Britain 'prepares for war with North Korea' while 'new carrier could be rushed into service'

[marginline]

3 hours ago, Thaidream said:

In fact, America supported the British invasion from Ascension Island in the way of fuel for aircraft and ships and intelligence via satellite images.

Actually no; America did not support the British forces. And logistical support and intelligence was provided by Brazil at the request of the UK's oldest allies - Portugal.

[marginline]

18 hours ago, madusa said:

30 years back when I had an accident while on vacation in England I was admitted to the Stoke Mandaville Hospital (world famous for spinal injuries at that time) Everybody was so kind and so understanding...

...including Jimmy Savile?

[Thaidream]

Actually Yes-   Refer to the Evening Standard and the Guardian Newspapers as well as other reports available on the internet and my own discussion with a US military service member working on Ascension Island at the time. Ascension Island is a British possession leased to the United States.

 

At the time of the onset of hostilities- the fuel needed to keep the British fleet at sea and its airplanes in the sky was lacking and the Us military dispatched a fuel tanker to Ascension so the British Forces could proceed.  In addition, the US provided satellite imagery and intelligence reports to the British High Command.

 

According to Lord Renwick, British diplomat assigned to the British Embassy in Washington DC- Lady Thatcher asked for Sidewinder missiles and the Americans provided them. " Lord Powell of Bayswater, Lady Thatcher's key foreign affairs adviser, said that Britain would have lost the war without such assistance." (The Guardian-6 September 2002)

The point being that the US and Great Britain have a long history of helping each other during times of conflict and war.

[Grouse]

29 minutes ago, marginline said:

Actually no; America did not support the British forces. And logistical support and intelligence was provided by Brazil at the request of the UK's oldest allies - Portugal.

Sidewinders 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

Sidewinders 

 

And Harriers.

[Morch]

22 hours ago, Catoni said:

               Haven't they already spent most of the last 40 years or so negotiating ? ?   What has that accomplished except that now they have nukes that they didn't have before... and building the missiles for them ? ?   

   So much for negotiating. .  How soon we forget Neville Chamberlain and "Peace in our time". 

     Wake up people....  ! ! ! 

 

Guess it depends on how sees things. Various instances of negotiations and talks spanning many years. Not a whole lot achieved, but no outright major war as well (without ignoring numerous lesser hostile actions). Perhaps the sort of unhappy balance parties could live with. On the other hand, some may argue that Kim's possession of nuclear military capability and a reliable long range delivery system might tip the scales and disrupt this balance.

[madusa]

15 minutes ago, marginline said:

...including Jimmy Savile?

What's wrong with Jimmy? Japan will be making computerised dolls in the form of little kids so people like Jimmy would not be on the wrong side of the law. Would you be ordering one of these kid dolls? The British parliment decided that it is harmless and it helps to keep pedo off the streets, so no import tax. You lucky man you could import more than one then.

 

[Morch]

21 hours ago, anto said:

You wake up .Its America want War WAR .They have 2 Countries left on their agenda to invade ,N.Korea and Iran .( Read up what General Wesley Clark is saying ) .Kim is just defending his Country .

 

Kim is defending himself, rather than the country or the people of North Korea. He is  not a benevolent ruler, and his actions do little other to place North Korean and North Koreans at risk, and increase their hardship.

[marginline]

11 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Sidewinders

 

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

And Harriers

Of course you're right Grouse and Morch, I read that on Wikipedia too. However, as I was working in the operations room of a Strike Command facility processing flash communications in real time. I take my hat off to Brazil and Portugal.

[Morch]

19 hours ago, baboon said:

Not these old canards again...

1. When the DPRK roll their tanks into a foreign countries as Hitler did then let's start comparing the situation to WW II.

2. No we have not been negotiating with them on their nuclear weapons program for most of the past 40 years or more.

3. Since talks and negotiations have led to sanction after sanction, how is that benefiting them, exactly? 

 

 

6 hours ago, baboon said:

1. Korean tanks.

2. No, nothing like it. Trump tweets aren't the exact, literal and absolute truth, believe it or not.

3. So you agree with me, then.

 

Same old troll talking points.

 

No matter how you spin in, North Korea invaded South Korea. Semantics notwithstanding. The line of argumentation does bear some resemblance to Nazi Germany's justification, with regard to Germans living in neighboring countries, though.

 

Whether 40 years or not, one doesn't need Trump's blustering and inaccurate tweets in order to acknowledge that there were negotiations and talks. 

 

The point of negotiations is not necessarily to benefit your pet side. It is not a prerequisite that negotiations will be more favorable to your pet side. Sanctions were not applied without any relation to North Korea's conduct, stance and actions.

[marginline]

9 minutes ago, madusa said:

What's wrong with Jimmy? Japan will be making computerised dolls in the form of little kids so people like Jimmy would not be on the wrong side of the law. Would you be ordering one of these kid dolls? The British parliment decided that it is harmless and it helps to keep pedo off the streets, so no import tax. You lucky man you could import more than one then.

 

Oh my Buddha!

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

And Harriers.

The Americans provided the essential Sidewinder A to A missiles. The Sea Harriers were our own.

 

It was a close-run thing though. Bravery of H Jones et al overcame poor military judgement. The Vulcan strike and the disabled Exocets helped as did HMS Conqueror. It was necessary to demonstrate that far flung corners of the empire would be defended (Remember Hong Kong had not been handed back at the time). However the cynic in me notes that it won another term for Thatcher....

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Guess it depends on how sees things. Various instances of negotiations and talks spanning many years. Not a whole lot achieved, but no outright major war as well (without ignoring numerous lesser hostile actions). Perhaps the sort of unhappy balance parties could live with. On the other hand, some may argue that Kim's possession of nuclear military capability and a reliable long range delivery system might tip the scales and disrupt this balance.

Yes, that's my view.

[madusa]

14 minutes ago, marginline said:

Oh my Buddha!

Buddha disliked gay during buddha's time gay were know as "Pandaka". Buddha's strickly prohibited them from joining the monkhood community. Just check wikipedia for "Pandaka in buddha's time". 

[owl sees all]

I've got a solution!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Pitch the NK marching ladies against the best of the US cheerleaders and let the people decide. In a neutral country of course; Thailand. Up in the North-east; Phon Phisai way. Winner takes all!

 

I'll have a ticket!!

Edited October 11, 2017 by owl sees all

[marginline]

5 minutes ago, madusa said:

Buddha disliked gay during buddha's time gay were know as "Pandaka". Buddha's strickly prohibited them from joining the monkhood community. Just check wikipedia for "Pandaka in buddha's time". 

I believe you madusa. It would be kind of cool though if the Japanese would make Kim Jong-un dolls in retrospect, don't you think? With November 5th fast approaching, I could certainly imagine placing one of those - top of the stack.

[marginline]

44 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Lord Powell of Bayswater, Lady Thatcher's key foreign affairs adviser, said that Britain would have lost the war without such assistance." (The Guardian-6 September 2002)

Most respectfully and IMHO Thaidream; I'd have to agree to disagree with you krub concerning his lordship's assessment.

 

46 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The point being that the US and Great Britain have a long history of helping each other during times of conflict and war.

Good, sound point though and I thank you for sharing your thoughts krub.

[observer90210]

And ultimately, the  British [and US] taxpayers will get the hefty check and pay up to their necks in the madness on rushing for war....not to mention the losses in innocent human lives on all sides.....is it worth it ?

Edited October 11, 2017 by observer90210

[SheungWan]

On 10/9/2017 at 11:37 AM, Grouse said:

Well I'm not going to write the history here.

 

But, in an effort to force the Japanese to capitulate at the end of WW2, the Americans invited the Soviets to drive down Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula as far as the 38th parallel. At the end of the war a communist sympathising North Korea was the result. Their aim was always to reunite the country, free from imperialist oppression. The Korean War leads on from that. Similar to Vietnam situation IMHO. Watch out for Korcong infiltration, and make sure the American Embassy has a helipad on the roof!

 

Please, read some history ?

 

On 10/9/2017 at 12:12 PM, OMGImInPattaya said:

Maybe you need better sources than Pravda and the Socialist Worker.

During the Korean War Pravda was a straight mouthpiece for the USSR's interests. Grouse chimes more with that. Socialist Worker (then called Socialist Review) did not support either side in the war and stood out against the rest of the Left which lined up to support the Stalinist side controlling the North Korean state. That split on the left still rankles today. SW (SR) did not take a similar line in the Vietnam War which it regarded as a genuine national liberation struggle. The position for that war was Victory To The NLF as opposed to the soft-left Peace In Vietnam.

Edited October 11, 2017 by SheungWan

[marginline]

7 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

And ultimately, the  British [and US] taxpayers will get the hefty check and pay up to their necks in the madness on rushing for war....not to mention the losses in innocent human lives on all sides.....is it worth it ?

Quantitative easing and collateral damage is never a solution IMHO observer90210. It's very sad. 

[SheungWan]

13 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

And ultimately, the  British [and US] taxpayers will get the hefty check and pay up to their necks in the madness on rushing for war....not to mention the losses in innocent human lives on all sides.....is it worth it ?

Is there any war you would have concluded yes?

[Thaidream]

The only way to actually understand what really happened during the Falklands conflict would be to see the British after action report which I am sure points out who supported at what level and its impact on the war's outcome. I have to imagine that report is considered Top Secret. The only other evidence would be someone who was in the British High Command and would be willing to speak.

 

I remember the Falklands incident quite well and at First President Reagan wanted to maintain a neutral stance and from what I have read Lady Thatcher would have none of it pointing out the many times the UK came to the aid of the US. Reagan realized that neutrality was not possible and  told the US military to give the UK what they needed and then openly sided with the UK during the war. I have also read that the British SAS was sent on a mission deep into Argentina to blow up the Exocet missile stockpile but  the mission was eventually aborted and the troops redeployed directly to the Falklands itself. I never did find out what happened to those missiles- Argentina may still have them and to this day still claims the Falklands .

 

Fast forward to now- knowing the ability of British intelligence- I have to believe that  MI6 has extensive information regarding NKorea and that is one reason the British military is developing war plans involving NKorea. A N Korean attack on America or one of its territories or allies will trigger Nato thus involving the UK and I have to believe any negotiations between America and Korea would involve  the UK as a permanent member of the  UN and a signer of the Korean armistice.

[observer90210]

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Is there any war you would have concluded yes?

the war against poverty perhaps ?....the war against drugs maybe ? ... the war against disease, if I may  ?.....the war against racism ?..... 

 

Best Regards!

 

 

[SheungWan]

1 minute ago, observer90210 said:

the war against poverty perhaps ?....the war against drugs maybe ? ... the war against disease, if I may  ?.....the war against racism ?..... 

 

Best Regards!

 

 

I'll put that down as a No.

[marginline]

11 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Is there any war you would have concluded yes?

Most respectfully SheungWan, the Second Sino-Japanese War one could probably answer "yes" krub.

[scottiejohn]

On ‎09‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 1:38 PM, car720 said:

They did it with the Hms Hood.

I am not sure why you have made reference to HMS Hood in this context.  I think you mean HMS Prince Of Wales which still had some shipbuilders staff on board when she and Hood encountered Bismark and Hood was sunk.  That engagement had nothing to do with aircraft.

[habanero]

On 10/9/2017 at 10:39 AM, anto said:

Yes Britain ,The US lap dog .

Why do you say that? Don't remember anyone asking for Britains help. Trump said the U.S. will destroy N. Korea. Didn't mention anyone else.

[habanero]

On 10/9/2017 at 7:41 PM, Thaidream said:

I am not denying that both the U2 and the Pueblo were on spy missions and never have.  Governments deny the truth all the time until they are forced to admit the truth. Again, what does this have to do with the current situation in NKorea?

 

I was there- I know what NKorea has and what it is threatening. I am no neocon- I do not hold to that philosophy but I well know when there is a clear and present threat to the World.  Just it ignore it and it will go away. I wish it were true- I would love to say to NKorea- no problem- just keep doing what you are doing and shoot missiles over Japan; threaten the World with a nuclear launch and everything will be fine.

 

You are confusing your dislike of Donald Trump with the reality of the situation. Trump cannot stat a war on his own but you refuse to believe the truth. He can continue to bloviate and cause NKorea to worry if the Us will attack., The Us will not attack because there is no Worldwide consensus that would allow that to happen.  

 

What are you going to do when NKorea sells its nuclear technology to Iran or even worse to radical islam and they bring a nuclear weapon into central London and kill a million people. Probably blame the US because you didn't want to upset NKorea. Get a grip on the reality of the World today and what is at stake. If you have a plan to make it better state it -rather than continue to bloviate in the same manner Trump is bloviating.

It is not Trump's job to protect the world. It is Trump's job to protect the United States of America.

[marginline]

14 minutes ago, habanero said:

Why do you say that? Don't remember anyone asking for Britains help. Trump said the U.S. will destroy N. Korea. Didn't mention anyone else.

anto probably wasn't trying to be offensive habanero. What he probably meant was, when the world's largest and most powerful naval power goes on maneuvers, there's definitely no harm to having the world's best naval power - tag along krub.

Edited October 11, 2017 by marginline

[Thaidream]

An attack on one is an attack on all.  This is the overriding philosophy of Nato; Anzus and other defense agreements.  If your country is a member of a pact and you don't want your country involved- write to your government rep.  However, in my mind- countries like the US and the UK have a similar culture and a common background and  it makes sense to band together . During the 9-11 attack on America- several Nato countries deployed forces to the US and assisted in security operations.

[Thaidream]

I have always found that British Forces have always displayed a high level of professionalism and expertise.  If the US was attacked- I would hope the UK would assist.