haven't they?

And for the record, if the UK objection HAD been politically motivated, are you saying that we don't have the right to take that into consideration the next time you ask us to do something we might philosophically disagree with?


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 41
Reply 17, posted (7 years 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1467 times:

In order to prevent a lot of duplication, and in order to prevent the arguments spiralling out of control, we have decided to create four official threads to deal with the current conflict involving Israel and Lebanon in the Middle East. Please find these discussions here:

Official Middle East Situation Report Thread (by Moderators Aug 1 2006 in Non Aviation)

Official Sympathy For Israel Thread (by Moderators Aug 1 2006 in Non Aviation)

Official Sympathy For Lebanon Thread (by Moderators Aug 1 2006 in Non Aviation)

Official Middle East Conflict Discussion Thread (by Moderators Aug 1 2006 in Non Aviation)

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Sends Warning To Iran--Sells Israel Weapons posted Thu Apr 28 2005 15:13:39 by RJpieces
Alanis Wears "bodysuit" To Mope Over US Censorship posted Tue Apr 6 2004 19:29:23 by Jaysit
Israel Says To US... posted Sat Sep 15 2001 10:30:21 by TWAmerican
How To Get Over A Broken Heart? posted Sun Sep 3 2006 19:47:04 by Upsmd11
Israel Bomb 'kills UN Observers' posted Wed Jul 26 2006 00:12:54 by LeonB1985
So When Does Israel Bomb Syria? posted Mon Jul 17 2006 18:59:05 by AirRyan
Abbas To Hamas: Recognize Israel Within 10 Days posted Thu May 25 2006 15:43:30 by Falcon84
Iran's Threat To US Is Financial, Not Nuclear posted Wed May 17 2006 17:07:45 by Ilikeyyc
Cheap Refundable Tickets From Russia To US? posted Sun Apr 30 2006 03:01:40 by Mir
Accusation Of War Crimes In Iraq Sticks To US. posted Tue Mar 21 2006 17:50:05 by Sabenapilot