Trump Hints US May Not Back UK Over Falklands

Just now, josephbloggs said:

Ok, I'll give you another go because you only answered half the question (the true half).

You said: And one of their parties (very) recently called for defunding military training in favor of "more benefits".

So I ask you again, who "very recently called for defunding the military in favour of "more benefits"?"

I didn't read anything about the cuts being for "more benefits".

Use your search function and look for the word "benefit" on this page.

I'd add that the Limey YouTubers are being a lot harsher than the BBC or even Breitburn. But I'm not allowed to link to unapproved sources. If you're curious, you should look.

Edited September 6Sep 6 by impulse

1 minute ago, impulse said:

Use your search function and look for the word "benefit" on this page.

That is not the party that is making cuts to training saying that though is it. It is a pathetic bit of sniping from the sidelines and is based on nothing, just political rhetoric.......which you duly lap up and report as fact. My God you make their lives easy don't you, unquestioning, repeat sound bites and accusations as fact. It is how lies travel and how myths perpetuate.

5 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

That is not the party that is making cuts to training saying that though is it. It is a pathetic bit of sniping from the sidelines and is based on nothing, just political rhetoric.......which you duly lap up and report as fact. My God you make their lives easy don't you, unquestioning, repeat sound bites and accusations as fact. It is how lies travel and how myths perpetuate.

So, where do you think they're going to spend the money that they save by skimping on military training?

Taken in a much wider context, I think they're spending it on the dinghy arrivals.

1 minute ago, impulse said:

So, where do you think they're going to spend the money that they save by skimping on military training?

Taken in a much wider context, I think they're spending it on the dinghy arrivals.

That's because you have a very biased, simplistic, and completely blinkered point of view.

Again, you make it easy for them.

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

That's because you have a very biased, simplistic, and completely blinkered point of view.

Again, you make it easy for them.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Or, in todays' vernacular, confession by projection.

Edited September 6Sep 6 by impulse

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

Unfortunately, the UK does not have the equipment to run long range bombing campaigns, nor a fleet to defend the islands. The UK military has been underfunded for decades. The Royal Navy is a thing of the past. It may list 13 operational ocean going warships and 2 aircraft carriers, but on any given day, only 6 are actually operational. That's it. The RN can not send its aircraft into a war without a defensive vessel escort.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-aircraft-carrier-deploying-to-deter-russia/

They have already sailed from Portsmouth......

The RAF can now reach the FI in one hop with the A400 and the ability of our Voyager tanker fleet Typhoon ac can reach there easily. Despite what you read in the mainly Tory press the UK is still not to be messed with.

21 hours ago, soalbundy said:

they would need bigger boots than they currently have, ask the Iranians. These days being America's friend is toxic, the Canadians have realized that now and are doing very well with new democratic friends and not so democratic but intelligent ones.

Oh don't be jealous Darl...just because you have no friends!

But we are friends on here ...your welcome to get that anger out and empty your rage at us ....just don't empty your balls !

2 hours ago, impulse said:

So, where do you think they're going to spend the money that they save by skimping on military training?

We are talking about the MOD's budget not the governments.

Possibly by reinforcing The Falklands due to the talk emanating from Argentina, sending more supplies troops aircraft equipment and ammo missiles etc. and maybe deploying the odd sub to the South Atlantic.

A warning shot off the coast of Argentina should do the trick, Nuclear naturally.

2 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

We in the UK may not be as strong militarally as we were in 1982 but we still got more then the Argies have, how many Subs have they got , how many Carriers they got ? they might have a few old fighters which are no threats going against a RAF Tyhoon or the latest fighters stationed onboard our Carriers. The Argies have no land forces and would have to use conscipts who shat themselves going up against our Marines and Para's. If they want a scrap bring it on. As for Trump and his fans on here it wasn't just us ( Limey'ys ) that refused to offer the Yanks help. No other country ran to his help. The only reason Trumps poking his nose into the Falklands is because he can sniff out Oil that could be found. Which if and it is a big if we walked away and let Argentina take it, Trump would steal it from the Argies anyway.

But that's not the topic. The topic is whether the USA should continue its policy of strategic ambivalence to keep either side from doing something stupid. And should he have said it out loud?

Personally, I think he's just trying to goad the Brits into spending more for their own defense. Especially if they're going to be huffing and puffing at the Russkies like they have been. And, of course give them a dig for Iran and Diego Garcia. He could probably not care less about the Malvinas, given that we'll be so busy swimming in the oil from Venezuela.

See what I did there? Really, I'd root for the Brits in a kerfuffle. But I can't help messing with my Brit friends. Especially a few Scots that I worked with in Bangkok. We had a years long running friendly Texas/Scotland insult feud, though we were good friends.

Let the Argies come, a Sub will be sat waiting outside there Port ready to strike any threat. It will be dealt with the same way we sent the WW2 cruiser the belgrano to the btm of the Atlantic.

51 minutes ago, impulse said:

But that's not the topic. The topic is whether the USA should continue its policy of strategic ambivalence to keep either side from doing something stupid. And should he have said it out loud?

Personally, I think he's just trying to goad the Brits into spending more for their own defense. Especially if they're going to be huffing and puffing at the Russkies like they have been. And, of course give them a dig for Iran and Diego Garcia. He could probably not care less about the Malvinas, given that we'll be so busy swimming in the oil from Venezuela.

See what I did there? Really, I'd root for the Brits in a kerfuffle. But I can't help messing with my Brit friends. Especially a few Scots that I worked with in Bangkok. We had a years long running friendly Texas/Scotland insult feud, though we were good friends.

No leader of a so-called friendly country should say to a potential enemy of that friendly country that it is ok to attack what is now (or about to be an ex) friendly country!

4 hours ago, Bannoi said:

We are talking about the MOD's budget not the governments.

Possibly by reinforcing The Falklands due to the talk emanating from Argentina, sending more supplies troops aircraft equipment and ammo missiles etc. and maybe deploying the odd sub to the South Atlantic.

The government treats defence of the Falklands as part of its wider constitutional responsibility for protecting Britain's Overseas Territories. The MOD explicitly says that maintaining a defensive military posture in the Falklands is a core defence role. So the Falkland Islanders do not pay directly for their defence, except a modest sum for the Falklands Islands Defence Force, which receives 0 MOD funding. Interestingly, it recently retired the Steyr AUG in favour of the H&K L85A2.

MOD spend on the Falklands is about £85-100m per year. The Falkland Islands are a self-governing British Overseas Territory with their own tax system and government finances. Taxes collected there generally go to the Falkland Islands Government, not HM Treasury. The FIDF costs the Islanders about £400k a year, which is effectively their contribution to their defence. The total budget of the FIG is about £40m a year.

4 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

No leader of a so-called friendly country should say to a potential enemy of that friendly country that it is ok to attack what is now (or about to be an ex) friendly country!

Why should Trump support an illegitimate PM?

Every world leader should reject Burnham until there is a general election.

7 minutes ago, candide said:

It's funny to watch some of the so-called UK patriots chosing to support Trump rather than their own country! 😀

'Funny' and 'patriot' aren't words that I'd use. 'Traitors' - used correctly - is one word for them.

19 minutes ago, RayC said:

'Funny' and 'patriot' aren't words that I'd use. 'Traitors' - used correctly - is one word for them.

I normally go for "idiots", "morons", or "the gullible". But "traitors" also fits.

9 hours ago, Pasak110 said:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-aircraft-carrier-deploying-to-deter-russia/

They have already sailed from Portsmouth......

The RAF can now reach the FI in one hop with the A400 and the ability of our Voyager tanker fleet Typhoon ac can reach there easily. Despite what you read in the mainly Tory press the UK is still not to be messed with.

It is wonderful that the UK dispatched its small aircraft carrier, which will benefit from the protection of other NATO vessels. It is intended for the eastern European threat, and will be of no use to the Falklands. The RN also had to deploy support/protection vessels to protect its aircraft carrier. If anything it means that there are fewer resources available for the Falklands.

What aircraft will the RAF deploy? The Typhoon FGR Mk4 is not appropriate for long range bombing missions. It has a light payload, usually carrying 4 Paveways, or 1 cruise missile. Refueling an ordinance laden aircraft is not an easy task, and is very high risk, even in the best of operating conditions. The Tyfoons have a range of about 1400 kms. It's 13,000 km between the UK and the Falkland islands. There were 4 Typhoons stationed in the Falklands. (I don't know if they are still there.) The UK has listed 107 Typfoons of which less than 70 may be available on any given day. The RAF really cannot afford to lose any more of the aircraft.

The UK is no longer a military power, nor a nation of influence. It is a middle sized country with a weak economy, a fragmented society and a lot of self delusion.

7 hours ago, candide said:

It's funny to watch some of the so-called UK patriots chosing to support Trump rather than their own country! 😀

Depends if you think they are actually British, or are just living through an invented persona, where they choose an Avatar that resembles a drug dealer character from a teenager's video game. Tells you something about their lack of confidence and self worth, so they invent the character they want to be; he chose the character of Trevor Philips from GTA V. Trevor, from GTA V, is portrayed as volatile, aggressive, anarchic, obscene, unpredictable, contemptuous of social conventions, and intensely suspicious of hypocrisy. He also has a strong streak of dark humour and enjoys deliberately making other people uncomfortable.

SO "JonnyF" routinely:

• deliberately antagonises other posters,

• use sarcasm rather than straightforward argument,

• makes deliberately outrageous statements,

• ridicules people they regard as sanctimonious,

• enjoys watching arguments develop,

• attacks perceived hypocrisy on both sides,

• and seem more interested in defeating or humiliating an opponent than persuading them

This suggests JonnyF is someone who derives social reward from confrontation itself.

But JonnyF has deliberately constructed a Trevor Phillips persona for their online identity, rather than simply using a character they like, the avatar can be understood as a kind of idealised or liberated alter ego: "This is who I get to be when the constraints of ordinary social life are removed.". So a desire to be unconstrained (in his normal life he feels constrained), a repressed aggression, as a compensation for a lack of aggression offline, a fantasy of dominance. Offline, he is naturally cautious, socially constrained, he worries abut being judged and normally avoids confrontation.

Apparently the US did provide some intel to the UK in the Falklands war. Satellite imagery and some other things.

Edited September 7Sep 7 by ronnie50