"They received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.  Therefore many believed."--Acts 17:11

Berean Christadelphians


For Further Information Contact:  Jim Phillips

Berean Christadelphians
Register Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 12      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #16 
More involvement from Britain, in US politics.  This time a bashing of Governor Sarah Palin.

A British government minister attacked Republican US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin as "horrendous" at the Labour Party conference on Saturday.

From my perspective, which I admit is heavily anti British due to my reading of their history and current events, which I regard as anti Semitic; England is progressing faster and faster towards becoming a European state, with a European perspective of the world. 
I still believe, as bro. Thomas believed, that Britain will ultimately be opposed to the European alliance, but it is becoming easier by the year, to make the argument that Britain was, after all, once a part of Nebuchadnezzar's image, and may at the last stand with that image.  I still believe that something will happen to change Britain's attitude.  But it must come quick. 
This British woman, who may only be a footnote in true history, misunderstands the American people.  Concerning Governor Sarah Palin, she says:

"I just think there is so much anti-politics -- not just in this country but around the world," Blears said.

"One of the reasons why Sarah Palin has been such a phenomenon is because she's anti-politics, anti-Washington.

"Her politics are horrendous, but actually she's struck a chord with people -- 'I'm a maverick, I'm not part of those powerful people' -- and people identified with that."

Plaine strongly anti-abortion governor of Alaska, has boosted Republican candidate John McCain's fortunes since being named his surprise choice as running mate. She has previously remarked that US soldiers in Iraq were being sent on a task from God.  

Earlier this month, Brown denied favouring either
McCain or Barack Obama in the US presidential race, despite writing an article in which he appeared to back the Democrats.

Governor Palin is not popular because she is anti government, but because she is in tune with a significant portion of the American people.  She is a strong anti abortion candidate.  She is a strong anti Russia candidate.  She is a strong anti evolution candidate, believing the Genesis 1 account.  She is a strong "Christ will return to this earth in my lifetime" candidate.  She is a strong pro Israel candidate.   And while she did not say that the US soldiers were on a task from God, she did pray that the US was doing what God wanted in Iraq. 
Governor Palin has not appealed to the American people because she is anti Washington, but because she is anti European/Fascist.  She is opposed to the secular advancements in the US, which would make the US like Europe.
This is hard for me, as a Christadelphian to deal with.  I fear the American Christian right, or more specifically the Catholic right, truly believing that if they could, they would execute folks like me.  At the same time, I both fear and dispise the secular left, for their complete anti religious fervor, which has in fact become a religion to them. 
So while on the one hand, I would have nothing to do with a holiday like the Christian's Christmas, understanding full well its pagan implications, and knowing that at the judgment seat of Christ, I want to stand side by side with those who believe like me but were once hung on trees, doused with oil, and lit on fire to be the true Christmas ornaments; but I also can't stand those who oppose any acknowlegement of God in society with every chance they get, whose focus seems to be the destruction of the nativity scenes so popular at Christmas. 


Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #17 
So while on the one hand, I would have nothing to do with a holiday like the Christian's Christmas, understanding full well its pagan implications, and knowing that at the judgment seat of Christ, I want to stand side by side with those who believe like me but were once hung on trees, doused with oil, and lit on fire to be the true Christmas ornaments...-JP

A very sobering thought that should give us all pause for reflection.

Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #18 
I have posted an article by bro John Thomas on this subject to http://www.bereanchristadelphians.co.uk > click on Booklet Downloads then > click on Herald article at the bottom of the page.

I would be interested in receiving from Jim and Bob (or indeed anyone else) their thoughts on bro Thomas' detailed view of these prophecies.


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #19 

Hello bro. Steve, and thank you for your thoughts. I can't get your article to down load, but I'm sure you are in reference to the 1860 Herald article beginning on page 49.

I think the article is one of the most enlightened articles on the subject of Tyre. I doubt you are questioning whether or not I agree with the exposition of Tyre in the article, but rather, if I think the conclusions bro. Thomas reached from his exposition of the prophesy in 1860, would be the same conclusions he would reach today.

For instance, early on we find this paragraph:

Tyre was likewise the emporium, or commercial centre, or capital, of the fleets of Tarshish. In view, therefore of Tyre’s destruction by the Chaldeans the prophet says, "Howl O ye ships of Tarshish; for your stronghold is destroyed." Tyre was the stronghold of the Mediterranean and other commercial navies, as London or Britain is at this day.

So here we have his exposition, that Tyre was the emporium or commercial centre or capital of the fleets of Tarshish. Tyre was the "stronghold" for the Mediterranean’s commercial fleets. Bro. Thomas’ exposition is, I believe, an inescapable fact. From all we can find out from history, this is who Tyre was.
In drawing prophetic conclusions from his exposition, bro. Thomas correctly identified London or Britain, as the nation in 1860, which fulfilled the type of Tyre at that time. Had Christ returned at that time, London would have been the antitypical Tyre. But now in 2008, does Britain still fulfill the type necessary for the Tyre of bro. Thomas’ exposition?

I think it is also an inescapable fact that the emporium of nations, the commercial centre or capital of the fleets of Tarshish in 2008, is clearly the US. The trade of the US alone exceeds the entire British economy. The US economy exceeds by 7 times, the British economy. In fact, the British economy no longer even exceeds her European neighbors, Germany having now exceeded Britain, both as a trading nation, and as an economic power.

The stronghold of the Mediterranean is the US. Concerning the Sea of Tarshish, the US is the only nation with a fleet in the Mediterranean. Russia is threatening to put a fleet back in the Med, but we shall see. The US Sixth Fleet is generally regarded as the most powerful force in the world, and is permanently stationed in the Med. It will, I believe, be this force that the east winds blow against. The Sixth Fleet is made up of 40 major war vessels, 175 aircraft and 21,000 men. So to put this in perspective, the US currently floats in the Med, an equivalent, and arguably a greater force than Britain has at her complete disposal. And the Sixth Fleet, by the way, is down sized from 2003, when the US kept two carrier groups in the Med, instead of just one.  If Russia reestablishes her presence in the Med, look for the US to bring back that second carrier.

The US exceeds the world in 2008, almost to the same identical point that Britain exceeded the world in 1860. I found this comment from an early Christadelphian about Britain's position as Tyre, interesting:

"From these particulars it appears that there are in the whole world, 9,642 steamers (wood, iron and steel), of which 5,020 belong to Britain."

That is nearly the same position the US holds today, where 52% of all money spent on arms in the entire world, is spent by the US.

The situation can easily be stated thus. Either bro. Thomas’ exposition is wrong, and Tyre was just a mediocre trading nation, one of many relatively insignificant trading nations in the world, being an average economic power with an impotent Navy, the results of which caused her to abandon Israel to the wiles of her enemies; in which case Britain may be the modern day Tyre: Or his exposition is correct, and the antitypical Tyre will be the greatest Naval power, the greatest trading nation, the greatest economic power in the world, and the nation whose wings spread out as a protectorate of Israel, in which case the US is (at least for the time being) the modern Tyre.

And to keep this consistent with this thread, then we may be looking at Tyre’s daughter in the lovely and gracious Governor from Alaska, Sarah Palin, who believes the Bible is true, including the Genesis account of creation, who believes in the sanctity of life, who believes the Jews are God’s chosen people, and who believes that Christ will return in her lifetime.


Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #20 
Thank you, bro Steve and bro Jim:

Presently, I agree with bro Jim in general that the USA seems to be the heir-apparent to the prophecy,  though we should recognize that sometimes events can change rather quickly. We recall the downward trend of the UK for decades, and then oil was discovered in the North Sea and she achieved a victory in the Falkland War - both of which at the time gave her a much needed boost in world position

If we are as close to the advent as it appears, then it would seem very doubtful that the UK would rise to the level necessary to match the prophecy in today's climate, though I do not think that we should write her off completely just yet.

The UK and USA are cousins. I do not believe that the later superseding the former - if this is indeed what happens -  circumvents brother Thomas' overall exegesis.

With respect to Governor Palin, time will answer. Sounds good for now.


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #21 

I agree, bro. Bob, that I could be way off concerning Governor Palin, both as to personage, and even whether or not the prophesy even requires a personage.


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #22 

In addressing the question raised by bro. Bob, as to whether we should expect Britain to rise again as Tyre, I would direct your attention to the following paragraph from the article brought to our attention by bro. Steve.

Isaiah indicates that Tyre, in the full import of his prophecy was not confined to the little isle off the Ph nici in shore. This appears from ch. 23:6, where he says to Tyre iv’ru Tarshishah. Pass ye over Tarshish; howl ye, O inhabitants of the isle! Is this your triumphant city; whose antiquity is of the earliest date? Her own feet shall carry her far away to sojourn; Chittim arise, pass over, even there thou shalt have no rest." From this it would appear, that Tyre was to emigrate from the Ph nician isle to Italy; but was not to abide there permanently. Tyre in Italy was the Tyrio-Tarshish Traffic there. But it was to find no rest there. This implies that Tyre was to remove from Italy; and become Tyre in some other place: that is, that wherever the traffic originally peculiar to Tyre should settle itself as in a stronghold, there would Tyre, and the stronghold of Tarshish be. Tyre was to carry herself away upon her own feet. Commerce and trade cannot be taken captive, and be compelled by a conqueror to locate itself where he pleases. They must flow in their own natural channels. A numerous, ingenious, and industrious population will export and import largely; and if it get the start of surrounding nations, it will become a great centre of attraction, and when, in its growth and prosperity, it developes into the old Ph nician similitude, there has Tyre carried herself upon her own feet, and not upon those of another. Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander might plunder her merchandise, but could not transfer her trafficking to Babylon or Macedonia. Tyre has been in Alexandria, in Venice, in Genoa, in Lisbon, in Holland, and lastly, in Britain, "far away" from her ancient home; and there "to sojourn" until she shall return over the Sea of Tarshish to her fatherland, there to pursue a course more calculated to bless the world than she has hitherto done in her harlotry with all the kingdoms of the earth.

Writing similarly in Eureka, bro. Thomas wrote:

The merchandise and revenue of the revived Tyrian Mother passed from her to Alexandria, Venice, Lisbon, and at length to Britannia; who holds on to them as her own peculiar and especial inheritance. She hopes to monopolize them as long as the sun and moon endure. Though this is objected to by other nations, and among these the United States, they have not the ability, and never will have, to divert them to their own ports and coffers.

Bro. Thomas' exposition of the prophesy here, is flawless. His projection that the US would never have the ability to divert the world's profits into her own ports and coffers, less so. This projection was based on his conviction that Christ's return was at the door, and the lead that Britain had on the rest of the world was insurmountable, within that time frame.

The situation is the same for us today. Today, I can easily say that the US is Tyre, and it is all but inconceivable in my lifetime, that this fact changes. But if Christ does not come in my lifetime, who knows who the next Tyre will be.

But I bring these quotes from bro. Thomas up to ask this question. My question is, why would we expect Tyre to migrate back to Britain, any more than we would expect her to migrate back to Lisbon, or Venice, or Alexandria? If Time goes on and Tyre migrates again, I would rather look for her to continue to go west, rather than to return to any of her former states. Will the next Tyre be Perth or Melbourne?

On the subject of British naval power, and the Falklands war, Janes "All the World's Fighting Ships" had an interesting take, in a publication they make called "The Year in Review." I can't find the direct quote right now, but it was to the effect that the British Navy has been so tightly woven into its role in NATO, that when it had to go to the Falklands, it had no ability to provide for its own defense. It was expecting to be able to rely on American Air Cover from the AWACS planes, such as would be the case in NATO. Without it, it had to place major war vessels in harms way, and lost four major vessels in the battle.

Four major vessels lost to outdated aircraft, which had very limited engagement time--having to fly from Argentina to the British fleet. If I remember correctly, the Argentinian jets had less than five minutes in which to engage the British Navy due to fuel constraints.

The point being, the King of the Sea does not rely on others for its defense. That is why they are called the King. Britain today, relies on the US for its own national defense, both in its Navy, and in its nuclear defense. Britain has nuclear weapons as a deterrent to Russia, but can't fire them without US approval and cooperation.


Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #23 
Hi Jim, thanks for your thoughts.  

If America is the Lion, then by default, that must make Britain a young lion?

How are the other nations who are allies of America young lions in relation to America?

Although America has the largest navy and has done since the middle of the last century, has America been known historically as being 'king of seas'?   Although, you have had the largest over this time, Britain hasn't been far behind until more recently.

Although it would be true to say that America has mined tin, has America ever been known throughout the world as having traded in a significant way in tin, copper, lead etc?  

Bro Thomas clearly believed that Britain was Tyre and Tarshish in his days.  I am not convinced that just because America has had the largest Naval force in the last 50 years, and has been the wealthiest nation pretty much for the same amount of time, he would all of a sudden believe from a prophetical point of view that America has taken that place.  

Britain's symbol around the world is represented by the Lion (just visit London and they have a couple of Lion statues on show in the streets); from the very name Britain, she is known as the land of tin, aligning herself with the types of trade of the old Tyre.  Britain is an Island who has always had to use the sea to export and import, and as been known for centuries as the king of the seas.  These are identification tags in prophecy, and around the world today, despite us being inferior to the US in capacity terms, we still have the reputation of having the best trained navy in the world.   As Roosevelt kicked off the Naval growth plan in the States, it would not be surprising to me if a future British Government decided that it was time to increase our fleet again.    If Russia continues to flex its muscles, and China continues to peruse her plan to dominate the seas by 2045, then who knows what Britain might decide to do in the future.   It may take around 20 years to build and commission a warship typically, but under pressure with the right focus and resource, a country could equip herself much more quickly than that.    

Britain's economy was one and a half times the size of America.   By the 1950's, America's economy was three times the size, by 1990 five times the size and today between six and seven times the size.   Very uncertain times are ahead though, and anything could happen in the next few years as the global economy plunges into recession.   As we have seen the economic growth of America slowly outstrip Britain, we could just as easily, and in accelerated form, see the demise of America's economy.   No matter what ships you have in the Med. at the time of Gog's invasion, nothing of normal bulk will stop the might of Gog's armies.    Russia triumphant and Europe in chains will be the order of the day - a huge superpower in its own right against a weaker Tarshish and young lion nations.

I believe that America has assisted Britain as you would expect a young lion to do very effectively since the end of world war II.   Britain is seen as the old mother lion, and always will, in my view, in accordance with prophecy.

In summary:

A lion has never represented the US or been associated with it.

The US has never been known as a trader in tin throughout the world

The US is not an island in the strictest sense

Britain and the commonwealth relationship she has enjoyed, fits perfectly with the concept of an experienced lion and her maturing offspring.    Surely, the US has to be considered a young lion?

Although its economy and naval base is the biggest in the world, Britain is still in there at number four in the world economy league tables and is the second most powerful naval force in the world.    It would take very little to see things change so that America spent less on defense.   The sub-prime mortgage crisis has caused huge problems globally in the economic markets, virtually overnight.   The hand of Yahweh works in mysterious ways and can cause nations to become weaker and stronger as he sees fit in accordance with His Will and purpose.   

One thing we know for sure is that the Gogian host will be much more powerful than Tarshish and her young lions at the time of the end, for the latter will be powerless to intervene successfully.

May Heaven speed the day when these events are a reality in the earth.


Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #24 
Bre. Jim and Steve:

Good points all.

The prophetical testimony reveals a definitive latter-day alignment of nations: the Tarshish, the Gogian, et al.  As long as we keep this straight, where the evidence is compelling allowance should be made for a possible transposition of roles within these particular alignments.

For example: some believe that the USA has adopted the role of Tarshish. I do not. However, I can live with brethren who feel this way because the all-important alignment of nations remains intact. My personal belief is that Britain is the latter-day Tarshish. This appears to be established. See The Herald 3:227. Logically, the young lions are her offspring.

The latter-day Tyre should remain within this alignment and time will reveal if this is either Britain or one of her young lions.  A young lion could very well grow stronger than she who bore him as it often happens in the feline kingdom, and as is the case with the USA at the moment.


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #25 

Hello bro. Stephen,

And thank you for your thoughts. Your input is very valuable here, and much appreciated.

Now, in your previous post, you referred back to the 1860 article by bro. Thomas, and his exposition on the prophetic aspects of Tyre. I showed you that the exposition bro. Thomas did of Tyre, no longer fits his conclusion that Britain is the antitypical Tyre, but now bro. Thomas exposition fits only the USA. And of course I could have shown much more from that article. For example:

Who then is this daughter of Tyre, with whom we are contemporary? The answer to this question is that the only power extant of which the characteristics of the ancient Tyre are descriptive, is that of Britain. This will be seen by comparing the prophecies concerning Tyre with what exists in connection with Britain as a commercial and maritime community. We will here reproduce the leading characteristics which create a remarkable parallel.

Note the word "extant." This is not a discussion of what Britain was, any more than it is a discussion of what Alexandria, Lisbon, or Venice were. Bro. Thomas’ exposition requires an examination of the only power "extant," that is "existing today," which fulfills the characteristics of ancient Tyre. And of course, the true antitypical Tyre will be the nation which fulfills these characteristics at our Lord’s return.

Now, you acknowledge that the US is currently the King of the Sea, a necessary criteria for the antitypical Tyre/Tarshish state. You say that the US did not become dominant till the middle of the 20th century, which is true. But brethren had noted in the past, the potential that was in the US, to surpass Britain as Tarshish. Bro. Roberts specifically noted during his voyage to the US to bury bro. Thomas:


"The conversation took a turn in the direction of maritime matters. The interesting fact that England’s power on the sea has been greatly strengthened by the late civil war in America. The carrying trade was driven out of American hands by the depredations of the Confederate cruisers: but this would have quickly returned on the termination of the war, had not meanwhile, wages of all kinds in America gone up so much that it was impossible for American ship builders, to produce iron vessels at the price they were to be had for in England. From a scriptural point of view, the result of this is to secure to England her portion as the modern Tarshish, at a time when it was threatened by the development of the American navy. The wind and sea rose again at night." Vol 8: pg 183

If Tyre/Tarshish is a historical conclusion, rather than a current events conclusion; how was England’s position as Tarshish threatened by the development of the American Navy? The answer is obvious. The pioneer brethren recognized that the modern nation with the greatest navy was the antitypical Tarshish.  If the US Navy surpassed Britain, it would claim the title Tarshish, for itself.  Had the US not gone through the civil war, they would have surpassed the rest of the world in strength far sooner than they did. But this was not God’s plan. Britain was given the first chance to be Tarshish. She abandoned her responsibility in the middle of the 20th century, first with the white paper in 1939 restricting Jewish immigration to 75,000 per year, securing the deaths of millions of God’s chosen people in Europe; and finally by attempting to subvert the formation of Israel in 1947, refusing even to vote for the establishment of the nation of Israel in the United Nations. Britain made these decisions because she put the Arab nations (the enemies of Israel) on equal, or superior footing to Israel.

True to His promise that "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee," God abandoned Britain when she abandoned Israel, and found another people who loved Israel and would consistently work to save Israel against their own self interests. This nation He has elevated to the Tarshish/Tyre of today. This happened, as you point out, in the middle of the last century. (Anyone interested in why should research the British Mandate for Palestine, paying special attention to the secretary, Lord Harold MacMichael, who the Jews nicknamed "Haman.")

Anyone truly looking for a catalyst which will bring Britain back into a position of the antitypical Tyre, should watch for a British policy change which will favor Israel, at the expense of her enemies, and similarly, look for policies destructive of Israel coming from the US. What we have seen recently, with British teachers refusing to teach the Holocaust, and how that news simply appalled people in the US, indicates to me that we are no where close to seeing such a sea change.


Now, as I mentioned, you brought up the 1860 article, but as soon as I addressed the article, you abandoned it for arguments bro. Thomas did not make. I’m not saying your arguments are invalid. I am only pointing out that your arguments (Tharshish must be a nation representedby a lion, must have offspring that are young lions, must have once been a nation producing tin) are not the arguments of bro. Thomas. Before moving on to those arguments, is there anything more from the 1860 article you wish to discuss.

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #26 
Here is a paper I wrote in or around 1992 on the subject of Britain's betrayal of its role as Tarshish, and its position as protectorate of Israel.
There can be no question that the job of establishing Israel in Palestine was given by God to Britain, first. Their failure in this matter brings to mind Mordacai's words to Ester:

"For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed."

All are no doubt familiar that the Balfour declaration by Britain in 1917 established the principle that there should be a homeland for Israel. In 1917, in November, General Alenby marched into Jerusalem without firing a shot, and liberated the city from the Turks. The establishment of a homeland for the Jews under the British protectorate had begun, but it soon fell on hard times.

Britain's vital interests in the area depended on keeping not only the Jews happy, but also the Arabs. Britain was not just the protectorate of Israel, but also the protectorate of Jordan, Aden, Oman, and Egypt. Britain's policy of a homeland for the Jews met strong resistance in the Arab countries and soon was modified.

Nevertheless, immigration was allowed fairly freely till persecution of Jews became intense in Germany and Central Europe. The increase in the number of Jews wanting to immigrate from the persecutions under Nazi Germany, further upset the Arabs. At this time, Britain was attempting to make the Arabs happy, thereby enlisting their support for the World War II effort. After all, support of the Jews was guaranteed. What choice did they have? Their only alternative was Adolf Hitler and his gas chambers, hardly a choice.

In 1939 Britain set a new Jewish immigration policy in Chamberlain's White paper which limited immigration to 75,000 Jews per year. The intention of Britain was to prove to the Arabs that Britain wanted to keep the Palestine region with a dominant Arab population. What they envisioned was an Israeli nation under Arab control. But this policy was never acceptable to the Arabs, and certainly not acceptable to the Jews.

As Nazi persecution of the Jews intensified, it became harder and harder for Britain to walk the tight rope between the Arabs and the Jews. Jews, desperate to escape Germany began making illegal attempts for freedom; and the British, equally desperate for Arab support in their upcoming war against Germany, made stronger attempts to keep the Jews in Europe.

At the start of World War II, the British government declared the Jews to be "Enemy Aliens", and therefore ended all immigration to Israel. Even the 75,000 per year previously allowed by Chamberlain's White Paper, were now stopped. At this time, it should be noted that Germany was allowing all Jews to immigrate to any country that would take them. This German policy continued up till 1941.

In the first two years of World War II, the anti semitism in Britain began to show itself. Even apart from Palestine, there were many scarcely populated regions in the British Empire which could have accepted Jewish immigrants. When protests were made to the British Colonial Office concerning this fact, the following statement was issued:

"Apart from the obvious difficulties in the way of their getting to any colony, the hard fact remains that they are not wanted by any Colonial government for many good reasons, the most important of which is that they are sooner or later to become a burden on public funds."

The real problem had nothing to do with Jews being a burden on public funds, which throughout their history has never been the case anyway. The real problem was that the Colonial Empire was run by the Colonial Office, and the Colonial Office was supported by the Foreign and War Office. It was the latter which had been given the job of prohibiting at all costs, further Jewish immigration to Palestine.

The following is a list of comments concerning the Jews, made by high ranking British officials. The list was taken from a Jewish Magazine called "Midstream". It is their collection of comments made concerning Jews during the first two years of World War II.


"The Jews have done nothing but add to our difficulties..."--J.S. Bennot

"This sort of thing (an article on Zionism) makes one regret that the Jews are not on the other side of this war."--H.F. Downie, Colonial Office

"One has to take into account Mr. Downie's inward and spiritual conviction that illegal immigration is only the outward and visible sign of a world-wide scheme to overthrow the British Empire. It is only if one realizes that he regards the Jews as no less our enemies than the Germans, that certain features of this draft becomes explicable.""--The Colonial Office's explanation for Mr. Downie's above remark.

"In my opinion, a disproportionate amount of time of this office is wasted in dealing with these wailing Jews."--Foreign Office Official.

"I am convinced that in their hearts they hate us and have always hated us; they hate all gentiles."--Sir John Shuchburgh, Deputy Under-Secretary of the Colonial Office.

"There could have been no more opportune disaster from the point of view of this traffic."--T. M. Snow, Foreign Office, commenting on the sinking of the Salvador, a boat carrying 200 Jews from Bulgaria in the Black Sea.

British-Jewish relations hit its lowest point late in 1941 when the Sturma, a small yaught carrying 760 Jewish immigrants from Romania arrived in Istanbul, Turkey with its engines not working. The Jewish Agency in Britain requested that that they either be allowed entrance to Palestine; or that they be kept on Cyprus till they could be placed somewhere. But the fate of those Jews was sealed by Lord Moyne, the Colonial Secretary and High Commissioner for Palestine who discarded a variety of proposals and prevailed upon the Turks to tow the helpless boat out to the Black Sea where it sunk with all its passengers but one.

The first outcries were from the British Ambassador in Turkey, who could not understand the cruelty of his government, and officially protested the "inhumane decision" of the Colonial Office. The response of that office was:

"This is the first occasion on which ...the Turkish government has shown any signs to help in frustrating illegal immigrant ships, and the Ambassador then goes and spoils the whole effort on absurdly humanitarian grounds."

At the same time, Britain's attitude toward other groups of immigrants was different. In late 1940, Britain made arrangements to receive 300,000 refugees from Holland and Belgium. The misfortunes of war made their arrival in England impossible, but their places were not made available for Jews. When in December 1940, the Luxembourg government-in-exile appealed to the British appealed to the British to admit to England or to its Colonies 2,000 Luxembourg Jews, the Germans being then ready to release them, the British reply was that:

"They are not refugees of war in the sense that they are in danger because they have fought against the Germans, but only simple racial refugees."

During this same time, tens of thousands of refugees from Greece and Yugoslavia were admitted to British-controlled areas in the Middle East and maintained at British tax payer expense.

Another high ranking British anti-semite was Sir Harold MacMichael. In July, 1940 when plans were laid for the removal from southeastern Europe of Polish Army units to fight in Palestine, MacMichael urged the Colonial Office to suggest "that only non-Jews be acceptable," adding that he had reason to believe that the Polish authorities would be willing to comply with this suggestion. After this, he began exploiting anti-semitism among Polish officers to make sure that they had no Jews in their ranks.

When even the Colonial Office suggested that fake passports be given Jews in Hungary, with the hope that they would then not be delivered to the camps at Auschwitz, of if they were, they would at least be delayed; and this proposition planned after the Jewish Agency promised not to honor or make claims based on the false passports; MacMichael objected on the founds that there is "little permanent value to any undertaking, formal or otherwise, which the Jewish Agency would give."

It must be pointed out that many British, most notably Prime Minister Winston Churchill were aware of this problem and made efforts to correct it. But, owing to the difficulties of war, their efforts were inadequate. By the end of 1941, Nazi Germany changed its immigration policy and began forbidding immigration of Jews, which took the pressure off of the Colonial and War offices. The millions of Jews who were not permitted immigration were now doomed to the genocide efforts of Nazi Germany.

After World War II, Britain found herself with the same problem that she had going into the war. Many Jews wanted to immigrate to Palestine, and the Arabs did not want them to come. Now, however, her problem was much more difficult, for not only did she have an enemy in the Arabs, but also among the Jews.

The atrocities of Germany had convinced many Jews as to the necessity of a Jewish state. The Jewish underground guerilla groups focused on Britain as that force which was keeping them from building a Jewish state in Palestine. Armed attacks against British soldiers became the norm in Israel. Britain became convinced that the Middle East was no longer in her best interests, and she began to wash her hands of the matter. In 1947, she notified the United Nations that Palestine was now their problem, and no matter what, Britain was removing her forces.

This rapid retreat of Britain from Palestine was again an attack against the Jews. While the British were there, Israel was prohibited by Britain from arming herself, though she was successful in secretly doing so. The sooner the British got out, the less capable Israel would be in defending herself.

The United Nations at that time was weighted heavily on the side of the allied powers which for the most part supported Israel. The move was made by the United States for partitioning a portion of Palestine off of the Arab world to make an Jewish State. Britain said that she would not support any action which was not agreeable to both Arabs and Israelis. Since none of the suggestions, least of all partitioning was mutually agreeable, Britain abstained on all matters of voting, and at the prescribed time, washed her hands of the matter, and left.

The US stepped in to fill the void. With massive amounts of money and weapons, they provided for Israel, and became among the first states to recognize Israel as a nation. And 40 years later, Israel still receives that special treatment from the US. In 1990, 25% of all US foreign aid still goes to Israel. The US continues to arm Israel under various grant programs, which are no more than programs to give Israel American weapons at tax payer expense. The US also maintains the only fleet in the Mediterranean, and the only friendly fleet in the Indian Ocean. The fact that the US has been propping up the Israeli government since it was partitioned, has not been lost on the Arab nations who still blame the US for the existence of Israel. 1983 brought the first true defense treaty between the US and Israel. It is subtle, and only spells out certain defensive responsibilities between the US and Israel. It is merely a confirming of the last 35 years of actual practice.


Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #27 
Thank you, bro Jim:

You make a very good case.

Question: Thinking specifically within the context of Ezekiel 38, if the USA has adopted the role of latter-day Tarshish - for the reasons that you cite - then who are the young lions and where does this leave Britain in the prophecy? Is she no longer there? or is she one of the young lions? If the latter is the case,  then how is she a young lion?

No doubt you have already worked out this apparent problem, and I would be greatly interested in how you have done so.


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #28 

If America is the Lion, then by default, that must make Britain a young lion?

How are the other nations who are allies of America young lions in relation to America?

First off, I think it necessary to be very clear as to what, in bro. Thomas’ teaching, makes a nation a young lion. Generally, I think the more modern brethren believe that if a nation spawned another nation, then it is a young lion of that nation. And while that may be a reasonable exposition of the prophesy, it is not the exposition of bro. Thomas.

Bro. Thomas laid the principles before us quite plainly:

Young rams and young goats were civil and military officials under the ram and goat sovereignties; as also "young lions" are the same under the old Lion of England. This, the lion-power, is represented in the government of India by "the Board of Control", and the imperial forces which serve with the Company’s troops in the Indian Army. The merchants of Tarshish govern India under the control of the lion-power—a constitution of things well represented in the Company’s arms, which are a shield whose quarterings are filled with young lions rampant, with the motto, "Auspicio Senaťs Angliæ;".–Elpis Israel 435

This is what, according to bro. Thomas, makes a nation a young lion. A nation whose civil and military officials are controlled by the Old Lion. Hence India, an ancient nation which can in no sense be said to be spawned by Britain, was a young lion in bro. Thomas’ exposition, due to the influence of the British Indian Tea Company, and their military and civil domination of that ancient country. Bro. Thomas lists Sheba and Dedan as potential young lions, for the same reason.

Before going any further, let me write a bit about the expression of "the lion." Modern Christadelphians like to use the expression "mother lion." This expression is not used by bro. Thomas. Only once does bro. Roberts make any veiled reference to the "old mother" and that not till 1898? The Lion of Tarshish is not a mother lion, but rather the dominant male of the pride. He is the King going forth to the war, with the young lions in the rear following him. It is not a mother waiting to be defended by its children. No such thing exists in a pride.

Here is bro. Thomas defining the role of the Lion of Tarshish:

At that time [the time of the end] the Old World will be divided into two great adverse confederacies, of which Russia and Britain will be the powers in chief; the former having the lordship of the earth defined, and the latter of the sea and its coast to a great extent.–Daniel p. 81

The dominant lion will be the "power in chief" of the young lions, whose military and civil affairs, he controls. This is the prophetic exposition of bro. Thomas, not any thoughts about mother lions. So the question becomes, who is in control of the civil and military affairs of the allied states? All we have do is look to the alliances themselves, and we will see the answer. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Oranization) has two divisions, the army and navy. Britain and Canada are in NATO with the United States. NATO Army is always commanded by an American General, and the Navy is always commanded by an American Admiral. (The lone exception is the British Channel Command, which is controlled by a British Admiral.) Canada also is in two other alliances with the US, SAC (Strategic Air Command) and NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) both commanded by an American General. Australian and New Zealand also have defense packs with the US, called ANZUS, and this is always commanded by an US Admiral.

Following WWII, Britain made a commitment which defined her as a young lion. She adopted a policy which aimed at fulfilling her role in NATO, and abandoned any thoughts of leading, or going to battle alone. The scaling down of the Royal Navy, and the intentional decline of Britain in world affairs was an intentional move on Britain's part. Captain Moore of the Royal Navy made this comment as to what set the stage for Britain's "retreat" from the world stage, as many in the British parliament referred to it. Quoting now from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"In the government's annual `White Paper' on Defense he (Defense Minister Duncan Sandys) states that such good progress was being made in the development of sea to air missiles, ballistic rockets, and missile defence that it had decided to abandon costly plans for further fighter aircraft or bombers beyond the Lightening, Vulcan, and Victors then in production. Except for modest numbers of strategic nuclear missiles, it was intended that Britain's three armed services should eventually become purely tactical and interdependent, seldom straying operationally beyond European boundaries of NATO." (That was in 1957).

The question might be asked, how effective has Britain's stated policy of not straying away from NATO been? The best and most recent example of its effectiveness was the Falkland's War. In this war, Britain was forced to move away from NATO. While the war was a stunning victory for the British Royal Marines, it showed what a disastrous effect the NATO policy has had on the Royal Navy.

Outside of NATO protection, the Royal Navy had virtually no effective defense from air attacks. Although Argentina's air force was small, about 200 fighter/bombers; and the distance to the Falklands was nearly out of their range, still the battle cost Britain 4 major war vessels. British Admirals have stressed that an Air Force is not necessarily the superior force against a Navy, but the best way to fight air power was with air power. Britain had no way to get adequate air power to the Falklands, nor did they have an adequate way to get what air power they did have (approximately 40 Sea Harrier Fighter/Bombers) into the air fast enough to protect their front line ships.

Jane's Military Review, 1982, the most respected journal concerning military affairs in Britain makes this comment about the ability of the Royal Navy away from the protection of the US.

"The Royal Navy, like Britain's other armed forces, is tailored tightly to its NATO role where it can expect to be screened by the United States Air Force/NATO (AWACS) Early Warning Systems Aircraft, United States Naval Carriers, and United States Carrier-borne Hawkeyes. Off the Falklands its destroyers had to provide radar picket cover, and paid the price."

What that means is that in the Falklands, it was necessary for Britain to have some sort of radar working, to warn the Marines on shore as to the advancing Argentinean Fighters, as well as radar to protect the British fleet. The UK had no way of doing this by itself. Its normal operations called for the US to provide this function, and of course, the US was officially not involved.

With no aircraft to provide the early warning systems, the UK had to rely on its Destroyers to provide radar cover, which left them at all time vulnerable to air attack. The Destroyers had to discover the enemy planes, and then fight without the advantage of air cover, until the British could get the Harrier's into the air. While the Harrier's performed marvelously, they were not adequate for fleet protection, and Britain paid the price in the loss of four ships. And had the geography been different, that is, if Britain would have to move its fleet closer to land based air craft as any war in the Middle East would require, the results would have been much worse for Britain.

The inability of all NATO states, including Canada and the United Kingdom to provide for their own conventional and civil defense in Europe, has led to the placing of strategic nuclear weapons on European soil. (These are now greatly reduced in presence, but the event itself shows the power that the US holds over the NATO client state, and therefore is an interesting topic for this discussion.)

Former US Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara had effectively made the point that nuclear arms are of little value in a war. Their only purpose is to keep the other side from launching a nuclear attack. But such an arsenal does not stop a conventional attack. The reason for that, in the words of Henry Kissenger to NATO states is, that "You cannot expect the US to put American Cities on the line in defense of Europe." If Russia attacked western Europe conventionally, the US could not launch a nuclear attack from the US without expecting a nuclear response from Russia. The US is simply not willing to do this.

Finally recognizing this, the NATO states had agreed to accept short range nuclear missiles place on European soil. The logic is that the USSR would not respond with a nuclear attack against the US, since the weapons would have been fired from Europe. So the US built the short range nuclear weapons on European soil, but in every case, the US alone controlled the firing of the weapons. None of the western powers were permitted to fire the missiles which were on their soil.

This is a perfect example of how the US has taken control of the military of the young lion nations. In England's case, she acknowledges that she is not in a position to fight a conventional war, and that her total defense will necessarily be strategic, or nuclear. Then she turns the keys of her nuclear defense over to the US. The leading representative of the party opposed to Margaret Thatcher objected strongly to the change to the policy of US control of Britain's defense. On the floor of the House of Commons, he told Mrs. Thatcher that she had made Britain "America's lackey". Of course he was right, Britain wisely preferring to be America's lackey, to Russia's slave.

NATO's (and more importantly, Britain's) defense does not lie in "theatre nuclear warheads" such as cruise missiles. It lies in the quantity of US conventional arms in the area. This is not the behavior of a king.

So, when did this change of Tarshish nations occur? Usually these things occur over many years and a precise date is not possible to say, but this is not the case with Britain. It did occur over many years (I’d say 1888 through 1941) but we also have a very clear, defining event, which was the signing of the Atlantic Charter, August 14, 1941. Prior to the US entering World War II, when the United States was simply arming Britain, then President Franklin Roosevelt demanded that Prime Minister Winston Churchill agree to the principles of the Atlantic Charter as the price of American involvement. The Atlantic Charter imposed upon Britain the principles of self determination for all nations, exemplified by the United States, and demanded that they agree not enlarge their empire as a result of victories in WWII. This document best symbolized the death of the old imperial British Lion, and the new role Britain accepted as subservient to the principles of the now dominant American Lion.

The attitude of the other nations changed at this time as well. The young lions can best be shown in the following quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"From early in the war, the Royal Australian Air Force was active in the defense of Britain. The Australian Navy operated in the Mediterranean (1940-1941), helping to win the battle of Cape Matapas (March 1941). Australian troops fought in the see-saw battles of North Africa. In mid 1941, Australians suffered heavy losses both in Allied defeats in Greece and Crete, and in the victories of Levant. Meanwhile the German general Erwin Rommel was scoring his greatest triumphs in North Africa; out of these emerged the successful Allied defense of Tobruk, substantially by Australians (April-December 1941).

"After the Japanese attacked the US Naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, (Dec. 7, 1941) however, the focus shifted homeward. The Japanese victories of the following months more than fulfilled the fantasies that fear and hate had prompted in Australia. In February fifteenth, 1942, 15,000 Australians became prisoners of war with Singapore's fall, and 4 days later war came to the nation's shores, when Darwin was bombed. Then came the Japanese swing southward, by August, threatening Port Moresly, New Guinea.

"The US became Australia's major ally. In a famous statement (December, 1941), Prime Minister Curtin declared:

"I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free from any pangs about our traditional links of friendship to Britain."

A sharper note of independence from Britain came when Curtin insisted that Australians recalled from the Middle East should return to Australia itself and not help in defense of Burma, as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wished. Conversely, America's needs prompted total response to Curtin’s call. US general Douglas MacArthur established his headquarters first in Melbourne, and then in Brisbane; the Australian Navy assisted the US victory in the battle of the Coral Sea in May, which retrospectively appears a turning point in the war; and the two nations troops thereafter fought in many joint land battles.

At other points too, ties with Britain loosened. After 1941-42 the Royal Navy was no longer Australia's shield against the world. The US and Japan became trading partners of comparable weight--and the West Indies became a more stimulating opponent at Cricket. Thus no longer could an Australian speak of Britain as `home' without appearing ridiculous.

(Australian foreign affairs following World War II) "Meanwhile, the movement of world politics soured the optimism of the 1940's. Turbulence in Asia, especially a communist victory in China, gave a new edge to Australia's long standing fear of attack from the North. In response, the country moved closer to the US, which alone offered the possibility of replacing the United Kingdom as a protector. Thus, Australia fought along with United Nations troops in Korea. In 1951 the country accepted the US view of Japan as a bulwark against Communism, while simultaneously the ANZUS pact (Australian, New Zealand, United States Defense pact) promised US help in case of attack; and in 1954, Australia joined the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) which extended US responsibilities through the area. The US built missile bases throughout Australia, and Australia's increasingly large defense expenditure bought much defense equipment. (MY NOTE: 60% of the Australian Royal Navy is US built.) Australia also supported the US in Viet Nam; it sent troops (including conscripts) to fight there, but these troops were withdrawn between August, 1971 and February 2, 1972.

Although SEATO has now gone out of existence, and the relationship of New Zealand to ANZUS is suspect; other treaties which guarantee her continued existence continues. When it became apparent to the nations that Britain could not take care of her commitments which she had in Europe, like the one to Poland and France in World War II; those nations outside of Europe quickly make alliances, giving their responsibility for their protection over to the US. Not only is the US responsible, but it is also the commander of such action, giving US the control of Australian Military Officials.

The Encyclopedia Britannica has similar things to say about New Zealand:

"The Pacific theatre was dominated by the US. whose forces provided New Zealand's sole defense. The fact that disaster was averted by the United States, and not by Britain forces required a change in New Zealand's attitude; security was conferred by a foreign, though friendly power. External relations in the post war period reflect this new situation, chiefly through ANZUS pact (1951).

"After the war, New Zealand began to play a relatively independent role in world affairs... None of these developments (wranglings over and in the United Nations) weakened New Zealand's close affinity with Great Britain, its loyalty to the Commonwealth of Nations, or its dependance upon the United States of America."

"New Zealand also became deeply involved in Southeast Asia. From 1951 it provided through the Colomba plan. New Zealanders fought in Malaya, Korea, and Viet Nam; further, New Zealand became a member of SEATO in 1954, and supported the US by sending troops to Viet Nam."

"The international situation deepened New Zealand's sense of isolation, as the UK continued its retreat from the world's stage, as the US maintained its post Viet Nam caution, and as Japanese economic strength was more nakedly shown in the Pacific region."

It is impossible to read these things, and not see that the US has become the dominant male of the pride, the nation other like minded nations look to for leadership and protection.

The largest of the young lion powers is Canada. Relations between Canada and the US were cautious for a long time. While many people will know that the first act of the Second Continental Congress of 1776 was to pronounce America's freedom from the British Empire, few people, I would guess, know that the first act of the first Continental Congress of 1775 was to declare war on Canada.

Canada was always cautious with the US not wanting to be annexed on the one hand; and not wanting to appear too close to the US for fear of the French Canadian vote which has always been a little hostile to the US. That caution was thrown to the wind with the early defeats of Britain at the start of WW II. We have seen how the military powers of Australia and New Zealand came to be dominated by the US. Here is the Encyclopedia Britannica's account of how it happened in Canada.

Here are comments from the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning Canada:

"The expulsion of the British from Europe, and the fall of France in May and June of 1940 totally changed the circumstances. Canada's defenses had fallen, and it immediately concluded an agreement at Ogdemsburg with the US for the defense of North America."

[After the war] "The outcome of the war was uncertain for Canada. It had no national interest to serve except the survival of Britain and the restoration of France. The most significant outcome of the war for Canada was the relative decline of Britain and the emergence of the US as the world's economic and military power. Canada's relations with Britain remained unchanged; those with the US became closer. The creation of the Permanent Joint Defense Board in 1970 was the greatest exercise in `continentalism' since the American invasion of Canada in 1775. Canada had moved far into the military system of the US, as it had done in the economic sphere.

"It was hoped and, indeed, assumed that there was a new continentalism, not isolationist as was the old, but international and devoted to collective security. Such was the purpose of America's war time leaders. Canada's problem was not that it had fallen under the control of the United States. The problem rather was to define its role in a post war world governed by the great powers through the UN.

"Canada's special relationship with the US continued and expanded. One notable example of joint action was in the Early Warning System against surprise attack, largely based in the Canadian Arctic. Another was the North American Defense Command (Norad) arrangement of 1958 for the defence of North America against missile attacks, in which elements of the Canadian Air Force were placed under American Command."

Of course, it wasn't just in Norad that Canada's military was under US control. Canada is also a member of NATO. The command of the actual military units in NATO is the Supreme Allied Commander, which since its inception to the present, has always been an American General. The NATO Navy has always been under the control of an American Admiral, except for the Channel Command, which has always been under a British Admiral.

Before going further, let me write a little more about the lion pride. As I have said, the term "mother lion" is a false term. Britain was the dominant male, up till 1940, and lost that role to the US, directly as the result of the Prime Minister Chamberlain White Paper in 1939. Generally speaking, in a lion pride, the dominant male does not allow other dominant males within the pride. A male offspring is driven off by the dominant male, as soon as he matures. So what was called "the young lions" were females and immature males.

It was for this reason that from 1776 through 1888, Britain and the US were mortal enemies. They fought two wars (1776 and 1812) the brethren saw no chance of the two nations coming together. They were two dominant males with nothing in common, and neither would tolerate the other in their pride. Britain was a monarchy, and the United States was a republic. There was simply no room for compromising these political standings, and therefore the nations remained in a constant state of hostility for over 100 years. Bro. Thomas saw through the eye of prophesy a time when the two nations would cooperate upon the sea of Tarshish against Gog, but other brethren, who generally walked by site, did not. Because what they actually saw prior to the 1880s was a hostility like that which exists today between Russia and the US. Bro. Thomas wrote:

"It is then added as a contemporary event: ' Thou breakest the ships of Tarshish with an East wind'—(Ps xlvhi. 7). This implies' that the ships broken and scattered are a fleet in the Mediterranean, which would be exposed to a hurricane from the East. This will doubtless be the British Mediterranean fleet co-operating with the land forces against the Russian armies in the Holy Land. The pride of Britain, and probably of America, in maritime alliance with her against the common enemy of Constitutional government and liberty, will be laid low by the wreck of the most powerful and magnificent fleet that ever floated upon the Sea of Tarshish."–The Destiny of the British Empire

Apparently bro. Thomas’ association of America with Britain was well known in the earliest days of the Christadelphian movement, and brethren made little secret of their disagreement with him. But as the world moved into the 1880s, the democratic spirit (the frog spirit) of the United States began to become a powerful force in British politics. The old Monarchical Lion of Britain began to die, and the young democratic lion of Britain was coming to the birth. We then find this in the 1887 Christadelphian, written by bro. Roberts:

"Brother Coddington recalls attention to the fact that Dr. Thomas said, as quoted in the Destiny of the British Empire:—‘The pride of Britain, and probably of America, in maritime alliance with her against the common enemy of constitutional government and liberty, will be laid low by the wreck of the most powerful and magnificent fleet that ever floated upon the Sea of Tarshish.’ The prospect of America coming into such close relations with England has always been considered an improbable thing by many in the faith, especially on the American side of the Atlantic, but brother Coddington thinks the improbable is beginning to look likely in view of the presentation of an address to the President of the United States signed by about a third of the members of the British Parliament, in favour of amity between the two nations, and the settlement of their differences by arbitration.

"‘Never before, in the history of the two nations (says brother Coddington) has Great Britain’s representative memorialised the President, and Congress of the United States, in favour of ‘International Arbitration.’ The principle was established in the settlement of the Alabama claims, and the way now seems to be opened for the acceptance by the American people of treaty relations with England, with the view of making future war between them impossible.

"‘It is truly marvellous’ (he says), ‘the depth of the Doctor’s insight into the oracles of the Deity.’ There are many of his bold predictions in ‘Destiny of the British Empire,’ which the brethren would gain much profit by a close study over again."

Never before had Great Britain’s representative memorialized the President and Congress, because the British Monarchy could not do so without bringing about her own death at the hand of republicans. Only a third of the British political leaders supported this association in 1887, but it was a start. The frog spirits were released in Great Britain, and the Monarchy became politically sick and dying, eventually becoming the mere ceremonial figure head fit only for the subjects of gossip columns that we see today. This new British Lion had no qualms about association with the American Lion. This British lion was born out of the American one, and wished better relations with its father! These feelings matured in 1941, abandoning the right of Empire to the frog spirit, at the same time Britain rejected Israel.


Posts: 936
Reply with quote  #29 
The USA as Tarshish and Tyre (or the Daughter thereof).

I do not know how many of us will take the time to read carefully the above.

We should.

This is the best case that I have read to date for the further movement of Tarshish (and Tyre). In the various publications of brother Thomas, the "migration" of these is set forth and carried forward to his day ca.1847-1871, at which time Britain is clearly in the role.  Then, using our brother's rationale for designating these as the UK, brother Jim bring it forward to ca.1941 when another movement takes place - which, it is supposed, shall be the final one - that is, to the USA.

I am not going to say that brother Thomas would have endorsed this.  No one, save the Lord, knows what the Doctor would have believed had he lived into the mid-20th century.  We can only go by what he did say.  Notwithstanding, the above appears to carry our brother's thoughts to a logical end and, accordingly,  is certainly worthy of thoughtful and respectful consideration.

Either way, Britain's intial postion is not denied and the critical latter-day alignment of nations is not changed. The English alliance remains intact.

Thank you, bro Jim.


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #30 
Thank you for your kind words, bro. Bob.

Note the planes below.  They are F-14s, carried aboard blue water carriers, the first from the US Abraham Lincoln which has served in the Med, and the second from the US Kitty Hawk.  As far as I know, the Kitty Hawk did not work in the Med, but did fly over Israel from the Indian Ocean.  Note the tail insignia.


Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.