Just now, Nyezhov said:

Damn! who do we have left? Corbyn?

Fine by me. Any socialist.

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Hardly, and nothing said to this effect.

The point made was that the "distraction value" of the OP makes your assertion dubious. Going the extra mile, so to say, would have (perhaps) generated such an effect. As it is...not so much.

 

I think it is more to do with the UK trying to keep on good terms with the US, Trump and all. Unless mistaken, Mattis brought the issue of wider international participation a few times. And Mattis is one of the "adults in the room" on Trump's administration - certainly when it comes to issues like NATO and international cooperation (more specifically on security issues).

 

 

Morch, oh look, you reckon that this is "more to do with the UK trying to keep on good terms with the US, Trump and all" ??

Well, yes, I agree. I put on my post, before yours, that I hope Washington will be giving a more generous trade deal with Britain, because of this. I mean, the last thing we want is, is that Beijing hits back at this by making whatever trade deal less generous, and Washington does not give Britain a more generous trade deal.


Yes, Washington's trade deals. Washington can go ahead and tax Chinese steel entering America. But what about British steel ? How about, when Britain leaves the EU, steel from the EU that enters America will be taxed in a higher way. But British steel entering America will only have minimal taxes put on it ?  Yes, keep on good terms with Washington, by sailing a few warships near whatever disputed islands, and Washington responds by not putting taxes and tariffs on British steel and other British products that enter America.

Do you reckon Trump will offer such a deal for Britain ? I hope he does.

Edited September 7, 20188 yr by tonbridgebrit

 

@tonbridgebrit

 

If you wish to "agree" with some straw-man point I didn't make, go right ahead. Just don't twist it as something related to my words.

 

There was no reference to trade agreements, steel, etc. And, more obviously, the view presented was that this is being carried out to mitigate Trump's effect on relations between the countries.

15 hours ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

So, just let China control the whole of the China Sea and eventually charge countries for passing through? Appeasement never works.  If it was possible, you should have a chat with Neville Chamberlain.

The U.K. Has thirteen frigates and an aircraft carrier with no aircraft. We have not had any capability East of Suez for decades. What on earth are we doing wasting money on a jolly like that? Pure deflection from matters at home.

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

The U.K. Has thirteen frigates and an aircraft carrier with no aircraft. We have not had any capability East of Suez for decades. What on earth are we doing wasting money on a jolly like that? Pure deflection from matters at home.

 

Reading the OP may help:

 

Quote

The HMS Albion, a 22,000 ton amphibious warship carrying a contingent of Royal Marines, passed by the Paracel Islands in recent days, said the sources, who were familiar with the matter but who asked not to be identified.

 

The Albion was on its way to Hanoi, where it docked on Monday following a deployment in and around Japan.

 

So not really a dedicated mission to stick a finger in China's eye, and not really much of a "pure deflection".

 

And a bit more:

 

Britain to have three warships in Japan by year’s end, envoy Mark Field says

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/04/13/national/britain-three-warships-japan-years-end-envoy-mark-field-says/

17 minutes ago, Grouse said:

The U.K. Has thirteen frigates and an aircraft carrier with no aircraft. We have not had any capability East of Suez for decades. What on earth are we doing wasting money on a jolly like that? Pure deflection from matters at home.

Grouse why are you talking down your own country?

UK has 1 aircraft carrier, 6 destroyers , 13 frigates, 10 nuclear powered submarines.

Maybe you are correct about the deflection, but wrong about the Royal navy.

Edited September 7, 20188 yr by colinneil

Trying to re-create the empire perhaps?

Hong Kong first!

Rule Britannia !

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Reading the OP may help:

 

 

So not really a dedicated mission to stick a finger in China's eye, and not really much of a "pure deflection".

 

And a bit more:

 

Britain to have three warships in Japan by year’s end, envoy Mark Field says

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/04/13/national/britain-three-warships-japan-years-end-envoy-mark-field-says/

You miss the point

 

With so few ships, what on earth are we doing on the other side of the planet? What are we going to do in Japan or North Vietnam?

4 hours ago, colinneil said:

Grouse why are you talking down your own country?

UK has 1 aircraft carrier, 6 destroyers , 13 frigates, 10 nuclear powered submarines.

Maybe you are correct about the deflection, but wrong about the Royal navy.

Don't misunderstand me. I think it is appalling that our fleet has been run down to such an extent. But what are we doing so far from home? What is the purpose?

 

I don't think we could even retake the Falklands now.

the uk still has a navy?

it is a good thing to see

4 hours ago, colinneil said:

Grouse why are you talking down your own country?

UK has 1 aircraft carrier, 6 destroyers , 13 frigates, 10 nuclear powered submarines.

Maybe you are correct about the deflection, but wrong about the Royal navy.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uk-military-navy-commentary/commentary-what-the-u-s-should-learn-from-britains-dying-navy-idUSKCN10L1AD

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

You miss the point

 

With so few ships, what on earth are we doing on the other side of the planet? What are we going to do in Japan or North Vietnam?

 

What point would that be?

 

In your original post you asserted that "we have not had any capability East of Suez for decades". Other than the OP being the obvious contradiction a link was provided regarding to the wider context of the vessel's mission. May find this of interest:

 

Standing Royal Navy Deployments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Royal_Navy_deployments

 

And, of course, the Royal Navy is somewhat larger than claimed. Not the largest, nor what it used to be, but still..

 

List of active Royal Navy ships

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Royal_Navy_ships

 

The view that such long range deployments are pointless, obsolete or cost too much is a valid one, even if one disagrees. But that's a different argument than casting this as "pure deflection from matters at home". Doubt this would have much "deflection-value", or that it will remain much of a headline for long.

 

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

Don't misunderstand me. I think it is appalling that our fleet has been run down to such an extent. But what are we doing so far from home? What is the purpose?

 

I don't think we could even retake the Falklands now.

 

The vessel in question is heading for Japan, where the marines on board will conduct training exercises with their Japanese counterparts. The other two Royal Navy vessels' (one deployed, the other set to arrive in a couple of months, I think) deployment is related to monitoring sanctions on North Korea.

21 hours ago, baboon said:

Fine by me. Any socialist.

Stalin? ?

59 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The vessel in question is heading for Japan, where the marines on board will conduct training exercises with their Japanese counterparts. The other two Royal Navy vessels' (one deployed, the other set to arrive in a couple of months, I think) deployment is related to monitoring sanctions on North Korea.

Why? What on earth is the point?

 

Build more Astute class and say nowt!

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The vessel in question is heading for Japan, where the marines on board will conduct training exercises with their Japanese counterparts. The other two Royal Navy vessels' (one deployed, the other set to arrive in a couple of months, I think) deployment is related to monitoring sanctions on North Korea.

Why? What on earth is the point?

 

Build more Astute class and say nowt!

 

Right now it's making a farce out of Prince of Wales and Repulse....

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Why? What on earth is the point?

 

Build more Astute class and say nowt!

 

Right now it's making a farce out of Prince of Wales and Repulse....

 

Why what? Kinda hard to figure what you're on about - what is the point of having joint military exercises with other countries? What is the point of contributing to enforcing UN sanctions? The former is the sort of thing military forces do, often in connection with governments' political and economic goals (trade deal with Japan on the horizon?). The latter is part of the UK's commitments with regard to relevant UNSC resolutions. Granted, it's rather symbolic compared to US deployments, but that's pretty much the case for most nations.

 

As said, the value of these deployments may be questioned. Fair enough. Still doesn't help to make the "distraction" argument, though.

 

just hoping nobody tests legalities too far, by flying any 747 along just outside the limits!   JAL can attest to that...

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Stalin? ?

Given he died in 1953 I doubt he would be of much use...

A post with no source has been removed along with replies.  

 

... which finger is on the trigger?

On 9/6/2018 at 7:36 AM, car720 said:

Precisely.  I hope they are not thinking of sending another gunboat up the yangtze.  The last time was disaster enough.

Yup, those pesky Chinese don’t like it “up the Yangtze”. ?