Could we beat the EU in battle?

[cromwell]

Thread remains closed.......for now maybe for good.

A good few posts removed

[Forum admin]

Locked pending moderation

[DeppityDawg]

Seems the wind up merchant posting the OP is achieving his objectives.

No Barry, a formerly banned member of another forum comes into a thread addressing arguments that no one made because someone used his trigger word

[Barry]

Seems the wind up merchant posting the OP is achieving his objectives.

[Jaydee]

I've quoted the post I was responding to. I've told you he was referring to Iceland (in the Cod War). I've put the context in which the GIUK gap was mentioned. I've refuted his claim and said why.

I've not mentioned the EU in the post. Or that we either could or couldn't "beat them in battle". Because frankly, the thread is one of numerous "wind up" threads started on this forum by a couple of posters. And I would suggest that anyone who can't see that is suffering from a bad case of taking themselves too seriously.

Now - what is your fecking point? Do you agree that Iceland "sent our boys packing"? If so, make a case to the POINT being addressed.

Good.   Now we agree.  You mentioned the GIUK. Not me.   I gave you the story of it.  That's my fecking point.  And if you cannot reply without growling and firing  insults.  Then go put bells on your knees,  dance around a maypole and kick the crap out  of -your cat.  And no. I do not agree.  The cod wars were a series of disputes between Britain and Iceland running from the 1950s to the 1970s over the rights to fish in Icelandic waters. Although it was never a war in the conventional sense of the word (the massive and well-equipped Royal Navy would have easily defeated the tiny Icelandic Navy), the peak of the Cod Wars saw thirty seven Royal Navy warships mobilised to protect British trawlers fishing in the disputed territory. While the wars were eventually settled through diplomatic means there was conflict between British naval vessels and Icelandic ships out at sea. The Cod Wars showed how seriously nations took their fishing rights, and the lengths they would go to in order to access rich fishing grounds. And for your information 80% of white fish stocks are in Scottish waters.  The richest fishing ground in the world. In terms of UK waters.  .  Sold to the highest bidder by Big Kranky Bojo and his tosspots.  The only thing that would be arrested in Scottish waters, or trawlers fishing out of Hull.    Would be Scottish and English Trawlers.  The fanny being spouted about fishing, by Big Kranky Bojo, the Westminster muppet  and his despots.  Is just that.  Fanny. For idiots who cannot think for themselves to believe.  Who fall for it hook line and sinker.  And oh.  It is the job of the member state to police its territorial waters.  Not the EU. But heh why let facts get in the road.


https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk-defra-michael-gove/
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/07/fishing-brexit-uk-fleetwood/
http://www.marinet.org.uk/who-owns-the-uk-fishing-industry-and-its-fishing-quotas.html

[DeppityDawg]

Let me see Cecil.  You quoted the GIUK gap. Not me.   You need a navy. I explained the GIUK gap.   And oh look at the title of the thread. Could we beat the EU in battle? I have a better idea.  You explain.  What has that, how did you put it.. ah bullshit..  to do with the price of fish.

I've quoted the post I was responding to. I've told you he was referring to Iceland (in the Cod War). I've put the context in which the GIUK gap was mentioned. I've refuted his claim and said why.

I've not mentioned the EU in the post. Or that we either could or couldn't "beat them in battle". Because frankly, the thread is one of numerous "wind up" threads started on this forum by a couple of posters. And I would suggest that anyone who can't see that is suffering from a bad case of taking themselves too seriously.

Now - what is your fecking point? Do you agree that Iceland "sent our boys packing"? If so, make a case to the POINT being addressed.

[Jaydee]

Well what it has to do with anything other than we won't be going to war with the eu.

Overactive imaginations in play and read too much Orwells 1984,we aren't part of Oceania and won't be opening hostilities with Eurasia.

Exactly.

[cromwell]

Let me see Cecil.  You quoted the GIUK gap. Not me.   You need a navy. I explained the GIUK gap.   And oh look at the title of the thread. Could we beat the EU in battle? I have a better idea.  You explain.  What has that, how did you put it.. ah bullshit..  to do with the price of fish.

Well what it has to do with anything other than we won't be going to war with the eu.

Overactive imaginations in play and read too much Orwells 1984,we aren't part of Oceania and won't be opening hostilities with Eurasia.

[Thomas]

British Armed Services have been cut so much, excellent as the people left in them are, frankly, there are now so few of them I doubt they could deal with a major insurgency on the British Mainland let alone the combined armed services of Europe.

We know that.

No one disagrees , so why state the obvious?

[DeppityDawg]

Yes that's right.  It was about the GIUK gap. You brought up. Not me.. Now explained to you.   And how did you put it.  A bulls..story put to bed.

No, it was about...

Iceland has no navy, but they still sent your lads packing.

Iceland didn't send anyones lads "packing", the US did.

Now explained to you - Bullshit story, period.

[papasmurf]

British Armed Services have been cut so much, excellent as the people left in them are, frankly, there are now so few of them I doubt they could deal with a major insurgency on the British Mainland let alone the combined armed services of Europe.

[DeppityDawg]

Not in the south of England.  Feeding the local economy.  What was that about Another bullsh*t story put to bed.  But heh why let facts get in the road. And oh.  They are not my facts. Or am I piss taking.

Is that right Dougal? The subject was the "Cod War", in which the poster stated that Iceland "fecked off the Brits" or words to that effect - Icelands navy or lack of a navy had feck all to do with the RN pulling out, the RN pulled out due to US pressure after Iceland threatened (again) to leave NATO and deny them use of airbases to cover the GIUK gap  - so yes, spit screen, it was a "bullshit story"

Now, if you have an axe to grind thread to make about UK defence cuts over the years, or the Nuclear deterent policy, or the deployment of UK forces (or not as the case may be), then fecking start one. But don't misrepresent what other people have said.

And by the way. Wipe your fecking screen so you can read what others say

[Jaydee]

No Mr wind up, it wasn't Icelands lack of a navy that "sent our lads packing", it was the US, after Icelands threats to pull out of NATO, which it did every time the fishing issue cropped up. Because they knew the SPAMS wouldn't be keen on anything that denied NATO use of airbases in Iceland with which to patrol the GIUK gap for Soviet Nuclear submarines. Oddly enough, if you are Canadian, it wouldn't have done you any favours either

Another bullsh*t story put to bed

In the Thatcher government.  One Defence Secretary who went by the name of Michael Portillo worked out that sooner or later the United States would elect a President, a total bampot who would disagree with NATO. He is now here and goes by the name of Donald Trump. To overcome that scenario Portillo approached the EU nation and it came away with a plan that the UK would build two aircraft and the French one. Those will be protected by the Navies of other EU Nations. It would be called a European Rapid Reaction force. Or for clowns, who are still at war with Germany to believe,  Junkers army. The plan Up to 60,000 soldiers will be contributed by member states, to come together for specific operations and for training. The biggest contingent will be from Germany, which has promised to make at least 13,500 troops available. France is offering around 12,000; Italy and Spain 6000; the Netherlands 5000; Greece 3000; Finland and Sweden 2000 each; Belgium, Ireland and Portugal 1000 each, and Luxembourg 500.

The UK. 12,500 troops, plus a sizeable chunk of the Royal Navy and up to 72 combat aircraft. Or let me put it like this.. In 1996, the UK and the EU discussed ways to integrate the EU's defence efforts. The then defence secretary, Michael Portillo, signed a Letter of Intent with his French counterpart setting up 23 Anglo-French naval study groups, including one on Future aircraft carrier development. This led in turn to the 1999 Helsinki goals, centred on setting up a European Rapid Reaction Force, able to operate anywhere in the world. A major contribution to this would be three giant aircraft carriers, two built by Britain, one by France, with other navies such as those of Spain and Italy providing the necessary escort cover. Seems reasonable to me. The UK aircraft carriers are now here. I doubt now if one will ever see service. The French have four. One the most sophisticated in the world outside the United States.  And I doubt if any EU country will contribute anything now to the UK. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/27/exposed-britain-forced-call-nato-allies-deal-russian-threats/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-left-britain-defenceless-huge-10376621

And since the defence review.  The armed forces of the Uk have been decimated. The Royal Navy only has 19 surface Combats ships.   They will be unable on their own to protect one aircraft carrier.  Far less two.  In the past few years Russian heavy missile cruisers have stood for days just of the Moray Firth totally undetected. That is within 140 miles of the UK nuclear deterrent base. It took 24 hours for a navy destroyer to get on station. And in the link it states it was being tracked, was a load of absolute crap. The Russians informed the MOD by twitter. They had been parked there for two days. God knows what they put ashore.  There was not one single surface warship anywhere in Scottish waters. That is a disgrace. In any language. And a joke. And this along with other incidents has happened several times. Here are a few. And this since this Tory Government came on line. These links are the tip of the iceberg. And the Americans are getting very fed up as the UK is unable to police the GIUK gap.  As Russians subs slink in and out undetected.  The UK has asked the Norwegians and the Canadians, with their maritime reconnaissance  to patrol this for them.   The threat to the UK is the Northern approaches and the Royal Navy should be based in Scapa Flow.  Not in the south of England.  Feeding the local economy.  What was that about Another bullsh*t story put to bed.  But heh why let facts get in the road. And oh.  They are not my facts. Or am I piss taking. 

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/royal-navy-needed-24-hours-to-reach-russian-missile-ship-off-uk-coast/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/27/exposed-britain-forced-call-nato-allies-deal-russian-threats/
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15402070.russians-caught-lurking-near-faslane-naval-base-to-eavesdrop-on-nuclear-submarines/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11334836/MoD-forced-to-ask-US-for-help-in-tracking-Russian-submarine.html

[Thomas]

I think "HallowedBrexit" might live in a caravan in Roscrea too 

Honestly deppity , this forum is brilliant.

All we need is sensitive steve back online and the full cast of one flew over the cuckoos nest will be complete.

[DeppityDawg]

stope it !pleassszzz.

I think "HallowedBrexit" might live in a caravan in Roscrea too