# Britain is No Longer a Major Military Power



## Piotr

*Britain is No Longer a Major Military Power*
Matthew JAMISON | 14.02.2017 | WORLD

"There is a constant refrain from British political leaders how Britain is still a major military force to be reckoned with in the world and this allows the country to punch above it's middle ranking economic and political power status. The Prime Minister Theresa May has constantly stressed how Britain is a leading member of NATO and spends 2% of UK GDP on defence. Indeed, in her new role as President Trump's cheerleader-in-chief she has taken it upon herself to start lecturing other European members of NATO about their military capabilities. British Defence Secretaries over the decades have boasted that Britain has global military power projection capabilities, while other commentators talk of Britain's military as «the guardian of the Gulf» or a reliable and steadfast military partner of the United States or upholding the rule of law abroad, the scourge of dictators like Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban. In reality, is Britain in any position to lecture other European countries on their militaries? Is this just more delusional rhetoric from the British State which is quick to lecture others without ensuring its own house is in order? 

In reality is Britain still a major military power? And when the broad sweep of 20th century military history is taken into account, has the British military ever really been an effective fighting force? The views of General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the former chiefs of the four services, should give everyone who promotes the idea of Britain as an effective, major military power, pause for thought. Back in September 2016 General Barrons stated that due to nearly a decades worth of stringent cuts to the UK defence budget Britain's military had «withered» and would not even be capable of defending the UK against a serious military attack let alone fight in conventional wars. In a forthright and refreshingly honest ten page memo to the Tory British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, the General made clear that: «Neither the UK homeland nor a deployed force — let alone both concurrently — could be protected from a concerted Russian air effort». So, in the expert opinion of the former head of the UK's Joint Forces Command the British military would be wholly inadequate in protecting the UK against an external military force acting with hostile intent. The first duty of any military is to be able to secure and defend the homeland of its country. If the UK military are not even up to this task, how can they be called a major military power and how can Theresa May with any credibility lecture other countries about their defence preparations when the UK military could not even defend the UK in the event of a major military attack?

In particular, the performance of the British army throughout the 20th century and early 21st century raises serious concerns if the British army is really fit for purpose. Despite having vastly more troops than the Wehrmacht and the added strength of the French army, the British Expeditionary Force was unable to secure the borders of France against the invading Nazis and were resoundingly defeated and humiliated with their withdrawal to and subsequent scuttle from Dunkirk. Indeed, the British army were very lucky that they were not completely annihilated at Dunkirk and it was only due to ironically and perversely the mercy of Adolf Hitler and his peculiar admiration for England. The Nazis could have finished off the British army at Dunkirk but rather than delivering the killer blow Hitler allowed the remnants of the British army to escape. Indeed one of Hitler's last statements before his suicide on 30 April 1945, claimed that he had allowed the British Expeditionary Force to escape as a «sporting gesture» in order to induce British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to conclude a peace agreement with Nazi Germany.

The rest of the performance of the British army during World War II was mediocre at best and embarrassing at worst. Comedy caricatures always contain a grain of truth and there was a reason why the _BBC_ commissioned the comedy «Dad's Army» because in many ways that was what the British army were and still are to this day. The British military historian Max Hastings has been scathing in his critique of the British army's performance during World War II describing it as «poor». During the early years of the Second World War, the British Army suffered defeat in almost every theatre of war in which it was deployed, due mainly to neglect in the interwar period and poor strategic leadership. With mass conscription, the expansion of the British Army was reflected in the formation of larger armies and army groups. From 1943, the larger and better equipped British Army never suffered a strategic defeat (although there were failures, most notably the Battle of Arnhem, part of Operation Market Garden, in September 1944). 

Yet, the hard geopolitical reality is Britain's military would never have been able to defeat Nazi Germany and liberate the occupied European countries without the overwhelmingly superior fighting forces of the Americans and Russians. Alongside the United States as part of a UN force, the British army was unable to hold off against Chinese intervention in the Korean war and was driven back to the 38th parallel away from the Chinese/North Korean border and trapped in a war of attrition which finally ended in stalemate in 1953. The Suez Canal intervention was an absolute unmitigated disaster. Closer to home, the British army was unable to defeat outright the Provisional Irish Republican Army during its terrorist insurgency in Northern Ireland throughout the 1970s, 80s and 90s. It is strange how the British army were unable to bring to heel the IRA given the fact that Northern Ireland is such a small province of only six counties, roughly the size of Yorkshire with a population then of roughly only 1.5 million people. 

But sadly they proved incapable of being able to root out the IRA and restore law and order to a tiny province. With all the resources and sophistication of the British state and military the IRA were able to wage war against the British state, British civilians and the British military over the course of three decades and wrestle the British military and government to a stalemate by the 1990s resulting in the ensuing peace process. Perhaps the only bright spot for the performance of the British military acting independently during the latter half of the 20th century was the Falklands War but then again the UK would never have been able to win the war without significant behind the scenes military technology assistance from the United States and it would really would have been shocking if the British could not take on and defeat what was at the time a developing, Latin-American banana republic in the form of Galtieri's Argentina.

Looking over recent conflicts of the early 21st century that the British military have been involved in does not inspire much confidence in the performance of and leadership of the UK military. Iraq is an absolute disaster and breeding ground from radical Islamist extremist terrorist. It is a bigger security headache now that what it was prior to the UK-US invasion of 2003. Meanwhile Afghanistan is not much better. It was truly shocking, disappointing and deeply upsetting that after all the time and money and lives and resources expended by the British military in securing Helmand province that once the British army largely withdrew the province was once again overrun by Taliban forces. As Major Richard Streatfield, who spent seven months in Sangin in 2009 and 2010 with the Rifles, said it was «hugely disappointing» to see the Sangin under threat again. »I won't deny, on a personal level, it does make you wonder - was it worth it?» he said. «Because if the people we were trying to free Afghanistan from are now able to just take it back within two years, that shows that something went badly wrong at the operational and strategic level». Quite. Perhaps from a cold headed analysis of the performance of the British military in various theatres of war throughout the 20th century and most certainly early 21st century would reveal that on an operational and strategic level the British military is not a major global military force as the British Government would have their public believe. As Mrs Thatcher said of spin: «Such is presentation. How different from reality». "
Source: http://www.strategic-culture.org/authors/matthew-jamison.html

It's good that some Englishman like the author are finaly waking up to reality.
After Scottish independence and dissolution of the UK, England will be just weak, small and unimportant country.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hassan Guy

its been the case for some time now

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Awan68

Britain was no longer a world power after ww2, i thought everyone knew that, germany made sure of that lol..."hum to dube sanam tum ko bhi le doben gay"

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Guynextdoor2

*IT NEVER WAS A MAJOR MILITARY POWER!!!!!!!
*
I can't understand how they managed to con everyone for so long!



Hassan Guy said:


> its been the case for some time now



the day they declared the Falklands a major war itself this became clear.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## terranMarine

Actually you guys forgot something, it goes further than WW2. The British lost to US independence war which ended in 1783

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Guynextdoor2

terranMarine said:


> Actually you guys forgot something, it goes further than WW2. The British lost to US independence war which ended in 1783



On their own they lost all wars of WW2. Dunkirk, Indo- China, they were on a losing streak until the americams came in.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Piotr

Hassan Guy said:


> its been the case for some time now


Some Englishmen live in denial and still believe in "England stronk" propaganda.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## terranMarine

Guynextdoor2 said:


> On their own they lost all wars of WW2. Dunkirk, Indo- China, they were on a losing streak until the americams came in.



It's also the truth that WW2 put a massive dent on UK, whole Europe, Asia were devastated. Due to 2 Oceans separating the US from Asia and Europe, America came out unscratched and quickly ascended as the sole superpower. Soviet Union despite devastated rose up pretty quick in the 60-70s but lost to the arms race and we know how that ended. In the mid 80s the UK was nothing in comparison to China. Thatcher actually thought of using military force against China if we refused her proposal of letting UK keep on ruling HK. Her advisor told her China is not Argentina (apparently the Iron Lady had no clue China fought in the Korean War and contributed to the Vietnam War as well). Unbelievable UK wanted to breach the treaty

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Michael Corleone

britain lost its super power status building worlds first dreadnoughts during WW1 which served them no value except demonstration of force and was quickly obsolete.... yet they managed to hold off the germans... won battle of britain in the air... Infiltrated their foes with SAS and basically owned more countries and people in history with military skills or otherwise plane british humour, so don't underestimate them... they can still get what they want...

just because the queen is a nice person doesn;t mean britian is weak...


as for who i might not be as strong as they appear is US, i mean vietnam proved it... Korean war too.
they can fight the arabs and destroy them... arabs don't have brains, take it from me... but asians, dare US mess with any asians.... xD


----------



## MultaniGuy

Britain is not as strong as it used to be. There are many stronger countries out there.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Awan68

Guynextdoor2 said:


> *IT NEVER WAS A MAJOR MILITARY POWER!!!!!!!
> *
> I can't understand how they managed to con everyone for so long!
> 
> 
> 
> the day they declared the Falklands a major war itself this became clear.


The generall who whooped napoleons *** would disagree...



Guynextdoor2 said:


> On their own they lost all wars of WW2. Dunkirk, Indo- China, they were on a losing streak until the americams came in.


Not the americans as we are led to believe but the russians, germany lost the war at stalingrad, the americana only wiped out the decaying defeated thing ledt of the former german army, do u knw the red army was the first to enter berlin, hitler committed suicide when the russkies came knocking...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Piotr

terranMarine said:


> It's also the truth that WW2 put a massive dent on UK, whole Europe, Asia were devastated. Due to 2 Oceans separating the US from Asia and Europe, America came out unscratched and quickly ascended as the sole superpower. Soviet Union despite devastated rose up pretty quick in the 60-70s but lost to the arms race and we know how that ended. In the mid 80s the UK was nothing in comparison to China. Thatcher actually thought of using military force against China if we refused her proposal of letting UK keep on ruling HK. Her advisor told her China is not Argentina (apparently the Iron Lady had no clue China fought in the Korean War and contributed to the Vietnam War as well). Unbelievable UK wanted to breach the treaty



Continental Europe and Asia were devastated because USA and England supported Hitler and started WW2 (source).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indika

Guynextdoor2 said:


> *IT NEVER WAS A MAJOR MILITARY POWER!!!!!!!
> *
> I can't understand how they managed to con everyone for so long!
> 
> 
> 
> the day they declared the Falklands a major war itself this became clear.


putin said the same thing some time back.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ntion-Russias-astonishing-attack-Britain.html

Britain can become singapore of europe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

I think it would be very unwise to underestimate these old-world developed countries.

They industrialized over a century ago, while we are still finding our feet.

Their power projection means that they are currently engaged in fighting a war in another continent. Which is a trait of all the P5 members (USA, Russia, Britain, France...) all except China which is still a developing country.

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## Indika

Other than world wars most of the european countries fought wars far away from their lands giving them benefit of only losing lives but country not getting destroyed.


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Awan68 said:


> The generall who whooped napoleons *** would disagree...
> 
> 
> Not the americans as we are led to believe but the russians, germany lost the war at stalingrad, the americana only wiped out the decaying defeated thing ledt of the former german army, do u knw the red army was the first to enter berlin, hitler committed suicide when the russkies came knocking...



That was like 800 years ago man! When they guy was whooping Napoleon, Cholas were conquering Indonesia. You think we can rest on those laurels?

THIS is their idea of a nuclear submarine which many many brits call the 'best in the world'. A pigmy sub with high consequent limitations on range and carriage capability. Yet I have hard many a brit claim how it is better than Virginia and Sea Wolf Class!







and the truth?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/15/hms-astute-submarine-slow-leaky-rusty



Chinese-Dragon said:


> I think it would be very unwise to underestimate these old-world developed countries.
> 
> They industrialized over a century ago, while we are still finding our feet.
> 
> Their power projection means that they are currently engaged in fighting a war in another continent. Which is a trait of all the P5 members (USA, Russia, Britain, France...) all except China which is still a developing country.



You shouldn't over-estimate them either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Piotr

Chinese-Dragon said:


> I think it would be very unwise to underestimate these old-world developed countries.
> 
> They industrialized over a century ago, while we are still finding our feet.



It would also be unwise to overestimate England. England became wealthy because it smuggled drugs into China, looted its colonies and stolen a lot of works of art from countries it invaded. Now England is unable to smuggle drugs into China and loot countries like Pakistan, India or Bangladesh. Without it's colonies England is just small and puny country.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Guynextdoor2 said:


> You shouldn't over-estimate them either.



We aren't going to fight them anyway so it doesn't matter.

The fact is that Britain, along with France, USA and Russia are currently able to project their military power across the globe, fighting wars (sometimes multiple) in other continents. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria.

This kind of power projection is what developing countries like China still lack. And even if we get the capability, it's still another thing entirely to be able to carry it out.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Chinese-Dragon said:


> We aren't going to fight them anyway so it doesn't matter.
> 
> The fact is that Britain, along with France, USA and Russia are currently able to project their military power across the globe, fighting wars (sometimes multiple) in other continents. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria.
> 
> This kind of power projection is what developing countries like China still lack. And even if we get the capability, it's still another thing entirely to be able to carry it out.


W
hy should it matter if you can't carry it out?

Man you are so stuck with prestige and 'achieving status'. Do you know what makes China important? It's not your space program or missile or PLA...that comes later. It is the fact that you represent 1/5th of humanity. All these things are for protecting the interests of those people, not to make you 'deserving' of anything. When a tiny nation has a voice so disproportionate, and when you - instead of having a voice that is legitimately yours spend your time chasing after shiny baubles so that you should be 'deserving' of that voice 'some day', that is the real tragedy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## YeBeWarned

British and German's were once major powers in the world , along with USSR and Japanese .. lets not forget that if it wasn't for Brits German's would triumph over the Europe .. Brits and German's today is sad to see how they become stooges for US and once were great powers .. If German's survived WW2 they would be unmatched in terms of Military might


----------



## KediKesenFare3

The Brits are capable of defending themselves against every threat if needed. As long as this is the case, Britain remains strong in my opinion.

Britain may no longer be a major military power but on the other hand no current military major power would dare to attack them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Guynextdoor2

KediKesenFare said:


> The Brits are capable of defending themselves against every threat if needed. As long as this is the case, Britain remains strong in my opinion.
> 
> Britain may no longer be a major military power but on the other hand no current military major power would dare to attack them.



3 more exocet missiles and they would have lost the falklands.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Piotr said:


> Some Englishmen live in denial and still believe in "England stronk" propaganda.


yeah okie dokie
poland shupa powa !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you cry and b!tch to nato for troops

you lot run around here stone dead drunk and living of benefits



Guynextdoor2 said:


> 3 more exocet missiles and they would have lost the falklands.


did it happen???
argentina cant even afford to buy new fighters. they only have one sub!
why dont you sell them the brahmos!!!!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vergennes

terranMarine said:


> Actually you guys forgot something, it goes further than WW2. The British lost to US independence war which ended in 1783



Without the massive financial,material and finally direct French support,the British army would just have crushed the revolutionnary Americans.



Guynextdoor2 said:


> the day they declared the Falklands a major war itself this became clear.



Only few countries would have been to sustain a war so far from their own territory. The fact of projecting their power so far away and to sustain it logistically....

At the end,Argentine just got crushed. Any claim now is just pointless and a wet dream since their armed forces are now outdated and underfunded. If they didn't succeed in the 80's,they will never,now.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Vergennes said:


> Without the massive financial,material and finally direct French support,the British army would just have crushed the revolutionnary Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Which one are you talking about ? Wellington ? It was only the Prussians of Blücher who saved the coalition from the defeat at Waterloo.The Prussians,who were almost obliterated at Ligny.
> 
> 
> 
> Only few countries would have been to sustain a war so far from their own territory. The fact of projecting their power so far away and to sustain it logistically....
> 
> At the end,Argentine just got crushed. Any claim now is just pointless and a wet dream since their armed forces are now outdated and underfunded. If they didn't succeed in the 80's,they will never,now.



3 more exocets and Britain was toast.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Guynextdoor2 said:


> W
> hy should it matter if you can't carry it out?
> 
> Man you are so stuck with prestige and 'achieving status'. Do you know what makes China important? It's not your space program or missile or PLA...that comes later. It is the fact that you represent 1/5th of humanity. All these things are for protecting the interests of those people, not to make you 'deserving' of anything. When a tiny nation has a voice so disproportionate, and when you - instead of having a voice that is legitimately yours spend your time chasing after shiny baubles so that you should be 'deserving' of that voice 'some day', that is the real tragedy.



It has nothing to do with status.

It's to do with facts. The fact is that these developed countries have significant power projection capabilities that allow them to fight multiple wars in other continents (which they are doing now).

The fact is that China is still a developing country, a country that is still in the process of building our power projection.

Ignoring facts is a pretty silly thing to do.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> yeah okie dokie
> poland shupa powa !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> you cry and b!tch to nato for troops
> 
> you lot run around here stone dead drunk and living of benefits
> 
> 
> did it happen???
> argentina cant even afford to buy new fighters. they only have one sub!
> why dont you sell them the brahmos!!!!!!!!



they did place orders before the war, the war started before they took delivery of their full consignment of exocets. Faklands was a shit war. And why the hell should it be with Britain anyway? That land belongs to the Argentinians. It will go back to them eventually.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Guynextdoor2 said:


> That was like 800 years ago man! When they guy was whooping Napoleon, Cholas were conquering Indonesia. You think we can rest on those laurels?
> 
> THIS is their idea of a nuclear submarine which many many brits call the 'best in the world'. A pigmy sub with high consequent limitations on range and carriage capability. Yet I have hard many a brit claim how it is better than Virginia and Sea Wolf Class!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the truth?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/15/hms-astute-submarine-slow-leaky-rusty
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't over-estimate them either.


every project has its hickups even our destroyers
our sub are just as good as the virgina as their navy cheif!


----------



## Vergennes

@Blue Marlin I don't think the thread opener is really a Pole,as he has a very pro-russian stance. Strange since most Poles are literally anti-Russians and welcome any NATO country sending troops to their country to deter the threatening Russia. Be sure that those Eastern European countries aren't spitting on the British army support provided.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Chinese-Dragon said:


> It has nothing to do with status.
> 
> It's to do with facts. The fact is that these developed countries have significant power projection capabilities that allow them to fight multiple wars in other continents (which they are doing now).
> 
> The fact is that China is still a developing country, a country that is still in the process of building our power projection.
> 
> Ignoring facts is a pretty silly thing to do.



It's actually a strange kind of gloating. In reality you're saying 'china can kick their crap out of them but....' . I would have been ok with that. Except sometime I feel there is genuine complexes plaguing Chinese world view.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Bigger power then India which is why all indians migrate to Britain

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> every project has its hickups even our destroyers
> our sub are just as good as the virgina as their navy cheif!



Astute







Typhoon - 'nuff said


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Guynextdoor2 said:


> It's actually a strange kind of gloating. In reality you're saying 'china can kick their crap out of them but....' . I would have been ok with that. Except sometime I feel there is genuine complexes plaguing Chinese world view.



You clearly haven't read a single word of my post. 

Bottom line is that the developed world powers have power projection capabilities that rightfully put them at the world's high table. Developing countries are still very far behind.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> apple
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orange
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nuff said
> 
> 
> dont you ever question india.
> china will never be a superpower like india.
> 
> 
> dont care, i hate most pole's anyway. bloody leeches.



Astute


----------



## Deliorman

Poor Britain... Not a Galactic Supa powa like the country where half of the population don't even know what the word sanitation means. 

@Blue Marlin, @mike2000 is back are you one of those beggars on the streets of Hyderabad?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> we managed to get the exocet source codes just after the war and prevented them buying more missiles which included blocking sales of missiles to peru.



you got source codes means what? Are you like on pot or something? You think you'll send james bond to rig the software on the Mirage jets?


----------



## el nino

I think you people are massively down playing military power of the UK

They have biggest and best nuclear powered submarines in the world in the Vanguard class . These are 15k tonne subs carrying 12 ICMB each with MIRV warheads of one megatonne each . UK could annilhate any country in the world with one submarine

The New QE class carriers are 65k tonnes carriers and each carrier will have 40 F35 lightening fighters

Add 200 euro fighters in RAF you have a very powerful capability

Once you factor in the industrial might and UK arms manufacturing potential you have a very potent nation

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> just most of india



That includes Britain, why would you insult yourself?



el nino said:


> I think you people are massively down playing military power of the UK
> 
> They have biggest and best nuclear powered submarines in the world in the Vanguard class . These are 15k tonne subs carrying 12 ICMB each with MIRV warheads of one megatonne each . UK could annilhate any country in the world with one submarine
> 
> The New QE class carriers are 65k tonnes carriers and each carrier will have 40 F35 lightening fighters
> 
> Add 200 euro fighters in RAF you have a very powerful capability
> 
> Once you factor in the industrial might and UK arms manufacturing potential you have a very potent nation



Why is the con going on continuously? We all know why the QEs were fitted with Diesel engines. They don't have the ability to bolt a nuclear reactor there. So it will be underpowered, always restricted in mobility and carriage capacity.



AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Bigger power then India which is why all indians migrate to Britain



All Indians DON'T migrate to Britain.


----------



## T-123456

Queen Elisabeth class,Vanguard Trafalgar and Astute class,Type 45 class,Eurofighter Typhoon/Tornado just to name a few of what the British have is not enough to be called a major military power?
Btw,all indigenous.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> who said anything about planting bug on the missile?
> and if we were gonna send some one to plant said bug we would send .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if it can get in and out of india then it can handle a few but hurt Argentinians.
> p.s. theres typhoon fighter jets stationed at the falklands the Argentinians dont stand a chance.
> 
> 
> awww your so cute with your lame trolling attempt.



we own your queen.....


----------



## terranMarine

Blue Marlin said:


> dont care, i hate most pole's anyway. bloody leeches.


 what did they do?


----------



## Guynextdoor2

T-123456 said:


> Queen Elisabeth class,Vanguard Trafalgar and Astute class,Type 45 class,Eurofighter Typhoon/Tornado just to name a few of what the British have is not enough to be called a major military power?
> Btw,all indigenous.



QE Class- 60K T under powered diesl propelled ships that don't have catapult systems. Fuel guzzling F 35s (don't even get me started on the F 35)

Asture- at 7000 Tone half the size of real nuke subs like Virginia, obvious restrictions in carriage and endurance

Tornado- I believe you need tetanus shots for looks at their pics.



Blue Marlin said:


> who said anything about planting bug on the missile?
> and if we were gonna send some one to plant said bug we would send .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if it can get in and out of india then it can handle a few but hurt Argentinians.
> p.s. theres typhoon fighter jets stationed at the falklands the Argentinians dont stand a chance.
> 
> 
> awww your so cute with your lame trolling attempt.



If Argentina invades falklands today, you'd run with your tails behind your legs


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> http://www.professional-counselling.com/nervousbreakdown_panic_attack.html
> 
> well........... lets see.....
> they dont work and live of benefits
> they treat our streets like dumps and fly tip all the time.
> rob houses/ burgle
> attack old people (for money)
> get so drunk they sleep under a park bench and sing crappy polish songs at stupid o'clock
> drink drive!
> Steal cars
> 
> also note i said most not all.
> 
> 
> india does not even have a tail !
> 
> im done messing with you, now you your just shit flinging.



argentina gives you nightmares.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-123456

Guynextdoor2 said:


> QE Class- 60K T under powered diesl propelled ships that don't have catapult systems. Fuel guzzling F 35s (don't even get me started on the F 35)
> 
> Asture- at 7000 Tone half the size of real nuke subs like Virginia, obvious restrictions in carriage and endurance
> 
> Tornado- I believe you need tetanus shots for looks at their pics.
> 
> 
> 
> If Argentina invades falklands today, you'd run with your tails behind your legs


Name some countries with a 70k AC,which produces a 4++ gen Fighter jet,a world class destroyer(maybe the best) and produces almost all of its military equipment in house.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Piotr

Blue Marlin said:


> yeah okie dokie
> poland shupa powa !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> you cry and b!tch to nato for troops
> 
> you lot run around here stone dead drunk and living of benefits



You have problem with basic facts. Alcohol consumption per capita in your beloved "UK" is about the same that in Poland (in "UK" 10,6 litres per capita and in Poland 10,3 litres per capita - as of 2012 source)
You are spreding false stereotypes. We should had not defended you during Battle of Britain. We should had let your ally Hitler bomb you to the ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Guynextdoor2

T-123456 said:


> Name some countries with a 70k AC,which produces a 4++ gen Fighter jet,a world class destroyer(maybe the best) and produces almost all of its military equipment in house.



which 70+ AC? The one that's been in construction till perpetuity? A 70+ lumbering giant that's gonna burn diesel and yet deliver on those capabilities. British destroyer is 'best in world' just as astute is 'best in world'. 4++ include the Germans and all of Europe.


----------



## Blue Marlin

Piotr said:


> You have problem with basic facts. Alcohol consumption per capita in your beloved "UK" is about the same that in Poland (in "UK" 10,6 litres per capita and in Poland 10,3 litres per capita - as of 2012 source)
> You are spreding false stereotypes. We should had not defended you during Battle of Britain. We should had let your ally Hitler bomb you to the ground.


whats 300ml? we learn to control drinking heck you can drink when your 16 (under supervision)
clinging on to history is a sign of weakness, how about the present with nato troops defending poland? cant handle the bear?


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Indians are always unappreciative creatures of the wild , they just can't understand the way of Gentleman society

Open a job in UK and suggest indians can apply for it and you will see 100 Million applications from India. Same thing they did with H1B


----------



## terranMarine

Blue Marlin said:


> well........... lets see.....
> they dont work and live of benefits
> they treat our streets like dumps and fly tip all the time.
> rob houses/ burgle
> attack old people (for money)
> get so drunk they sleep under a park bench and sing crappy polish songs at stupid o'clock
> drink drive!
> Steal cars
> 
> also note i said most not all.



I read some British or other Europeans were complaining how they were stealing jobs. True or false? Seems lots of people are labeling Polish people as thieves


----------



## Guynextdoor2

terranMarine said:


> I read some British or other Europeans were complaining how they were stealing jobs. True or false? Seems lots of people are labeling Polish people as thieves



Lol British are always complaining others a stealing something or the other. The others are more hard working/ more willing to work. That's the general reality.


----------



## AUz

Lol no shit sherlock!

Britain has a very small army, and a decent air force. Their only face-saving force is their navy and nuclear capability. That's pretty much it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Technically they were , sorta (Polish, Stealing jobs part), every society can only sustain only so much of influx of sudden rise of population.

Plus it is funny becasue I recall hearing a talk show where Political Analyst were of an opinion of merger of UK / Canada / Australia possibly for a economic bloc of some kind

Approximately 1-2 months ago I heard it on radio

So I don't understand why folk are claiming that UK does not have a political say
their queen and royal family is technically quite welcomed across UK/Canada or even in Australia


----------



## Blue Marlin

terranMarine said:


> I read some British or other Europeans were complaining how they were stealing jobs. True or false? Seems lots of people are labeling Polish people as thieves


well most job eastern Europeans do labouring jobs such as, plasterer, bricklayer, labourer etc........
either that or they open up shops specialising in eastern European food.

they dont steal our jobs just leach money in the form of benfits and rent.

most english folk dont wanna do that as its considered as a diry job.

mind you i know a brick layer who earns well over £100k and he's polish


@Guynextdoor2 why are you deleting your posts?????????


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> whats 300ml? we learn to control drinking heck you can drink when your 16 (under supervision)
> clinging on to history is a sign of weakness, how about the present with nato troops defending poland? cant handle the bear?



very rare to see brits who aren't beered up codgers. Plus Britain is delusional. I mean. who'll come up with these kinds of silly series 'kaawl meee lisbeth'. 'maathar, doooter, woooman'

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

AUz said:


> Lol no shit sherlock!
> 
> Britain has a very small army, and a decent air force. Their only face-saving force is their navy and nuclear capability. That's pretty much it.


our airforce will send pakistan back to 1971
and your navy???????? what navy lamo


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> our airforce will send pakistan back to 1971
> and your navy???????? what navy lamo



Even in 1971 Pakistan would have defeated Britain. I'm sure of that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Guynextdoor2 said:


> Even in 1971 Pakistan would have defeated Britain. I'm sure of that.


what ever makes you sleep better now go bed.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Fairly balanced country UK and with other colony states (Canada/ Australia) quite a bit resources they have and alliances

Quite positive that the above mentioned countries are more closer, even if they might appear to be seperate administratively

I think may be that is the prime reason why UK decided to part ways with Euro Union because they were just paying bill form some countries that clearly were not doing their fair share of load bearing

I honestly don't know what Indians are smoking these days

The queen is still on the Canadian currency just for the record before folks count UK out






Australian currency below again the queen is present






UK-Canada-Australia > Euro Union , financially - economically and strategically paving way for greater collaboration with China other progressive societies like Turkey etc

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## T-123456

Guynextdoor2 said:


> which 70+ AC? The one that's been in construction till perpetuity? A 70+ lumbering giant that's gonna burn diesel and yet deliver on those capabilities. British destroyer is 'best in world' just as astute is 'best in world'. 4++ include the Germans and all of Europe.


Why are you so angry,relax man?
Compare the British military to the rest of the world,it will always make the top 10 which is enough to be called a major military power.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Guynextdoor2

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Fairly balanced country UK and with other colony states (Canada/ Australia) quite a bit resources they have and alliances
> 
> Quite positive that the above mentioned countries are more closer, even if they might appear to be seperate administratively



Lol!!! You think Australia will 'ally' with UK? Adani has invested 22 BILLION in Australia. UK won't get one soldier from Australia to stand against India.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-...ine-to-be-headquartered-in-townsville/8092896



T-123456 said:


> Why are you so angry,relax man?
> Compare the British military to the rest of the world,it will always make the top 10 which is enough to be called a major military power.



I'm zealous in my fight for truth. And truth deserves nothing lesser



Blue Marlin said:


> what ever makes you sleep better now go bed.



They've got tanks and stuff, and guess what? Theirs work. (Sometimes)


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Just the recently announced defence deal between UK and Turkey , just shows both nations embarking on new chapter in cooperation

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

Blue Marlin said:


> yeah okie dokie
> poland shupa powa !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> you cry and b!tch to nato for troops
> 
> you lot run around here stone dead drunk and living of benefits
> 
> 
> did it happen???
> argentina cant even afford to buy new fighters. they only have one sub!
> why dont you sell them the brahmos!!!!!!!!



I thought you would have stopped reading this pile of rubbish when he cites a historian recounting the failure of the British forces early on in the war, then in the next sentence cites the same author who outlines the numerous victories that came after. So the British became better right? He hilariously writes about he failure of the British to contain the NI insurgency, when the entire movement, including half the IRA leadership were infiltrated by the British services. They were bought crashing down from the inside! By their own admission their last major meeting clearly stated "we can't win the war".
The man is a Buffon and being cheered on by a number of known anti-British posters here, half of whom were never around during any of the events they speak of.

The British remain a top level military power with reach.







A new era is dawning.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Guynextdoor2

waz said:


> I thought you would have stopped reading this pile of rubbish when he cites a historian recounting the failure of the British forces early on in the war, then in the next sentence cites the same author who outlines the numerous victories that came after. So the British became better right? He hilariously writes about he failure of the British to contain the NI insurgency, when the entire movement, including half the IRA leadership were infiltrated by the British services. They were bought crashing down from the inside! By his own admission their last major meeting clearly stated "we can't win the war".
> The man is a Buffon and being cheered on by a number of known anti-British posters here, half of whom were never around during any of the events they speak of.
> 
> The British remain a top level military power with reach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new era is dawning.



result of living in a pond. Punjab militancy was handled far more effectively than IRA. We don't brag about that as a reason for being 'world power'. That ship's performance is nowhere close what they claimed it will be.


----------



## waz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> On their own they lost all wars of WW2. Dunkirk, Indo- China, they were on a losing streak until the americams came in.



Utter rubbish. Where was the help during the battle of Britain? The Americans entered the war afterwards.



Guynextdoor2 said:


> result of living in a pond. Punjab militancy was handled far more effectively than IRA. We don't brag about that as a reason for being 'world power'. That ship's performance is nowhere close what they claimed it will be.



Oh yes with a little help from Benzair handing over the list of known Khalistan activists. 
That ship is better than anything your navy will field, now, and in the future. I find your anti British posts tiresome. It seems you are on some sort of quest.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Guynextdoor2

waz said:


> Utter rubbish. Where was the help during the battle of Britain? The Americans entered the war afterwards.



you mean with 2 million Indian troops...THEY NEEDED MORE HELP?



waz said:


> Utter rubbish. Where was the help during the battle of Britain? The Americans entered the war afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes with a little help from Benzair handing over the list of known Khalistan activists.
> That ship is better than anything your navy will field, now, and in the future. I find your anti British posts tiresome. It seems you are on some sort of quest.



I have clarified my quest is for TRUTH. And as far as this ship is concerned, talk to me after it actually does a fully loaded 30 knots. Right now it's been a tourist attraction barely able to move on it's own power. I don't even want to talk about it's aircraft complement. And no- this ship won't be a scratch on INS Vishal. Vishal will be leagues ahead of this.


----------



## waz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> you mean with 2 million Indian troops...THEY NEEDED MORE HELP?



Hang on a minute my friend, 45% of those came from Pakistan. You know, your bitter enemy. My entire elder generation fought in that war, very few of them were deployed on the Western front, bar Italy. The fighting in Europe was done by the Brits and allied troops from Canada.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

waz said:


> The British remain a top level military power with reach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new era is dawning.



I think some people in developing countries have lost their minds and are overestimating themselves to the point of delusion.

Developed countries like Britain are capable of waging multiple wars across the globe, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. This is called real power projection.

Whereas developing countries have a really long way to go in all spheres.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## salarsikander

Chinese-Dragon said:


> I think it would be very unwise to underestimate these old-world developed countries.
> 
> They industrialized over a century ago, *while we are still finding our feet.*
> 
> Their power projection means that they are currently engaged in fighting a war in another continent. Which is a trait of all the P5 members (USA, Russia, Britain, France...) all except China which is still a developing country.



Exactly the reason why this nation of dragon shall rise to unprecedented levels. 

Extremely Humble and hard working. Long live the red roaring dragon

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> I have clarified my quest is for TRUTH. And as far as this ship is concerned, talk to me after it actually does a fully loaded 30 knots. Right now it's been a tourist attraction barely able to move on it's own power. I don't even want to talk about it's aircraft complement. And no- this ship won't be a scratch on INS Vishal. Vishal will be leagues ahead of this.



You clarified nothing but hot air. The sea trials begin in the Summer. I'll post the pictures up and tag you. Lol@INS Vishal, when that even takes to the surface let us know. I can't believe you are even comparing the two.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Guynextdoor2

waz said:


> Hang on a minute my friend, 45% of those came from Pakistan. You know, your bitter enemy. My entire elder generation fought in that war, very few of them were deployed on the Western front, bar Italy. The fighting in Europe was done by the Brits and allied troops from Canada.



yeah bro- I forgot how Pakistan existed well before 1947 and Pak fauj, fizia etc. were fighting in the 2nd ww. Anyway that's beside the point. The point is how there is always an excuse for the brits getting a thrashing ---and let's be clear, they ONLY got thrashings until the yanks came in. Lose Singapore and Indo- China-- oh we were fighting in Europe. Take a thrashing in Europe and withdraw from Dunkirk is 'glorious'. When Stalin was burning bridges and Russian troops fought street for street.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Piotr

terranMarine said:


> what did they do?


@waz do you support @Blue Marlin claim that we are "bloody leeches" ?
Blue Marlin sad that he:


> hate most pole's anyway. bloody leeches.



*Some 2,600 British ex-soldiers jailed last year for violent, sexual crimes*
Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:13AM
*Nearly 2,600 British war veterans deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan during the US-led invasion of the two countries have been imprisoned over the past year over committing violent crimes as well as sexual offences.*

The figure represents between four and five percent of Britain’s total prison population, according to UK’s Ministry of Justice (MoJ), prompting concerns about the impact the military invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq has had on the mental health of former members of the British armed forces, _The Guardian_ reported Saturday.

The MoJ began identifying the convicted ex-soldiers as they entered the prison system in January 2015 after concerns over the management of British war veterans were raised in a review of the criminal justice system.

Based on the figures, the former members of the armed forces accounted for 721 of the “first receptions” from July to September 2015, the initial period when they were released.

The numbers, the report adds, appear to have dropped since, 545 arrived in the system in the same period a year later. In the year leading up to last September, 2,565 veterans were imprisoned.

The development came after historic murder conviction against British soldier Alexander Blackman, who shot dead a seriously wounded Taliban prisoner in Afghanistan, was overturned earlier in the week and replaced with the lighter charge of manslaughter on the grounds of “diminished responsibility,” according to the report.

Blackman’s lawyers argued that he had adjustment disorder at the time of the killing after “serving for months on the frontline in terrible conditions.”

Although the British veterns of the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represent five percent of UK’s prison population, “but they represent a disproportionate number of serious violent offences and sexual offences, and that raises questions that need answering,” said Fraces Crook, the chief executive of independent charity organization, the Howard League for Penal Reform.

“These are not victimless crimes. They have a terrible effect on the victim,” he added.

Crook further added that several factors contributed to the number, including alcohol abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Research by the organization also found that 25 percent of former combat forces were in prison for sexual offences, compared with 11 percent of the civilian prison population.

The report further quoted a Defense Ministry spokesperson as saying, “Most former service personnel return to civilian life without problems and are less likely to commit criminal offences than their civilian counterparts, but we’re determined to help those who fall into difficulty, and last year awarded £4.6m to schemes targeted at tackling this issue.”

“The government has enshrined the Armed Forces Covenant in law to make sure veterans are treated fairly and receive the support they deserve, including with mental health issues, getting on the housing ladder, and applying for civilian jobs,” the official added.

British soldiers represented the second largest contingent of mostly Western military forces that took part in the US-led occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 under the purported “war on terror” schemes. Nearly 15 years later, both countries are struggling with unrelenting incidents of terrorism amid growing suspicions that they have directly and indirectly aided the establishment of some terrorist elements in both countries.
Source: http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/...of-Justice-prison-population-Iraq-Afghanistan


----------



## waz

Chinese-Dragon said:


> I think some people in developing countries have lost their minds and are overestimating themselves to the point of delusion.
> 
> Developed countries like Britain are capable of waging multiple wars across the globe, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. This is called real power projection.
> 
> Whereas developing countries have a really long way to go in all spheres.



Bro he is literally comparing a carrier that is still in development phase with a ship that is about to undergo sea trials. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Guynextdoor2

waz said:


> You clarified nothing but hot air. The sea trials begin in the Summer. I'll post the pictures up and tag you. Lol@INS Vishal, when that even takes to the surface let us know. I can't believe you are even comparing the two.



I know you can't believe that bro. I'm constrained by the fact that the Brits have nothing beyond QE class. As far as 'sea trials' are concerned. I'm sure they'll turn around wayyyyyyy better than Astute. You are aware that they wanted to sell one of these off to IN? We said...no dudes, we won't want you to lose your 'royalty'.



waz said:


> Bro he is literally comparing a carrier that is still in development phase with a ship that is about to undergo sea trials. I'm not sure what to make of that.



You said 'you will never field anything like this'. So I can compare.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-123456

Chinese-Dragon said:


> I think some people in developing countries have lost their minds and are overestimating themselves to the point of delusion.
> 
> Developed countries like Britain are capable of waging multiple wars across the globe, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. This is called real power projection.
> 
> Whereas developing countries have a really long way to go in all spheres.


Every country having a second strike capability is a major military power,developing or not.
And quit calling your country ''developing'',you know thats not true anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Chinese-Dragon said:


> I think some people in developing countries have lost their minds and are overestimating themselves to the point of delusion.
> 
> Developed countries like Britain are capable of waging multiple wars across the globe, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. This is called real power projection.
> 
> Whereas developing countries have a really long way to go in all spheres.



This is what I was talking about earlier. ...



T-123456 said:


> Every country having a second strike capability is a major military power,developing or not.
> And quit calling your country ''developing'',you know thats not true anymore.



No you should read between the lines.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

T-123456 said:


> Every country having a second strike capability is a major military power,developing or not.
> And quit calling your country ''developing'',you know thats not true anymore.



Well we are still a developing country. 

The cities along the coast have a high level of development, similar to Hong Kong, but at least half of China still lives in the rural areas. And that means our GDP per capita does not reach the required amount to be classified as a developed country, not for a while yet.

China's GDP per capita is currently lower than Mexico. It's important to understand our own limitations, in my opinion at least.

China is currently trying to acquire blue water navy "capability", and acquiring tools needed for power projection, but these capabilities will remain untested for the foreseeable future. This is in direct contrast to the old-world developed countries which have proven power projection capabilities, that are being used right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## KediKesenFare3

Why are people not able to understand that UK today is indeed no major power in the sense of having the capabilities of fighting and occupying a foreign country like the US did in Iraq. But this does not mean that Brits are weak. No sane nation would dare to touch them. They still can annihilate every country and military that attacks them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nang2

KediKesenFare said:


> The Brits are capable of defending themselves against every threat if needed. As long as this is the case, Britain remains strong in my opinion.
> 
> Britain may no longer be a major military power but on the other hand no current military major power would dare to attack them.


agree. any more powerful than that is a waste of taxpayers' money.


----------



## waz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> yeah bro- I forgot how Pakistan existed well before 1947 and Pak fauj, fizia etc. were fighting in the 2nd ww. Anyway that's beside the point. The point is how there is always an excuse for the brits getting a thrashing ---and let's be clear, they ONLY got thrashings until the yanks came in. Lose Singapore and Indo- China-- oh we were fighting in Europe. Take a thrashing in Europe and withdraw from Dunkirk is 'glorious'. When Stalin was burning bridges and Russian troops fought street for street.



Of course Pakistan didn't exist then. I just wanted to acknowledge that a great portion of the men came from Pakistan. 
What do you mean "excuse". The British have always been forensic when analysing defeats on the battlefield. Yet again you repeat the same thing that "when the yanks came", they were not there during the Africa campaign or at the Battle of Britain. 
As for Stalin he wiped out his entire military hierarchy. The idiot was to blame for a great deal of the damage the German army managed to inflict. Holding him up as an ideal just shoots your credibility.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Well we are still a developing country.
> 
> The cities along the coast have a high level of development, similar to Hong Kong, but at least half of China still lives in the rural areas. And that means our GDP per capita does not reach the required amount to be classified as a developed country, not for a while yet.
> 
> China's GDP per capita is currently lower than Mexico. It's important to understand our own limitations, in my opinion at least.



In nominal, China has higher GDP/capita than Mexico.

Sometime around 2025, China will join the ranks of the developed world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

Piotr said:


> @waz do you support @Blue Marlin claim that we are "bloody leeches" ?
> Blue Marlin sad that he:
> 
> 
> *Some 2,600 British ex-soldiers jailed last year for violent, sexual crimes*
> Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:13AM
> *Nearly 2,600 British war veterans deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan during the US-led invasion of the two countries have been imprisoned over the past year over committing violent crimes as well as sexual offences.*
> 
> The figure represents between four and five percent of Britain’s total prison population, according to UK’s Ministry of Justice (MoJ), prompting concerns about the impact the military invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq has had on the mental health of former members of the British armed forces, _The Guardian_ reported Saturday.
> 
> The MoJ began identifying the convicted ex-soldiers as they entered the prison system in January 2015 after concerns over the management of British war veterans were raised in a review of the criminal justice system.
> 
> Based on the figures, the former members of the armed forces accounted for 721 of the “first receptions” from July to September 2015, the initial period when they were released.
> 
> The numbers, the report adds, appear to have dropped since, 545 arrived in the system in the same period a year later. In the year leading up to last September, 2,565 veterans were imprisoned.
> 
> The development came after historic murder conviction against British soldier Alexander Blackman, who shot dead a seriously wounded Taliban prisoner in Afghanistan, was overturned earlier in the week and replaced with the lighter charge of manslaughter on the grounds of “diminished responsibility,” according to the report.
> 
> Blackman’s lawyers argued that he had adjustment disorder at the time of the killing after “serving for months on the frontline in terrible conditions.”
> 
> Although the British veterns of the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represent five percent of UK’s prison population, “but they represent a disproportionate number of serious violent offences and sexual offences, and that raises questions that need answering,” said Fraces Crook, the chief executive of independent charity organization, the Howard League for Penal Reform.
> 
> “These are not victimless crimes. They have a terrible effect on the victim,” he added.
> 
> Crook further added that several factors contributed to the number, including alcohol abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder.
> 
> Research by the organization also found that 25 percent of former combat forces were in prison for sexual offences, compared with 11 percent of the civilian prison population.
> 
> The report further quoted a Defense Ministry spokesperson as saying, “Most former service personnel return to civilian life without problems and are less likely to commit criminal offences than their civilian counterparts, but we’re determined to help those who fall into difficulty, and last year awarded £4.6m to schemes targeted at tackling this issue.”
> 
> “The government has enshrined the Armed Forces Covenant in law to make sure veterans are treated fairly and receive the support they deserve, including with mental health issues, getting on the housing ladder, and applying for civilian jobs,” the official added.
> 
> British soldiers represented the second largest contingent of mostly Western military forces that took part in the US-led occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 under the purported “war on terror” schemes. Nearly 15 years later, both countries are struggling with unrelenting incidents of terrorism amid growing suspicions that they have directly and indirectly aided the establishment of some terrorist elements in both countries.
> Source: http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/...of-Justice-prison-population-Iraq-Afghanistan



No I don't believe Poles are leeches. I like Polish folks. You seem to hate the English though. 

Oh yes war crimes, let's see.

On March 19, the Military District Court in Warsaw cleared of war crimes four Polish soldiers accused of killing civilians during their mission in Afghanistan in 2007. The five-judge court declared that “there was a lack of convincing proof that the war crime was committed.”

Court spokesman Tomasz Krajewski stated: “The court did not establish that the soldiers’ actions were deliberate. The shooting of the village was not on purpose; neither was the killing of the civilians.” Three troops were also charged with the lesser violation of improper execution of a command and the use of an incorrect type of weaponry, inconsistent with the rules implemented by the Polish military contingent in Afghanistan.

On August 16, 2007, a Polish squad from the 18th storm trooper battalion, a member of US-NATO forces, fired 24 rounds of mortar shells into a wedding party in the Nangar Khel (Sha Mardan) village in Paktika province of eastern Afghanistan, killing eight civilians. Six were killed immediately while two more died from their injuries at the hospital. Among the victims were the groom, children and women, one of them pregnant. Although an emergency C-section was performed, the baby died.

The unprovoked attack was most likely revenge for the injury suffered by two Polish soldiers from a different unit when their vehicle hit a Taliban mine near the village earlier that day. According to the witnesses, the order carried by Lt. Col. Łukasz “Bolec” Bywalec, was issued by captain Olgierd “Olo” Cieśla, a commander of Charlie combat team at Wazi-Kwa base in Afghanistan, who told his men to “f--- over a couple of villages.”

Commander Maciej Nowak and Lieutenant Artur Pracki, who later served as witnesses for the prosecution, refused to follow the order and contacted the base with a request to stop the attack on the wedding party. It was also reported that the battalion members were wearing informal arm badges with a skull and crossbones on black background, a symbol of the Bielsko-Biała Delta platoon.

In 2009, the Warsaw Military District Court charged four officers and three privates with war crimes for the incident. All seven were acquitted in 2011 for lack of evidence of deliberate killing. The Military Supreme Court trial was reopened for four of them in 2012.

Lt. Col. Łukasz Bywalec, facing 12 years in prison, received a six-month suspended sentence. Warrant officer (reserve) Andrzej Osiecki, facing an eight-year sentence, was given a suspended two-year term. Platoon commander (reserve) Tomasz Borysiewicz, who used the mortar, received a two-year suspended sentence, while Private Damian Ligocki, who shot at the village with the machine gun, was not sentenced. All of the accused pleaded not guilty.

According to the prosecution, the attack on Nangar Khel was a deliberate crime, targeting a civilian population. It was not, as the accused and later the Polish Minister of Defense Bogdan Klich had claimed, a tragic accident during a mission to eliminate identified Taliban targets. The action of the soldiers was not a response to enemy fire, making the use of the mortar against residential buildings unjustified. “The accused acted with a deliberate intent”, stated prosecutor Konopka, “they at least agreed to the death of civilians.”

Defense attorney Witold Leśniewski argued the importance of acquitting the accused in the framework of the political atmosphere and the message a guilty verdict would send to the troops: “The accused are warriors, born soldiers,” he declared in his final statement. “Such people are needed in Poland.”

After the first acquittal, Radosław Sikorski, former minister of foreign affairs in the government of Donald Tusk, commented: “During the war mistakes occur, they always have, but today we can have satisfaction that it does not mean that the Polish soldiers are guilty.”

The announcement that the Nangar Khel massacre was not a war crime sends a very dangerous signal to the public, demonstrating the readiness of the Polish government to support the geostrategic ambitions of US imperialism while ignoring international law.

It is the first time in the history of Poland that its military forces have been openly accused of a violation of The Hague Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians during armed combat. The court ruling also gives carte blanche to all those who are willing to engage in combat where “collateral damage” is allowed, as the consequences for committing such atrocities are minimal or none.

The Nangar Khel crime is just a tip of the iceberg of unlawful and barbaric actions of the US- and NATO-led war machine in the Middle East. According to a 2014 Amnesty International report, most of war crimes committed by US and NATO forces since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 have gone unpunished.

The report cited only six cases in which members of the military were criminally prosecuted, with only 10 defendants convicted of serious crimes, including in the 2012 case of US Staff Sgt. Robert Bales. In nine out of ten cases, eyewitnesses were not even interviewed by the military investigators.

The enormous scale of US-NATO operations in occupied Afghanistan was revealed in the 2010 disclosures of WikiLeaks, which posted 91,731 American military documents, including thousands of cases of reports of “friendly action” by US-NATO forces. The total number of civilian casualties is unknown, but it can be estimated at tens of thousands.

In 2014 alone, the UN documented 10,548 Afghan civilian casualties, 3,699 deaths and 6,849 injuries. These numbers are most likely higher as nobody bothers to count deaths from hunger and disease among the Afghan people, including refugees who were forced to flee areas affected by war.

From the very beginning Poland, acting as a proxy state, offered its support for US predatory military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its shameful involvement in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan began in March 2002, with the sending to Bagram of approximately 120 logisticians and combat engineers as well as soldiers from special operations unit GROM.

From 2006, as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Poland assumed responsibility for the Ghazni Province, where it stationed about 2,600 soldiers and army civilians along with a reserve of 400 soldiers. Despite his pre-election promises of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan by 2012, President Bronisław Komorowski, backed by the Tusk government, offered to send an additional contingent of 2,500 soldiers.

Although Poland’s involvement in the Afghan war officially ended in 2014, the country is still taking part in the Resolute Support Mission that began in January 2015, with about 150 personnel currently stationed in Afghanistan.

In total, more than 28,000 Polish soldiers and army civilians served in Afghanistan: 45 of them died in combat and 866 were wounded, 361 seriously. Materiel losses included three Mi-24 helicopters, three unmanned reconnaissance vehicles and eight Rosomak armored vehicles, among others. The general cost of Polish involvement in Afghanistan is estimated at PLN 5,908.6 billion (approximately US$1.5 billion).

As with the war in Iraq, Poland’s military involvement in Afghanistan was highly unpopular among Poles, with only 17 percent supporting the country’s military operations, according to a 2011 poll taken shortly after the first trial of the soldiers.

Despite the popular opposition to war, the Polish government continues to blindly follow the US lead, committing more funds to revamp its military forces and using conflict in Ukraine as a pretext for a push for war with Russia. Recently, minister of defense Tomasz Siemoniak announced plans to acquire Tomahawk cruise missiles, 1000-mile-range first-strike weapons suited for precise strikes on distant high-value targets.

Last Thursday’s verdict serves to legitimize imperialist war crimes. It is not only the soldiers directly responsible for deaths of eight Afghan civilians who should have received guilty verdicts, but such a judgment should have been extended to all those responsible for the devastation of Afghanistan, from commanders and officers of the Polish army all the way up to President Komorowski, the commander in chief.


https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/03/25/poli-m25.html


----------



## Guynextdoor2

waz said:


> Of course Pakistan didn't exist then. I just wanted to acknowledge that a great portion of the men came from Pakistan.
> What do you mean "excuse". The British have always been forensic when analysing defeats on the battlefield. Yet again you repeat the same thing that "when the yanks came", they were not there during the Africa campaign or at the Battle of Britain.
> As for Stalin he wiped out his entire military hierarchy. The idiot was to blame for a great deal of the damage the German army managed to inflict. Holding him up as an ideal just shoots your credibility.




I'm not holding stalin as an ideal, I'm saying NOT retreating and fighting tough has been norm of pride among the major victors. The issue with Dunkirk- it is not the retreat alone but that it is a part of a continuing trend of defeat of the british forces, Indo China, Europe. And the political fate of the second WW was not decided in Africa. The brits have rarely been forensic or accrate in anything. They're generally delusional and self congratulatory even in defeat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

UKBengali said:


> In nominal, China has higher GDP/capita than Mexico.
> 
> Sometime around 2025, China will join the ranks of the developed world.



Sure, the exact year would have a lot to do with currency fluctuations though.

And even if we reach the nominal GDP per capita to be considered a developed country, it will be at a very low level compared to other advanced economies.

With no real chance to test the power projection capabilities that we are currently acquiring.


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Sure, the exact year would have a lot to do with currency fluctuations though.
> 
> And even if we reach the nominal GDP per capita to be considered a developed country, it will be at a very low level compared to other advanced economies.
> 
> With no real chance to test the power projection capabilities that we are currently acquiring.



you must be getting a real high.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

waz said:


> I thought you would have stopped reading this pile of rubbish when he cites a historian recounting the failure of the British forces early on in the war, then in the next sentence cites the same author who outlines the numerous victories that came after. So the British became better right? He hilariously writes about he failure of the British to contain the NI insurgency, when the entire movement, including half the IRA leadership were infiltrated by the British services. They were bought crashing down from the inside! By his own admission their last major meeting clearly stated "we can't win the war".
> The man is a Buffon and being cheered on by a number of known anti-British posters here, half of whom were never around during any of the events they speak of.
> 
> The British remain a top level military power with reach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new era is dawning.


i know, i have not trolled in a while so i thought i may as well let it out.



Guynextdoor2 said:


> you mean with 2 million Indian troops...THEY NEEDED MORE HELP?
> 
> 
> 
> I have clarified my quest is for TRUTH. And as far as this ship is concerned, talk to me after it actually does a fully loaded 30 knots. Right now it's been a tourist attraction barely able to move on it's own power. I don't even want to talk about it's aircraft complement. And no- this ship won't be a scratch on INS Vishal. Vishal will be leagues ahead of this.


ins vishal......lol
indigenous???? only if you call it being designed by the italians and smaller than the america class amphibious ships.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T-123456

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Well we are still a developing country.
> 
> The cities along the coast have a high level of development, similar to Hong Kong, but at least half of China still lives in the rural areas. And that means our GDP per capita does not reach the required amount to be classified as a developed country, not for a while yet.
> 
> China's GDP per capita is currently lower than Mexico. It's important to understand our own limitations, in my opinion at least.
> 
> China is currently trying to acquire blue water navy "capability", and acquiring tools needed for power projection, but these capabilities will remain untested for the foreseeable future. This is in direct contrast to the old-world developed countries which have proven power projection capabilities, that are being used right now.


yeah sure,why not,i believe you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wiseone2

waz said:


> Of course Pakistan didn't exist then. I just wanted to acknowledge that a great portion of the men came from Pakistan.
> What do you mean "excuse". The British have always been forensic when analysing defeats on the battlefield. Yet again you repeat the same thing that "when the yanks came", they were not there during the Africa campaign or at the Battle of Britain.
> As for Stalin he wiped out his entire military hierarchy. The idiot was to blame for a great deal of the damage the German army managed to inflict. Holding him up as an ideal just shoots your credibility.



It is true Stalin shot a lot of officers prior to 1941
Give him credit he stiffened the resolve of the Red Army when the Germans were close to scoring a decisive win


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> i know, i have not trolled in a while so i thought i may as well let it out.
> 
> 
> ins vishal......lol
> indigenous???? only if you call it being designed by the italians and smaller than the america class amphibious ships.



I forgot how the excellent british education system teaches you addition where 70,000 T is lesser than 44,000 T

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mamluk

Why does it matter? Their (UK) people still live a far better quality life than people from countries insulting them here. They really don't need a military stronger than what it is right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## wiseone2

Piotr said:


> *Britain is No Longer a Major Military Power*
> Matthew JAMISON | 14.02.2017 | WORLD
> 
> In particular, the performance of the British army throughout the 20th century and early 21st century raises serious concerns if the British army is really fit for purpose. Despite having vastly more troops than the Wehrmacht and the added strength of the French army, the British Expeditionary Force was unable to secure the borders of France against the invading Nazis and were resoundingly defeated and humiliated with their withdrawal to and subsequent scuttle from Dunkirk. Indeed, the British army were very lucky that they were not completely annihilated at Dunkirk and it was only due to ironically and perversely the mercy of Adolf Hitler and his peculiar admiration for England. The Nazis could have finished off the British army at Dunkirk but rather than delivering the killer blow Hitler allowed the remnants of the British army to escape. Indeed one of Hitler's last statements before his suicide on 30 April 1945, claimed that he had allowed the British Expeditionary Force to escape as a «sporting gesture» in order to induce British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to conclude a peace agreement with Nazi Germany.



Germans were true pioneers in blitzkrieg - Mannstein, Guderian & co


----------



## Guynextdoor2

@Blue Marlin I think you guys are being unreasonable in criticizing astute as too slow to match the QE's supposed 30 knots. On diesel, fully loaded with personnel, AC and aaviation fuel, it'll do a 'regal' 10 knots gently plying the waves. You queen can then look at it and say 'kawl me lisbeth' . Trust me, astute's 20 knots is more than eough for that


----------



## Blue Marlin

Guynextdoor2 said:


> @Blue Marlin I think you guys are being unreasonable in criticizing astute as too slow to match the QE's supposed 30 knots. On diesel, fully loaded with personnel, AC and aaviation fuel, it'll do a 'regal' 10 knots gently plying the waves. You queen can then look at it and say 'kawl me lisbeth' . Trust me, astute's 20 knots is more than eough for that


you do know its powered by the latest Rolls Royce mt30 gas turbines.
the same engines powering this......





and this.....


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> you do know its powered by the latest Rolls Royce mt30 gas turbines.
> the same engines powering this......



Alright...so you used an engine that powers a 14000 T ship to power a 65000 T ship, that's when your ship begins to look like this....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brutas

Britain and it's dominions and territories are still a world power. English speaking UK-Canada-Australia-New Zealand were/are/will continue to be the biggest cheer leader of Washington in any future conflict.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Steve781

At least we're not trying to drag the whole of Europe into another devastating war as Poland and your SS parading friends in the Baltics insist on doing.
If you're so tough you should try fighting your battles alone without hiding behind NATO.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Just export some ships to Pakistan and you will see Indians crying foul and acknowledging the power balance has been tilted

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Chinese-Dragon said:


> We aren't going to fight them anyway so it doesn't matter.
> 
> The fact is that Britain, along with France, USA and Russia are currently able to project their military power across the globe, fighting wars (sometimes multiple) in other continents. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria.
> 
> This kind of power projection is what developing countries like China still lack. And even if we get the capability, it's still another thing entirely to be able to carry it out.


Nonsense. Just becos China didn't start a war does not prove China do not have power projection. China don't just for the sake of proving it's capabilities and use other countries as spare target.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Beast said:


> Nonsense. Just becos China didn't start a war does not prove China do not have power projection. China don't just for the sake of proving it's capabilities and use other countries as spare target.



Then let us prove our capabilities first, before boasting like the Indian members here do?

The rest of the P5 are actively fighting in the Middle East right now, their power projection capabilities have been proven in battle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Qutb-ud-din Aybak

Guynextdoor2 said:


> On their own they lost all wars of WW2. Dunkirk, Indo- China, they were on a losing streak until the americams came in.


but they proved their bravery and power in korean war and the imaginary war in 1962 with supa pawa.


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Then let us prove our capabilities first, before boasting like the* Indian members here do?*
> 
> The rest of the P5 are actively fighting in the Middle East right now, their power projection capabilities have been proven in battle.


 
There, THIS is what it was all leading up to. Admit it . Ohhhhh china is a develoing country, ohhh....GDP is like this and that. You wanted to take up this cheap shot and you got it. Are you happy now?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Guynextdoor2 said:


> There, THIS is what it was all leading up to. Admit it . Ohhhhh china is a develoing country, ohhh....GDP is like this and that. You wanted to take up this cheap shot and you got it. Are you happy now?



Now that you mention it... 

But let's be honest, the Indian President Kalam already declared that India was a superpower in 2012. And not a single Indian member here has the kind of education, intelligence and respect that Kalam has.

China on the other hand really is a developing country, because our GDP per capita is below the standard used. That's all there is, if you are below the line you are not considered a developed country.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Chinese-Dragon said:


> Now that you mention it...
> 
> But let's be honest, the Indian President Kalam already declared that India was a superpower in 2012. And not a single Indian member here has the kind of education, intelligence and respect that Kalam has.
> 
> China on the other hand really is a developing country, because our GDP per capita is below the standard used. That's all there is, if you are below the line you are not considered a developed country.



Everything Kalam did was right. President is a purely titular position. His job is to inspire. He set and asked people to achieve those set targets. That's his job. He is sorely missed by his people even today- years after he passed away. No leader in recent times that I know of in China enjoyed such respect.

You missed so many points:
- India had not even crossed 1 Trillion in 2005, it's 2.5 T now. A tripling of economy in 15 years is no mean feat
- India started reforms 15 to 20 years after China, so a lag of 15 to 20 years is considered an optimal target, GDP growth cannot go beyond a certail extent without inviting inflation
- It is expected that India will have a 2% lag due to democratic processes, that too seems to be within specified range

India seems to be reliably following a constant growth pattern consistent with known economic phenomena.

@Chinese-Dragon let me give you an interesting Tit Bit. India's GDP today is 2.6 Trillion. You joined the forum at about 2006? So India's GDP is the same as what your country's was when you joined the forum. And chinese trolls were bragging 'great china, mother china', even then

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## bobo6661

I dont agree with it GB is still a major power and with the addition of new carriers it will grow more the Indians can;p



Blue Marlin said:


> well most job eastern Europeans do labouring jobs such as, plasterer, bricklayer, labourer etc........
> either that or they open up shops specialising in eastern European food.
> 
> they dont steal our jobs just leach money in the form of benfits and rent.
> 
> most english folk dont wanna do that as its considered as a diry job.
> 
> mind you i know a brick layer who earns well over £100k and he's polish



Its funny to be called a leach by one of the biggest Leach in history ;p



Steve781 said:


> At least we're not trying to drag the whole of Europe into another devastating war as Poland and your SS parading friends in the Baltics insist on doing.
> If you're so tough you should try fighting your battles alone without hiding behind NATO.



Oh yes so it was us invading Ukraine ... If you dont like it quit Nato our try to kick Poland then ... If not then Poland has the right to request Help ...


----------



## flamer84

Steve781 said:


> At least we're not trying to drag the whole of Europe into another devastating war as Poland and your SS parading friends in the Baltics insist on doing.
> If you're so tough you should try fighting your battles alone without hiding behind NATO.





Steve781 said:


> At least we're not trying to drag the whole of Europe into another devastating war as Poland and your SS parading friends in the Baltics insist on doing.
> If you're so tough you should try fighting your battles alone without hiding behind NATO.


Rich coming from someone whose country banded over backwards just to dragg the US in the last 2 world wars so they might actually win... not to mention the US umbrella in the COld War....
About the SS parades,it might seem odd to you but,despite loosing WW2,some countries are allowed,and should celebrate the men who fought for them,especially since your Soviet buddies weren t so different from the nazis.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xyxmt

Guynextdoor2 said:


> *IT NEVER WAS A MAJOR MILITARY POWER!!!!!!!
> *
> I can't understand how they managed to con everyone for so long!
> 
> 
> 
> the day they declared the Falklands a major war itself this became clear.



they rod US shoulders for as long as they could but with Trump it doesnt seem possible anymore

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Star Expedition

What a pity it is for this land, which generated lots of world leaders.
But it still has power and an elite leader in the future will restore its glory.
The republican system damaged the country. May All power should returned to the queen.


----------



## The SC

*What is Trident? Britain's nuclear deterrent explained*

*What is Trident? *

Trident is Britain's nuclear weapons deterrent. It consists of four Vanguard-class submarines which can carry up to 16 Trident II D5 ballistic missiles, each armed with up to eight nuclear warheads.

At any time, one submarine is on patrol, one is undergoing maintenance, one is preparing for patrol and one has just come off patrol and is recovering.

Britain has had a Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) since 1969. Trident is currently referred to (in defence speak) as Operation Relentless and is based in the Faslane area of Scotland.

*How powerful is Trident?*
No one knows exactly, but most nuclear weapons are approximately seven times more powerful than the atomic bomb which was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945.

Trident's ballistic missiles can hit a target up to 7,500 miles away and travel at speeds of more than 13,000 miles an hour.


*What do we know about the submarines?*
The UK's Vanguard-class submarines are called HMS Vanguard, HMS Vengeance, HMS Victorious and HMS Vigilant. They are huge - measuring more than twice the size of two Boeing 747s. Each contains a nuclear reactor which boils sea water and the steam is used to power them through the water.

The patrols are so secretive that only four among the crew of 135 know what route the submarine will take, on voyages lasting months.







The Royal Navy’s four Vanguard Class nuclear-powered submarines carry Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent.

*Length:* 492 ft

*Displacement:* 15,900 tonnes

*Crew:* 132

*Top speed:* 25 knots

*In service:* 1993 to present

*Armament:* Spearfish torpedoes and up to 16 Trident II D5 nuclear missiles

*Power:* Rolls Royce PWR2 nuclear reactor

*Boats:* HMS Vanguard, HMS Vengeance, HMS Victorious, HMS Vigilant

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/21/what-is-trident-britains-nuclear-deterrent-explained/


So, every Submarine has 16 Ballistic missiles each with 8 nuclear warheads, that makes it a total of 16 x 8 x 4 = 128 x 4 = 512 nuclear warheads.. and that is just the naval branch!!! imagine the rest, meaning the army and the airforce..
So in many ways Britain is still a major military power after the US, Russia and China, since it can also project its power mainly through the sea..

PS: Note that this 512 nuclear warheads alone exceeds the 400 figure that the UK announces as its nuclear arsenal !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Guynextdoor2

bobo6661 said:


> I dont agree with it GB is still a major power and with the addition of new carriers it will grow more the Indians can;p
> 
> 
> 
> Its funny to be called a leach by one of the biggest Leach in history ;p
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes so it was us invading Ukraine ... If you dont like it quit Nato our try to kick Poland then ... If not then Poland has the right to request Help ...



India is already more powerful than GB. They won't match up any time soon



The SC said:


> *What is Trident? Britain's nuclear deterrent explained*
> 
> *What is Trident? *
> 
> Trident is Britain's nuclear weapons deterrent. It consists of four Vanguard-class submarines which can carry up to 16 Trident II D5 ballistic missiles, each armed with up to eight nuclear warheads.
> 
> At any time, one submarine is on patrol, one is undergoing maintenance, one is preparing for patrol and one has just come off patrol and is recovering.
> 
> Britain has had a Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) since 1969. Trident is currently referred to (in defence speak) as Operation Relentless and is based in the Faslane area of Scotland.
> 
> *How powerful is Trident?*
> No one knows exactly, but most nuclear weapons are approximately seven times more powerful than the atomic bomb which was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945.
> 
> Trident's ballistic missiles can hit a target up to 7,500 miles away and travel at speeds of more than 13,000 miles an hour.
> 
> 
> *What do we know about the submarines?*
> The UK's Vanguard-class submarines are called HMS Vanguard, HMS Vengeance, HMS Victorious and HMS Vigilant. They are huge - measuring more than twice the size of two Boeing 747s. Each contains a nuclear reactor which boils sea water and the steam is used to power them through the water.
> 
> The patrols are so secretive that only four among the crew of 135 know what route the submarine will take, on voyages lasting months.
> 
> View attachment 386740
> 
> 
> The Royal Navy’s four Vanguard Class nuclear-powered submarines carry Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent.
> 
> *Length:* 492 ft
> 
> *Displacement:* 15,900 tonnes
> 
> *Crew:* 132
> 
> *Top speed:* 25 knots
> 
> *In service:* 1993 to present
> 
> *Armament:* Spearfish torpedoes and up to 16 Trident II D5 nuclear missiles
> 
> *Power:* Rolls Royce PWR2 nuclear reactor
> 
> *Boats:* HMS Vanguard, HMS Vengeance, HMS Victorious, HMS Vigilant
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/21/what-is-trident-britains-nuclear-deterrent-explained/
> 
> 
> So, every Submarine has 16 Ballistic missiles each with 8 nuclear warheads, that makes it a total of 16 x 8 x 4 = 128 x 4 = 512 nuclear warheads.. and that is just the naval branch!!! imagine the rest, meaning the army and the airforce..
> So in many ways Britain is still a major military power after the US, Russia and China, since it can also project its power mainly through the sea..
> 
> PS: Note that this 512 nuclear warheads alone exceeds the 400 figure that the UK announces as its nuclear arsenal !!!



Dude, I had to visit the doc to get myself a tetanus shot after I looked at your pic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

Guynextdoor2 said:


> India is already more powerful than GB. They won't match up any time soon
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I had to visit the doc to get myself a tetanus shot after I looked at your pic.


What about the Astute class, do you need any shot for its pic too?


----------



## Guynextdoor2

The SC said:


> What about the Astute class, do you need any shot for its pic too?



You must be kidding me. The astute is all of 7000 Tonnes. Hell it's like 40% the size of vanguard. You showing pigmy subs now? Wait....midgets are actually 'little people', how bad of me to forget?

This is the astute








THIS is how a REAL NUCLEAR Sub looks like -'nuff said

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jlaw

T-123456 said:


> Every country having a second strike capability is a major military power,developing or not.
> And quit calling your country ''developing'',you know thats not true anymore.


China's GDP per capita is around 11000 USD. We are strong in certain area and not as strong in others. Our urbanisation is around 50% compare to 75% or higher in developed countries. Let's get back on topic.


----------



## Steve781

flamer84 said:


> About the SS parades,it might seem odd to you but,despite loosing WW2,some countries are allowed,and should celebrate the men who fought for them


Even so it's pretty strange for Poland to ally with people who honour the SS, or with the people in Ukraine who did this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia



flamer84 said:


> especially since your Soviet buddies weren t so different from the nazis.


The Soviet Union wasn't. Modern Russia is the antitheis of this, the only country actually willing to stand up to militant Salafists as well as the militant feminists who want abortions up to birth and beyond and homosexual activists who want to discuss their sex lives in front of five year olds in schools.


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Steve781 said:


> Even so it's pretty strange for Poland to ally with people who honour the SS, or with the people in Ukraine who did this
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia
> 
> 
> The Soviet Union wasn't. Modern Russia is the antitheis of this, the only country actually willing to stand up to militant Salafists as well as the militant feminists who want abortions up to birth and beyond and homosexual activists who want to discuss their sex lives in front of five year olds in schools.



is it? Britain was as bad and racist as poland, so why single only them out? Churchill's racism lead to the death of over 4 million people, how is his track record different from Hitler's? If you can make a hero out of Churchill then why shouldn't the poles make a hero out of Hitler?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Steve781

Guynextdoor2 said:


> ? If you can make a hero out of Churchill then why shouldn't the poles make a hero out of Hitler?


Maybe because he killed millions of them you moron.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Steve781 said:


> Maybe because he killed millions of them you moron.



Churchill killed millions of too you jackass, what exactly is the difference between him and hitler? Plus, you're whitewashing the fact that the root cause of WW2 was Britain to start with, so why blame only the Nazis?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Steve781

Guynextdoor2 said:


> Churchill killed millions of too you jackass, what exactly is the difference between him and hitler? Plus, you're whitewashing the fact that the root cause of WW2 was Britain to start with, so why blame only the Nazis?


I'll spell it out to you: Hitler killed MILLIONs of Poles. So it would be rather odd for Poles to honour him, no? Churchill didn't kill millions of Englishmen to my knowledge.


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Steve781 said:


> I'll spell it out to you: Hitler killed MILLIONs of Poles. So it would be rather odd for Poles to honour him, no? Churchill didn't kill millions of Englishmen to my knowledge.



But churchill killed MILLIONS of PEOPLE in ways AS CRUEL AS HITLER. If you can overlook that, why shouldn't any right winger?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> India is already more powerful than GB. They won't match up any time soon



No you're not. With no ability to project power, age old equipment etc. I haven't even gone into your country being penned in by two enemies, you're more powerful how? You're weaker conventionally speaking,and forget about the nuclear deterrent. You're still chugging along trying to develop a sea based deterrent, where as the UK has had one for since the 70's.

@mike2000 is back You reading this?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Sam.

Guynextdoor2 said:


> But churchill killed MILLIONS of PEOPLE in ways AS CRUEL AS HITLER. If you can overlook that, why shouldn't any right winger?


Good work ,cheer leading is strong in this thread.


----------



## Providence

Who ever here is butthurt about english power pray please stop buying properties in london !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Fledgingwings

WAS ONCE but not now.So many in the race already.btw I heard the news about GB making their own Aircraft Carriers.thats a big leap


----------



## Guynextdoor2

waz said:


> No you're not. With no ability to project power, age old equipment etc. I haven't even gone into your country being penned in by two enemies, you're more powerful how? You're weaker conventionally speaking,and forget about the nuclear deterrent. You're still chugging along trying to develop a sea based deterrent, where as the UK has had one for since the 70's.
> 
> @mike2000 is back You reading this?



you're just saying that because you're a pakistani and you can't handle the idea that India is more powerful than even a P5 member, else you'd have not missed the simple fact that 'power projection' of UK is basically a half built carrier that's not even begun sea trials and by the time it'll get working F 35 it'll be at least another 10 years. You're claiming India can't fight a two front war? Britain can't even fight a one front war. Let them take on a real major power, not argentina etc. and we'll see how well they do. India's objective is to protect a territory almost the size of western europe, currently the fastest growing region on the planet. No one's really challenging us anywhere.



Providence said:


> Who ever here is butthurt about english power pray please stop buying properties in london !



People stopped buying properties in london quite a while ago. Pak politicians excluded. Britain belongs to India anyway so I don't think that should be a big deal.



waz said:


> No you're not. With no ability to project power, age old equipment etc. I haven't even gone into your country being penned in by two enemies, you're more powerful how? You're weaker conventionally speaking,and forget about the nuclear deterrent. You're still chugging along trying to develop a sea based deterrent, where as the UK has had one for since the 70's.
> 
> @mike2000 is back You reading this?



yeah... @mike2000 is back are you reading this? I just called RAF sissies......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Guynextdoor2 said:


> India is already more powerful than GB. They won't match up any time soon
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I had to visit the doc to get myself a tetanus shot after I looked at your pic.


lamo.......india is already more powerfull than us lol.
you cant even deal with a country 5 time *smaller* than india let alone us lot.



Providence said:


> Who ever here is butthurt about english power pray please stop buying properties in london !



indians.........what do you expect


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> lamo.......india is already more powerfull than us lol.
> you cant even deal with a country 5 time *smaller* than india let alone us lot.



you mean pakistan....don't make that statement. It is rude to them. And India is ways more powerful than your inferior forces.


----------



## livingdead

it is still a major military power... and will remain so for quite some time.. even if scotland goes for independence...


----------



## Guynextdoor2

livingdead said:


> it is still a major military power... and will remain so for quite some time.. even if scotland goes for independence...


One thing the British do that we can never match- hot air.....

@Blue Marlin - we beat you 12 to zero....I wonder if you'll do with Sri Lankan AF


----------



## livingdead

Guynextdoor2 said:


> One thing the British do that we can never match- hot air.....


brits can project power thousands of miles away from UK, something India simply cant... they have well developed arms industry that can export and earn money.


----------



## Guynextdoor2

livingdead said:


> brits can project power thousands of miles away from UK, something India simply cant... they have well developed arms industry that can export and earn money.



how exactly can they do that?


----------



## CHACHA"G"

Honestly Uk only have very good political influence and that's to because of colonialism ........... And as for as military power concerns they only have very goof Atomic capabilities that's for sure.
Now for civilian side they have very good and better way of life then many other countries ,* Here I will say , Thank you the money that come from Sub-Continent and China.......*
And for power projection why not you British Attack Bangladesh on your own and see what happen????????
All the current backwardness in Sub-content is only because of British , They destroyed our system , culture , heritage ........... How come we forget Bengal , what shit they turned this province just to have Drug money from China..............
Yes they were once supper power but now they are not by meaning ,,,,,,, *But yes they are way better (supper power) in HR (management) and Human Development *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> you're just saying that because you're a pakistani and you can't handle the idea that India is more powerful than even a P5 member, else you'd have not missed the simple fact that 'power projection' of UK is basically a half built carrier that's not even begun sea trials and by the time it'll get working F 35 it'll be at least another 10 years. You're claiming India can't fight a two front war? Britain can't even fight a one front war. Let them take on a real major power, not argentina etc. and we'll see how well they do. India's objective is to protect a territory almost the size of western europe, currently the fastest growing region on the planet. No one's really challenging us anywhere.



Oh Lord you sound more desperate with each post. It was just waiting and knew it was just a matter of time before you bought the "oh you're Pakistani" part in, your points are weak, hence you make it personal. Firstly I'm third generation, and I don't hold Pakistani citizenship. If I came from a Pakistani perspective I'd stay neutral or hammer you far worse. I take it you also see millions of British, Canadian and American people, of Indian origin as just Indians? They'ed probably take issue with that.
You are not powerful than the UK, and never will be. These are just your fantasies where virtually every non-Indian member, yes that includes people apart from Pakistanis, are laughing at you. Half-built carrier, what utter rubbish. It has been fully constrcuted and is about to undergo trials in a couple of months.
Two front war! The Chinese will do irepariable damage to you in under a week. They have the industrial capability to build weapons from scratch including fifth generation jets, you import most of yours. No one takes your claims seriously apart from yourselves.
The RAF already has four F-35's, the first two debuted in last year's RIAT, a show I was at. But then that shows the difference from someone who gets his information online and someone who actually goes out and about.
Also why on earth are we going to find a "real major power" to fight? We have no quarrels with anyone.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## bobo6661

Steve781 said:


> ven so it's pretty strange for Poland to ally with people who honour the SS, or with the people in Ukraine who did this
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia



Oh we are so powerfull only Poland support them and only Poland helping them hey wait did we even gave them any weapons like you did?... You now there are Racist in UK now to that kill Pols ...

YOU ARE THE ONE THAT GIVES THEM WEAPONS AND VEHICLES so whos realy working with the SS?

*UK To Expand Support To Ukraine’s Armed Forces*
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-expand-support-to-ukraines-armed-forces

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



Steve781 said:


> I'll spell it out to you: Hitler killed MILLIONs of Poles. So it would be rather odd for Poles to honour him, no? Churchill didn't kill millions of Englishmen to my knowledge.



And you work with Nazi to so ... They killed milions of you to ... You know if we go the way you speak Russia did the same to us ... For us Hitler = Stalin






http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/6/12/1211079/-British-Neo-Nazis-are-on-the-March

It looks like you love them ;p

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Guynextdoor2

waz said:


> Oh Lord you sound more desperate with each post. It was just waiting and knew it was just a matter of time before you bought the "oh you're Pakistani" part in, your points are weak, hence you make it personal. Firstly I'm third generation, and I don't hold Pakistani citizenship. If I came from a Pakistani perspective I'd stay neutral or hammer you far worse. I take it you also see millions of British, Canadian and American people, of Indian origin as just Indians? They'ed probably take issue with that.
> You are not powerful than the UK, and never will be. These are just your fantasies where virtually every non-Indian member, yes that includes people apart from Pakistanis, are laughing at you. Half-built carrier, what utter rubbish. It has been fully constrcuted and is about to undergo trials in a couple of months.
> Two front war! The Chinese will do irepariable damage to you in under a week. They have the industrial capability to build weapons from scratch including fifth generation jets, you import most of yours. No one takes your claims seriously apart from yourselves.
> The RAF already has four F-35's, the first two debuted in last year's RIAT, a show I was at. But then that shows the difference from someone who gets his information online and someone who actually goes out and about.
> Also why on earth are we going to find a "real major power" to fight? We have no quarrels with anyone.



Lol!!! There is no power assessment in the world that supports your claim. India has been more powerful than puny Brits for a long time now. You have had no carriers for almost a decade and still you claim 'power projection'. It will go to sea trials is a line that you're taking with a country that has constantly held carriers for decades. It has FOUR F 35, tell anyone including the RAF/ RN that F 35 is hale and hearty, they'll laugh at you. Sea trials take many years themselves. I will charitably tell you you don't know how this stuff works. You thought what? By jan the ships will be in service? That even in the next 5 years you'll get the squadron strength of F 35s? You gotta be out of your mind. 

And yeah, I still think the third gen Pakistani guy can't deal with the fact that a rival is too powerful. Britain is a garbage bin of history as far as we are concerned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Steve781

Guynextdoor2 said:


> And yeah, I still think the third gen Pakistani guy can't deal with the fact that a rival is too powerful. Britain is a garbage bin of history as far as we are concerned.


You keep saying that and yet you've created about twenty threads about our decline. Why do you care so much? Nobody in this country is obsessing about the power or lack thereof India has. I think you probably need a wife or girlfriend.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Guynextdoor2

@waz here, even in the latest firepower index- forget India, even FRANCE is ahead of UK.  @Steve781 @Blue Marlin @mike2000 is back even France kicks the crap out of you 

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp



Steve781 said:


> You keep saying that and yet you've created about twenty threads about our decline. Why do you care so much? Nobody in this country is obsessing about the power or lack thereof India has. I think you probably need a wife or girlfriend.



my commitment to truth and global honesty and dignity has been mocked at in the past too. My girlfriend feels the same about UK.


----------



## Steve781

Guynextdoor2 said:


> @waz here, even in the latest firepower index- forget India, even FRANCE is ahead of UK.  @Steve781 @Blue Marlin @mike2000 is back even France kicks the crap out of you
> 
> http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
> 
> 
> . My girlfriend feels the same about UK.


What, your blow up doll?



Guynextdoor2 said:


> @waz here, even in the latest firepower index- forget India, even FRANCE is ahead of UK.  @Steve781 @Blue Marlin @mike2000 is back even France kicks the crap out of you
> 
> http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
> 
> 
> 
> my commitment to truth and global honesty and dignity has been mocked at in the past too..


It's your pathetic obsession with a foreign country that's being mocked. Neither myself, nor waz, blue marlin or mike2000 have ever been interested in your attention and yet you're constantly vying for ours.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Steve781 said:


> What, your blow up doll?
> 
> 
> It's your pathetic obsession with a foreign country that's being mocked.



Oh I can answer to that- even blow up dolls think you're lame. Especially if they're from china they'd probably put in microchips to abuse UK. You're track record of committing fraud on history will end.


----------



## waz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> Lol!!! There is no power assessment in the world that supports your claim. India has been more powerful than puny Brits for a long time now. You have had no carriers for almost a decade and still you claim 'power projection'. It will go to sea trials is a line that you're taking with a country that has constantly held carriers for decades. It has FOUR F 35, tell anyone including the RAF/ RN that F 35 is hale and hearty, they'll laugh at you. Sea trials take many years themselves. I will charitably tell you you don't know how this stuff works. You thought what? By jan the ships will be in service? That even in the next 5 years you'll get the squadron strength of F 35s? You gotta be out of your mind.
> 
> And yeah, I still think the third gen Pakistani guy can't deal with the fact that a rival is too powerful. Britain is a garbage bin of history as far as we are concerned.



Come forth and bring your "experts" that state that India can beat the UK in a war. Unless you consider yourself one, and the fella thanking your posts.
Why are you also delving into the past, the carrier is here and about to hit the sea. Lol, oh now we have four F-35, before that you wrote about a single working F-35! Do yourself a favour and stop posting. Although I'm glad you're at least correcting yourself after I post.
The RAF have full faith in the plane. Yes it has had its issues, just like any other new plane.
Of course sea trials take years, where did I say they don't. I didn't think anything else, you're literally making up things as you go along.
As for facts, the only visible here is that you're making a mockery of the board. You're currently at arms with other posters as well. Do they have Pakistani in them as well? Or is it a case that your posts are ludicrous? It's the latter and it's best to face up to this now.
I can tell you one other thing most of the world, actually practically all of it would wet themselves laughing at your "Britain is the garbage bin of history" comment.



Guynextdoor2 said:


> @waz here, even in the latest firepower index- forget India, even FRANCE is ahead of UK.  @Steve781 @Blue Marlin @mike2000 is back even France kicks the crap out of you
> 
> http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
> 
> 
> 
> my commitment to truth and global honesty and dignity has been mocked at in the past too. My girlfriend feels the same about UK.



Yes that's such an accurate measure of military power isn't it. For example, giving comparable levels of military strength to tanks that are decades old with modern day MBT's. Just stop posting.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Guynextdoor2

waz said:


> Come forth and bring your "experts" that state that India can beat the UK in a war. Unless you consider yourself one, and the fella thanking your posts.
> Why are you also delving into the past, the carrier is here and about to hit the sea. Lol, oh now we have four F-35, before that you wrote about a single working F-35! Do yourself a favour and stop posting. Although I'm glad you're at least correcting yourself after I post.
> The RAF have full faith in the plane. Yes it has had its issues, just like any other new plane.
> Of course sea trials take years, where did I say they don't. I didn't think anything else, you're literally making up things as you go along.
> As for facts, the only visible here is that you're making a mockery of the board. You're currently at arms with other posters as well. Do they have Pakistani in them as well? Or is it a case that your posts are ludicrous? It's the latter and it's best to face up to this now.
> I can tell you one other thing most of the world, actually practically all of it would wet themselves laughing at your "Britain is the garbage bin of history" comment.



No dude, no one in the world will wet themselves laughing at that comment, most people, including people from your own country will generally agree with it. 

Lol _'*carrier is here*'  *F 35 is here ...man do you have any idea where that program is? Especially the VSTOL version? 
*_
_You even ignored Global Firepower, THE authoritative ranking of global armed power. What they say is the most rational assesment, what you say is called 'opinion'. You got some kooky opinions man _

@waz we had a decades old carrier....but it was an actual carrier with working planes that can sail up to Britain and attack if we decide to . Not 'khywabi pulao' . Guess what? There's a lot more where that came from

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Guynextdoor2 said:


> Alright...so you used an engine that powers a 14000 T ship to power a 65000 T ship, that's when your ship begins to look like this....


It depends on how many engines are powering each!


----------



## Blue Marlin

Guynextdoor2 said:


> @waz here, even in the latest firepower index- forget India, even FRANCE is ahead of UK.  @Steve781 @Blue Marlin @mike2000 is back even France kicks the crap out of you
> 
> http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
> 
> 
> 
> my commitment to truth and global honesty and dignity has been mocked at in the past too. My girlfriend feels the same about UK.


you think the french is going to war with us? they dont have half a dozen of the world most advanced air defence destroyers. nor 5th gen fighters, the typhoon and the rafale are too close to call. and referencing a random site to prevent the butt hurt.

also a girlfriend is not a random girl you meet on facebook


----------



## Guynextdoor2

The SC said:


> It depends on how many engines are powering each!



Both Zumwalt and QE have same power config 2x Rolls Royce MT 30 with 48000 HP. Honestly this so pathetic I don't even know what the f**k they're doing any more.



Blue Marlin said:


> you think the french is going to war with us? they dont have half a dozen of the world most advanced air defence destroyers. nor 5th gen fighters, the typhoon and the rafale are too close to call. and referencing a random site to prevent the butt hurt.
> 
> also a girlfriend is not a random girl you meet on facebook



yeah but you don't have half a dozen of the world's most advanced air defense destroyers or 5th gen fighters either. I wonder who you're talking about?


----------



## The SC

Chinese-Dragon said:


> We aren't going to fight them anyway so it doesn't matter.
> 
> The fact is that Britain, along with France, USA and Russia are currently able to project their military power across the globe, fighting wars (sometimes multiple) in other continents. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria.
> 
> This kind of power projection is what developing countries like China still lack. And even if we get the capability, it's still another thing entirely to be able to carry it out.


China does not want to project power beyond the SCS and a base in Djibouti to protect its OIL shipments through Bab-Al-mandab near Yemen..It has a totally different mindset concerning dominating other nations..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Guynextdoor2 said:


> No dude, no one in the world will wet themselves laughing at that comment, most people, including people from your own country will generally agree with it.
> 
> Lol _'*carrier is here*'  *F 35 is here ...man do you have any idea where that program is? Especially the VSTOL version?
> *_
> _You even ignored Global Firepower, THE authoritative ranking of global armed power. What they say is the most rational assesment, what you say is called 'opinion'. You got some kooky opinions man _
> 
> @waz we had a decades old carrier....but it was an actual carrier with working planes that can sail up to Britain and attack if we decide to . Not 'khywabi pulao' . Guess what? There's a lot more where that came from


do you have any of these..............





your so called indigenous carrier is designed by the italians, powered by the americains, and holds fighters built by the russains.


destroyers..... same thing

submarines lets not go there shall we......... indigenous?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> do you have any of these..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your so called indigenous carrier is designed by the italians, powered by the americains, and holds fighters built by the russains.
> 
> 
> destroyers..... same thing
> 
> submarines lets not go there shall we......... indigenous?



Dude, go through the threads, we discussed this...this here is called 'lemon'


----------



## Blue Marlin

Guynextdoor2 said:


> Both Zumwalt and QE have same power config 2x Rolls Royce MT 30 with 48000 HP. Honestly this so pathetic I don't even know what the f**k they're doing any more.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah but you don't have half a dozen of the world's most advanced air defense destroyers or 5th gen fighters either. I wonder who you're talking about?


not 48000hp more like 53640.9 hp, can ganga build one? ganga spent 30 years building a fighter and thats not even ready to requirements.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Guynextdoor2

@Steve781 on the plus side I think you will have the most advanced security assessment group in the world.....

'there will be war in Iraq in 2025'....'oh QE battle group should set sail no later than next week....'


----------



## Blue Marlin

Guynextdoor2 said:


> Dude, go through the threads, we discussed this...this here is called 'lemon'


you talk so much shit your @$$ must be jealous

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> not 48000hp more like 53640.9 hp, can ganga build one? ganga spent 30 years building a fighter and thats not even ready to requirements.



yeah....so you know if 14T zumwalt and 65T QE have same engine....you know lemon....


----------



## Steve781

Guynextdoor2 said:


> @Steve781 on the plus side I think you will have the most advanced security assessment group in the world.....
> 
> 'there will be war in Iraq in 2025'....'oh QE battle group should set sail no later than next week....'


Have you still not got the message? I don't care about you or your opinions. I'm not remotely interested in discussing anything with you. Stop bugging me.


----------



## Blue Marlin

Guynextdoor2 said:


> yeah....so you know if 14T zumwalt and 65T QE have same engine....you know lemon....


you do know your comparing a destroyer to a carrier right
the zumwalt can do 30+knots, the qec can do 25+ and is multiple times bigger. thats called design sunshine. go to your mom, your nappy must be full of crap because its spilling of on to the keyboard


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Blue Marlin said:


> you do know your comparing a destroyer to a carrier right
> the zumwalt can do 30+knots, the qec can do 25+ and is multiple times bigger. thats called design sunshine. go to your mom, your nappy must be full of crap because its spilling of on to the keyboard



no the nappy of your whole country is full

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/15/hms-astute-submarine-slow-leaky-rusty

"_It would also be incapable of keeping pace with the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers, *which will be able to travel at more than 30 knots and need the submarines to protect them.* One source told the Guardian the boat had a "V8 engine with a Morris Minor gearbox". _

WHAT A BUNCH OF MORONS!!! We all knew the Astute was a lemon the day it was born, the BIGGEST lemon was QE. No wonder you wanted to sell one off to IN and we weren't stupid enough to buy it. And you invented some new kind of math where the weight is multiplied by *4 times and the speed comes down by only 5 knots . 
*
And that's why we've decided to bolt our next carrier- a 70 KT monster with a nuclear reactor. Plannty of power to do 30 Knots and operate an EMALS on deck and lots more. Not this under-powered JUNK.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh my my my....this is interesting, what have we come across? This is the INS Vikrant II . I just checked the engine specs...

-This ship is 44000 Tonne displacement. Power 4 GE engines giving 33000 HP each = theoretically it can tap 120K HP (I'm guessing not all turbines will be run at peak, so actual derived will be lesser)

-QE has 88K HP despite being 1.5X bigger @waz @Steve781 @Blue Marlin 

 what is this? Is QE some kind of a joke?


----------



## ashok mourya

UK....united kingdoms queens still leader of worlds largest territories.Australia,Canada,Newzeland still British influenced and still got veto power in united nations.So don't underestimate Britain.


----------



## waz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> No dude, no one in the world will wet themselves laughing at that comment, most people, including people from your own country will generally agree with it.
> 
> Lol _'*carrier is here*'  *F 35 is here ...man do you have any idea where that program is? Especially the VSTOL version?
> *_
> _You even ignored Global Firepower, THE authoritative ranking of global armed power. What they say is the most rational assesment, what you say is called 'opinion'. You got some kooky opinions man _
> 
> @waz we had a decades old carrier....but it was an actual carrier with working planes that can sail up to Britain and attack if we decide to . Not 'khywabi pulao' . Guess what? There's a lot more where that came from



On a micro level people are laughing at you now right now. The world would think your comments are deranged.
Oh look now you're resorting to silly icons to cover the weakness of your posts.
The carrier is here, or do you have information otherwise? VSTOL version? You mean the STOVL version, that's what the RAF has and is continuing to receive. By 2018 we will have the 617 Squadron operating out of RAF Marham.
Global fire is an authoritative ranking is it, according to who? Janes? Which think tank, university, experts are behind it? Something which doesn't even take into account the evolution of technology. The whole x amount of tanks v x amount of tanks is something you do as a kid.
As for your carrier, has it sailed beyond the Indian Ocean yet, in your hands? As for attacking the UK, oh dear, it's just not going to happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Khafee

waz said:


> On a micro level people are laughing at you now right now. The world would think your comments are deranged.
> Oh look now you're resorting to silly icons to cover the weakness of your posts.
> The carrier is here, or do you have information otherwise? VSTOL version? You mean the STOVL version, that's what the RAF has and is continuing to receive. By 2018 we will have the 617 Squadron operating out of RAF Marham.
> Global fire is an authoritative ranking is it, according to who? Janes? Which think tank, university, experts are behind it? Something which doesn't even take into account the evolution of technology. The whole x amount of tanks v x amount of tanks is something you do as a kid.
> As for your carrier, has it sailed beyond the Indian Ocean yet, in your hands? As for attacking the UK, oh dear, it's just not going to happen.


VSTOL = Vedic Short Take Off and Landing, a tech the rest of the world can only dream of, AND something that every Brit should be scared of!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## VCheng

waz said:


> On a micro level people are laughing at you now right now. The world would think your comments are deranged.
> Oh look now you're resorting to silly icons to cover the weakness of your posts.
> The carrier is here, or do you have information otherwise? VSTOL version? You mean the STOVL version, that's what the RAF has and is continuing to receive. By 2018 we will have the 617 Squadron operating out of RAF Marham.
> Global fire is an authoritative ranking is it, according to who? Janes? Which think tank, university, experts are behind it? Something which doesn't even take into account the evolution of technology. The whole x amount of tanks v x amount of tanks is something you do as a kid.
> As for your carrier, has it sailed beyond the Indian Ocean yet, in your hands? As for attacking the UK, oh dear, it's just not going to happen.



Interesting discussion, but Britain's power is far more than mere military hardware. Its alliances with powers across the world, in particular its special relationship with USA, give it a gravitas far more than mere numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## waz

Khafee said:


> VSTOL = Vedic Short Take Off and Landing, a tech the rest of the world can only dream of, AND something that every Brit should be scared of!



He's writing off the QE when they operate a Russian hand-me-down carrier. Why do you think some people have stopped responding to him. He'll still continue.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Khafee

waz said:


> He's writing off the QE when they operate a Russian hand-me-down carrier. Why do you think some people have stopped responding to him. He'll still continue.


Check this out:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...carrier-for-8-months/articleshow/53407213.cms

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> no dude, no one is laughing at me both Micro or macro level. They are only sad at how disjointed from reality you are. Yea we actually have a carrier on sea right now-Vikramaditya. We can ACTUALLY project power. As far as the INS Vikrant is concerned, you missed the point completely.
> 
> And as far as your F 35 dreams are concerned, no you're wrong there too. you will start *testing the things in late 2018. *(you will not start testing anything then I can assure you). You will not have sufficient jets until *2023- *even then you won't have sufficient jets at current development rates. That's a fact.
> http://www.autoblog.com/2016/12/16/usmc-f-35s-deploy-royal-navy-carrier/
> e Royal Navy has struggled to fund a purchase program to deploy aircraft on the first Queen Elizabeth-class carrier, and won't start aircraft trials with British F-35s until late 2018. The QE won't have a suitable number of British-flagged fighters until 2023, so attaching Marine F-35Bs gives the Royal Navy's carrier a reason to exist during its first deployment. It's unclear if American aircraft will deploy to the second Queen Elizabeth-class carrier, the HMS Prince of Wales – she's currently two years behind schedule and probably won't be commissioned this decade
> 
> now all of this is dependent upon how the americans are going to handle this expensive, over budget under delivering program's future
> 
> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24707...nning-moves-to-scrap-their-f-35-stealth-jets/



They are laughing, you just choose to ignore it. Much like posts of substance that have been directed at you.
You can project power to Sri-Lanka and the Maldives, that's where it's been right?
What am I wrong about? The F-35's have been undergoing testing in the states. They're not just arriving in the UK raw.

*A group of Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel are currently at sea onboard USS WASP, joining American colleagues in the latest F-35B Lightning II fast jet trials.*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avi...tary-test-F-35B-Lightning-II-jets-at-sea.html


*On 15 Apr 16, the RAF deployed a Voyager aircraft to US Naval Air Station Patuxent River in support of Lightning II (F-35B) Air to Air Refuelling (AAR) trials.*

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/raf-voyager-and-f35-air-to-air-refuelling-18052016



*The Royal Air Force’s 17 Sqn has assumed control of the test and evaluation of the UK’s first Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II, marking the start of independent operational testing by the UK of its future Joint Strike Fighter.

The aircraft – dubbed BK-1 – is based at Edwards AFB, California, where 17 Sqn has now begun to test and evaluate without the assistance of US forces that have until now supported the test campaign for the UK’s aircraft.*

Both RAF and Royal Navy personnel make up the squadron, which will work to ensure that the aircraft is interoperable with the UK’s regulations and its other assets – including the RN’s new aircraft carriers –* ahead of initial operational capability clearance for the aircraft, which is earmarked for 2018*

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...sumes-control-of-f-35-test-and-evalua-408880/

That's not sufficient jets for the QE, there will be an operational squadren out of RAF Marham.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Guynextdoor2

waz said:


> They are laughing, you just choose to ignore it. Much like posts of substance that have been directed at you.
> You can project power to Sri-Lanka and the Maldives, that's where it's been right?
> What am I wrong about? The F-35's have been undergoing testing in the states. They're not just arriving in the UK raw.
> 
> *A group of Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel are currently at sea onboard USS WASP, joining American colleagues in the latest F-35B Lightning II fast jet trials.*
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avi...tary-test-F-35B-Lightning-II-jets-at-sea.html
> 
> 
> *On 15 Apr 16, the RAF deployed a Voyager aircraft to US Naval Air Station Patuxent River in support of Lightning II (F-35B) Air to Air Refuelling (AAR) trials.*
> 
> http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/raf-voyager-and-f35-air-to-air-refuelling-18052016
> 
> 
> 
> *The Royal Air Force’s 17 Sqn has assumed control of the test and evaluation of the UK’s first Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II, marking the start of independent operational testing by the UK of its future Joint Strike Fighter.
> 
> The aircraft – dubbed BK-1 – is based at Edwards AFB, California, where 17 Sqn has now begun to test and evaluate without the assistance of US forces that have until now supported the test campaign for the UK’s aircraft.*
> 
> Both RAF and Royal Navy personnel make up the squadron, which will work to ensure that the aircraft is interoperable with the UK’s regulations and its other assets – including the RN’s new aircraft carriers –* ahead of initial operational capability clearance for the aircraft, which is earmarked for 2018*
> 
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...sumes-control-of-f-35-test-and-evalua-408880/
> 
> That's sufficient jets for the QE, there will be an operational squared out of RAF Marham.



by....2018? Your QE will be fully operational with sufficient jet complements?


----------



## Indika

waz said:


> They are laughing, you just choose to ignore it. Much like posts of substance that have been directed at you.
> You can project power to Sri-Lanka and the Maldives, that's where it's been right?
> What am I wrong about? The F-35's have been undergoing testing in the states. They're not just arriving in the UK raw.
> 
> *A group of Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel are currently at sea onboard USS WASP, joining American colleagues in the latest F-35B Lightning II fast jet trials.*
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avi...tary-test-F-35B-Lightning-II-jets-at-sea.html
> 
> 
> *On 15 Apr 16, the RAF deployed a Voyager aircraft to US Naval Air Station Patuxent River in support of Lightning II (F-35B) Air to Air Refuelling (AAR) trials.*
> 
> http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/raf-voyager-and-f35-air-to-air-refuelling-18052016
> 
> 
> 
> *The Royal Air Force’s 17 Sqn has assumed control of the test and evaluation of the UK’s first Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II, marking the start of independent operational testing by the UK of its future Joint Strike Fighter.
> 
> The aircraft – dubbed BK-1 – is based at Edwards AFB, California, where 17 Sqn has now begun to test and evaluate without the assistance of US forces that have until now supported the test campaign for the UK’s aircraft.*
> 
> Both RAF and Royal Navy personnel make up the squadron, which will work to ensure that the aircraft is interoperable with the UK’s regulations and its other assets – including the RN’s new aircraft carriers –* ahead of initial operational capability clearance for the aircraft, which is earmarked for 2018*
> 
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...sumes-control-of-f-35-test-and-evalua-408880/
> 
> That's sufficient jets for the QE, there will be an operational squared out of RAF Marham.


What a pity the glorious royal navy has been reduced to fighting troll wars. would you mind serving us some........


----------



## waz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> by....2018? Your QE will be fully operational with sufficient jet complements?



Read the post again man.



Indika said:


> What a pity the glorious royal navy has been reduced to fighting troll wars. would you mind serving us some........



Wait what?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Guynextdoor2

waz said:


> Read the post again man.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait what?



You obviously haven't worked on engineering projects. 

a) yeah i read the post and I think you read too much into those news items. Officially the F 35 has not completed testing, in fact is wayyyyyyyy behind so many parameters that there is a big risk that the US might actually *cancel *the project and go for super hornets (I used to think that's a bad move but the delays are so bad I'm not sure any more, something has gone seriously wrong in this project). You think it won't happen? I've got news for you einstein- another project called F22 is an academic project for all practical purposes now. 

b) RAF is just about getting it's hands on them now, this is nowhere close to induction testing. Hell extensive tests with QE will have to be done before indction. Hell QE itself will have to undergo years of sea trials before being declared seaworthy/ fit for naval service. Jets will land *after* that.

c) Production. USAF and USMC will be the first to take delivery. At this time there is only limited series production for testing. They have to do final config/ go ahead and only then will full production actually start. RN obviously knows it won't be the first to get the jets. *So it has recommended that USMC jets be placed on decks instead of RN. *Obviously you don't want a carrier floating around without planes.* If the proposed date for that is 2023, then your consignment will come probably by 2028.*


----------



## waz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> *einstein*- another project called F22 is an academic project for all practical purposes now.



Right you cheeky little cu*t I asked you before not to make it personal now you have. I'm not going to waste my time posting a response to you. I don't have the slightest bit of respect for you anymore. Now think your next step carefully, or it's bye, bye from this forum.
Oh I just saw your 57 warning points. Quite the little antagonist fantasist aren't you.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Khafee

waz said:


> Right you cheeky little cu*t I asked you before not to make it personal now you have. I'm not going to waste my time posting a response to you. I don't have the slightest bit of respect for you anymore. Now think your next step carefully, or it's bye, bye from this forum.
> Oh I just saw your 57 warning points. Quite the little antagonist fantasist aren't you.


Hmmm new addition to my vocabulary, another word for retard.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## waz

Khafee said:


> Hmmm new addition to my vocabulary, another word for retard.



He insults a moderator, and one which many Indian members come to voicing their grievances. Retard is too tame of a word.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Khafee

waz said:


> He insults a moderator, and one which many Indian members come to voicing their grievances. Retard is too tame of a word.


The mod should now do some soul searching, and realize, no matter what, it is his brethren who will stand by him, in real life.

On topic: Some people who think that the UK Military has fallen into obsolescence, need to make a day trip to Sandhurst, maybe they would learn a thing or two.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Blue Marlin

waz said:


> He insults a moderator, and one which many Indian members come to voicing their grievances. Retard is too tame of a word.


i ignored him cause he was talking crap. shupa power india....... hehe lol
if he had the chance he would leave india for the uk in a heart beat then pop out a much kids as possible and claim benefits and live the rest of his life as a taxi driver.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Khafee

Blue Marlin said:


> i ignored him cause he was talking crap. shupa power india....... hehe lol
> more like dirty ganga lamo
> if he had the chance he would leave india for the uk in a heart beat then pop out a much kids as possible and claim benefits and live the rest of his life as a taxi driver.


You do realize that after this statement, your life on the gangaland forum is over.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

Khafee said:


> You do realize that after this statement, your life on the gangaland forum is over.


no..... hehe
why would that matter?
im also on the yank forum?


----------



## Guynextdoor2

waz said:


> Right you cheeky little cu*t I asked you before not to make it personal now you have. I'm not going to waste my time posting a response to you. I don't have the slightest bit of respect for you anymore. Now think your next step carefully, or it's bye, bye from this forum.
> Oh I just saw your 57 warning points. Quite the little antagonist fantasist aren't you.



You're getting agitated because you can't handle the facts and so are getting personal. Or else why would anyone have a problem being called einstein, the greatest mind history?  rest of it is you fuming because F 35 isn't coming before 2028


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

waz said:


> I'm not going to waste my time posting a response to you. I don't have the slightest bit of respect for you anymore. Now think your next step carefully, or it's bye, bye from this forum.
> Oh I just saw your 57 warning points. Quite the little antagonist fantasist aren't you.



The member @Guynextdoor2 is one of the most prolific trolls on this forum, I don't think he actually believes the things that come out of his own mouth. Or at least I hope not, if he does then there are some serious underlying problems there.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## waz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> You're getting agitated because you can't handle the facts and so are getting personal. Or else why would anyone have a problem being called einstein, the greatest mind history?  rest of it is you fuming because F 35 isn't coming before 2028



Bye, bye. You can go off now to conquer the entire world. I'll make sure I tell my countrymen to expect the one man invasion from you.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Khafee

Chinese-Dragon said:


> The member @Guynextdoor2 is one of the most prolific trolls on this forum, I don't think he actually believes the things that come out of his own mouth. Or at least I hope not, if he does then there are some serious underlying problems there.


Yeah, people like him get away with murder, by playing the psychotic card. What a shame.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

Chinese-Dragon said:


> The member @Guynextdoor2 is one of the most prolific trolls on this forum, I don't think he actually believes the things that come out of his own mouth. Or at least I hope not, if he does then there are some serious underlying problems there.



He's mentally unstable. Just like you said my friend, one look at his posts a person either writes him off as insane, or an hormonal teenager, who hasn't seen anything of the world. Either way, he's not welcome here. I gave him time and he still thought it was a game.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

waz said:


> He's mentally unstable. Just like you said my friend, one look at his posts a person either writes him off as insane, or hormonal teenager, who hasn't;t seen anything of the world. Either way, he's not welcome here. I gave him time and he still thought it was a game.



I hope he is only a troll and that he doesn't believe any of the things that come out of his own mouth. If he really believes what he is saying then I am deeply concerned for his health. I'm not even kidding, there is something seriously wrong there.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Areesh

Chinese-Dragon said:


> I hope he is only a troll and that he doesn't believe any of the things that come out of his own mouth. If he really believes what he is saying then I am deeply concerned for his health. I'm not even kidding, there is something seriously wrong there.



India is full of guys like that troll. Sua puwa syndrome is an epidemic right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Blue Marlin

waz said:


> Bye, bye. You can go off now to conquer the entire world. I'll make sure I tell my countrymen to expect the one man invasion from you.


well you took your time banning him.
i assume you edited my post to?



Khafee said:


> You do realize that after this statement, your life on the gangaland forum is over.


from you source about their carrier

Moreover, the report says the MiG-29K fleet - India ordered 45 fighters from Russia for $2 billion for INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant - is "riddled with problems" due to defects in the fighter airframes, RD-33 MK engines and fly-by-wire systems. Consequently, the serviceability or operational availability of MiG-29Ks is pathetic - ranging from just *15.93 per cent to 37.63 per cent.
*
15% to 38% availability rate. bloody hell. they might as well not bother and call it a helicopter carrier

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waz

Chinese-Dragon said:


> I hope he is only a troll and that he doesn't believe any of the things that come out of his own mouth. If he really believes what he is saying then I am deeply concerned for his health. I'm not even kidding, there is something seriously wrong there.



I'm afraid he actually believes everything he says, there's plenty of them around. Attack the UK, fight two front wars, better technology than the F-35 and so on.



Blue Marlin said:


> well you took your time banning him.
> i assume you edited my post to?



Yes apologies for that. I tried to give him time and I hoped he would stop trolling. Yes I did edit you post haha.



Blue Marlin said:


> from you source about their carrier
> 
> Moreover, the report says the MiG-29K fleet - India ordered 45 fighters from Russia for $2 billion for INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant - is "riddled with problems" due to defects in the fighter airframes, RD-33 MK engines and fly-by-wire systems. Consequently, the serviceability or operational availability of MiG-29Ks is pathetic - ranging from just *15.93 per cent to 37.63 per cent.
> *
> 15% to 38% availability rate. bloody hell. they might as well not bother and call it a helicopter carrier



Yep, that's the one that's going to launch an assault once it enters the English Channel. Have you prepared your bomb shelter? I'm thinking of taking on a role in an AA battery. I don't fancy the idea of all those Migs swarming London. Our Typhoons and F-35's don't stand a chance.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jungibaaz

Britain's still massively powerful compared to its size both land mass and population wise. However, even when factoring the size of the British economy, we're still overpowered. We've sustained a lot of that power despite economic "decline", or rather the ascent of larger nations, the actual decline of empire. But we've sustained it largely by retaining high tech industry, maintaining a military industrial system at home, taking part in quite a few interventions and most importantly, augmenting our reach with the EU and the US, these two factors are what makes Britain really powerful and not to be underestimated. Although Brexit could soon alter than reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MultaniGuy

Britain isnt as strong as it was pre-1945. Even the rising economies will be stronger than England one day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Blue Marlin

waz said:


> I'm afraid he actually believes everything he says, there's plenty of them around. Attack the UK, fight two front wars, better technology than the F-35 and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes apologies for that. I tried to give him time and I hoped he would stop trolling. Yes I did edit you post haha.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's the one that's going to launch an assault once it enters the English Channel. Have you prepared your bomb shelter. I'm thinking of taking on a role in an AA battery. I don't fancy the idea of all those Migs swarming London. Our Typhoons and F-35's don't stand a chance.


i knew you deleted my post i was just waiting for the confirmation.

and yes im on you tube looking to build a Morison shelter and as for my role im wanna be front liner so id be in the trenches.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MultaniGuy

What about the rising economies? Like Brazil,China,Russia?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kyoto

Jungibaaz said:


> Britain's still massively powerful compared to its size both land mass and population wise. However, even when factoring the size of the British economy, we're still overpowered. We've sustained a lot of that power despite economic "decline", or rather the ascent of larger nations, the actual decline of empire. But we've sustained it largely by retaining high tech industry, maintaining a military industrial system at home, taking part in quite a few interventions and most importantly, augmenting our reach with the EU and the US, these two factors are what makes Britain really powerful and not to be underestimated. Although Brexit could soon alter than reality.



I think the UK is overrated. There is so much more poverty and mismanagement in the country compared to its European neighbours and even France to some extent. It is too dependent on imports and finance although it does still have significant military prowess. Whilst it is more dynamic than say France I dont see the UK maintaining itself especially if Scotland leaves.
It has already begun to lose its diplomatic power and is having to suck up to China and the US at the same time. The only hope in Europe is probably Germany if it wants to remilitarise. 
If it manages to stay united and stay afloat after Brexit then maybe it could actually improve with its high growth rate compared to the rest of the region. But right now it is definitely not just another 60 million strong country in Europe.


----------



## Chinese-Dragon

Kyoto said:


> It has already begun to lose its diplomatic power and is having to suck up to China and the US at the same time.



The UK's increasing engagement with China is not on a military basis, but rather the UK government sees increasing ties with China as a way to boost the UK's economic growth, especially in a post-Brexit world.

China does not currently have power projection capabilities (that have been tested in battle) like the UK does.

China's blue water navy is still in the building phase, and it will almost certainly remain "untested" for a long time. Since all of China's possible war scenarios are right on our doorstep.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## KAL-EL

The SC said:


> *What is Trident? Britain's nuclear deterrent explained*
> 
> *What is Trident? *
> 
> Trident is Britain's nuclear weapons deterrent. It consists of four Vanguard-class submarines which can carry up to 16 Trident II D5 ballistic missiles, each armed with up to eight nuclear warheads.
> 
> At any time, one submarine is on patrol, one is undergoing maintenance, one is preparing for patrol and one has just come off patrol and is recovering.
> 
> Britain has had a Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) since 1969. Trident is currently referred to (in defence speak) as Operation Relentless and is based in the Faslane area of Scotland.
> 
> *How powerful is Trident?*
> No one knows exactly, but most nuclear weapons are approximately seven times more powerful than the atomic bomb which was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945.
> 
> Trident's ballistic missiles can hit a target up to 7,500 miles away and travel at speeds of more than 13,000 miles an hour.
> 
> 
> *What do we know about the submarines?*
> The UK's Vanguard-class submarines are called HMS Vanguard, HMS Vengeance, HMS Victorious and HMS Vigilant. They are huge - measuring more than twice the size of two Boeing 747s. Each contains a nuclear reactor which boils sea water and the steam is used to power them through the water.
> 
> The patrols are so secretive that only four among the crew of 135 know what route the submarine will take, on voyages lasting months.
> 
> View attachment 386740
> 
> 
> The Royal Navy’s four Vanguard Class nuclear-powered submarines carry Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent.
> 
> *Length:* 492 ft
> 
> *Displacement:* 15,900 tonnes
> 
> *Crew:* 132
> 
> *Top speed:* 25 knots
> 
> *In service:* 1993 to present
> 
> *Armament:* Spearfish torpedoes and up to 16 Trident II D5 nuclear missiles
> 
> *Power:* Rolls Royce PWR2 nuclear reactor
> 
> *Boats:* HMS Vanguard, HMS Vengeance, HMS Victorious, HMS Vigilant
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/21/what-is-trident-britains-nuclear-deterrent-explained/
> 
> 
> So, every Submarine has 16 Ballistic missiles each with 8 nuclear warheads, that makes it a total of 16 x 8 x 4 = 128 x 4 = 512 nuclear warheads.. and that is just the naval branch!!! imagine the rest, meaning the army and the airforce..
> So in many ways Britain is still a major military power after the US, Russia and China, since it can also project its power mainly through the sea..
> 
> PS: Note that this 512 nuclear warheads alone exceeds the 400 figure that the UK announces as its nuclear arsenal !!!




No expert on the UK's military capabilities. But that's some pretty serious second-strike capability Firepower.

The UK might not be the power it once was, but it's still force to be reckoned with.

That sub is quite impressive

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Jungibaaz

Kyoto said:


> I think the UK is overrated. There is so much more poverty and mismanagement in the country compared to its European neighbours and even France to some extent. It is too dependent on imports and finance although it does still have significant military prowess. Whilst it is more dynamic than say France I dont see the UK maintaining itself especially if Scotland leaves.
> It has already begun to lose its diplomatic power and is having to suck up to China and the US at the same time. The only hope in Europe is probably Germany if it wants to remilitarise.
> If it manages to stay united and stay afloat after Brexit then maybe it could actually improve with its high growth rate compared to the rest of the region. But right now it is definitely not just another 60 million strong country in Europe.



I agree with that, Britain's own internal political forces have long since started a decline and now they're accelerating it. Brexit is only one small example, neoliberal policy has helped damage the UK quite a lot already.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SMS Derfflinger

waz said:


> I'm afraid he actually believes everything he says, there's plenty of them around. Attack the UK, fight two front wars, better technology than the F-35 and so on.


But Waz, you are actually fighting a two front war, Afghanistan and us, btw, the last round had gone to us...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tshering22

Chinese-Dragon said:


> I think it would be very unwise to underestimate these old-world developed countries.
> 
> They industrialized over a century ago, while we are still finding our feet.
> 
> Their power projection means that they are currently engaged in fighting a war in another continent. Which is a trait of all the P5 members (USA, Russia, Britain, France...) *all except China which *is still a developing country.



Not really.

From what I read about Chinese government, you guys don't have any interest in fighting overseas battles. And why would you? You have suffered colonialism the same as we have. 

Britain on the other hand thrived off naval combat and expeditionary forces. 

Two totally different models of rule.



Kyoto said:


> Germany if it wants to remilitarise.



Judging by the way Mr. Toupee is going about asking NATO countries to 'pay up', I guess Germans will have little option but to re-militarise fast so as to get rid of NATO and form a common EU Military.


----------



## Vergennes

@Piotr I hope this picture deosn't hurt.

British soldiers from The Light Dragoons,US soldiers and Polish soldiers united together.






The foreign troops received a warm welcome by the local Poles. @bobo6661

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Piotr

waz said:


> No I don't believe Poles are leeches.







waz said:


> I like Polish folks.



So why do you like @Vergennes calling me "a pole" instead of "a Pole".



waz said:


> You seem to hate the English though.



Hate??? Is this how you call telling the truth? I'm not a hater like @Blue Marlin



waz said:


> No I don't believe Poles are leeches. I like Polish folks. You seem to hate the English though.
> 
> Oh yes war crimes, let's see.
> 
> On March 19, the Military District Court in Warsaw cleared of war crimes four Polish soldiers accused of killing civilians during their mission in Afghanistan in 2007. The five-judge court declared that “there was a lack of convincing proof that the war crime was committed.”
> 
> Court spokesman Tomasz Krajewski stated: “The court did not establish that the soldiers’ actions were deliberate. The shooting of the village was not on purpose; neither was the killing of the civilians.” Three troops were also charged with the lesser violation of improper execution of a command and the use of an incorrect type of weaponry, inconsistent with the rules implemented by the Polish military contingent in Afghanistan.
> 
> On August 16, 2007, a Polish squad from the 18th storm trooper battalion, a member of US-NATO forces, fired 24 rounds of mortar shells into a wedding party in the Nangar Khel (Sha Mardan) village in Paktika province of eastern Afghanistan, killing eight civilians. Six were killed immediately while two more died from their injuries at the hospital. Among the victims were the groom, children and women, one of them pregnant. Although an emergency C-section was performed, the baby died.
> 
> The unprovoked attack was most likely revenge for the injury suffered by two Polish soldiers from a different unit when their vehicle hit a Taliban mine near the village earlier that day. According to the witnesses, the order carried by Lt. Col. Łukasz “Bolec” Bywalec, was issued by captain Olgierd “Olo” Cieśla, a commander of Charlie combat team at Wazi-Kwa base in Afghanistan, who told his men to “f--- over a couple of villages.”
> 
> Commander Maciej Nowak and Lieutenant Artur Pracki, who later served as witnesses for the prosecution, refused to follow the order and contacted the base with a request to stop the attack on the wedding party. It was also reported that the battalion members were wearing informal arm badges with a skull and crossbones on black background, a symbol of the Bielsko-Biała Delta platoon.
> 
> In 2009, the Warsaw Military District Court charged four officers and three privates with war crimes for the incident. All seven were acquitted in 2011 for lack of evidence of deliberate killing. The Military Supreme Court trial was reopened for four of them in 2012.
> 
> Lt. Col. Łukasz Bywalec, facing 12 years in prison, received a six-month suspended sentence. Warrant officer (reserve) Andrzej Osiecki, facing an eight-year sentence, was given a suspended two-year term. Platoon commander (reserve) Tomasz Borysiewicz, who used the mortar, received a two-year suspended sentence, while Private Damian Ligocki, who shot at the village with the machine gun, was not sentenced. All of the accused pleaded not guilty.
> 
> According to the prosecution, the attack on Nangar Khel was a deliberate crime, targeting a civilian population. It was not, as the accused and later the Polish Minister of Defense Bogdan Klich had claimed, a tragic accident during a mission to eliminate identified Taliban targets. The action of the soldiers was not a response to enemy fire, making the use of the mortar against residential buildings unjustified. “The accused acted with a deliberate intent”, stated prosecutor Konopka, “they at least agreed to the death of civilians.”
> 
> Defense attorney Witold Leśniewski argued the importance of acquitting the accused in the framework of the political atmosphere and the message a guilty verdict would send to the troops: “The accused are warriors, born soldiers,” he declared in his final statement. “Such people are needed in Poland.”
> 
> After the first acquittal, Radosław Sikorski, former minister of foreign affairs in the government of Donald Tusk, commented: “During the war mistakes occur, they always have, but today we can have satisfaction that it does not mean that the Polish soldiers are guilty.”
> 
> The announcement that the Nangar Khel massacre was not a war crime sends a very dangerous signal to the public, demonstrating the readiness of the Polish government to support the geostrategic ambitions of US imperialism while ignoring international law.
> 
> It is the first time in the history of Poland that its military forces have been openly accused of a violation of The Hague Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians during armed combat. The court ruling also gives carte blanche to all those who are willing to engage in combat where “collateral damage” is allowed, as the consequences for committing such atrocities are minimal or none.
> 
> The Nangar Khel crime is just a tip of the iceberg of unlawful and barbaric actions of the US- and NATO-led war machine in the Middle East. According to a 2014 Amnesty International report, most of war crimes committed by US and NATO forces since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 have gone unpunished.
> 
> The report cited only six cases in which members of the military were criminally prosecuted, with only 10 defendants convicted of serious crimes, including in the 2012 case of US Staff Sgt. Robert Bales. In nine out of ten cases, eyewitnesses were not even interviewed by the military investigators.
> 
> The enormous scale of US-NATO operations in occupied Afghanistan was revealed in the 2010 disclosures of WikiLeaks, which posted 91,731 American military documents, including thousands of cases of reports of “friendly action” by US-NATO forces. The total number of civilian casualties is unknown, but it can be estimated at tens of thousands.
> 
> In 2014 alone, the UN documented 10,548 Afghan civilian casualties, 3,699 deaths and 6,849 injuries. These numbers are most likely higher as nobody bothers to count deaths from hunger and disease among the Afghan people, including refugees who were forced to flee areas affected by war.
> 
> From the very beginning Poland, acting as a proxy state, offered its support for US predatory military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its shameful involvement in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan began in March 2002, with the sending to Bagram of approximately 120 logisticians and combat engineers as well as soldiers from special operations unit GROM.
> 
> From 2006, as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Poland assumed responsibility for the Ghazni Province, where it stationed about 2,600 soldiers and army civilians along with a reserve of 400 soldiers. Despite his pre-election promises of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan by 2012, President Bronisław Komorowski, backed by the Tusk government, offered to send an additional contingent of 2,500 soldiers.
> 
> Although Poland’s involvement in the Afghan war officially ended in 2014, the country is still taking part in the Resolute Support Mission that began in January 2015, with about 150 personnel currently stationed in Afghanistan.
> 
> In total, more than 28,000 Polish soldiers and army civilians served in Afghanistan: 45 of them died in combat and 866 were wounded, 361 seriously. Materiel losses included three Mi-24 helicopters, three unmanned reconnaissance vehicles and eight Rosomak armored vehicles, among others. The general cost of Polish involvement in Afghanistan is estimated at PLN 5,908.6 billion (approximately US$1.5 billion).
> 
> As with the war in Iraq, Poland’s military involvement in Afghanistan was highly unpopular among Poles, with only 17 percent supporting the country’s military operations, according to a 2011 poll taken shortly after the first trial of the soldiers.
> 
> Despite the popular opposition to war, the Polish government continues to blindly follow the US lead, committing more funds to revamp its military forces and using conflict in Ukraine as a pretext for a push for war with Russia. Recently, minister of defense Tomasz Siemoniak announced plans to acquire Tomahawk cruise missiles, 1000-mile-range first-strike weapons suited for precise strikes on distant high-value targets.
> 
> Last Thursday’s verdict serves to legitimize imperialist war crimes. It is not only the soldiers directly responsible for deaths of eight Afghan civilians who should have received guilty verdicts, but such a judgment should have been extended to all those responsible for the devastation of Afghanistan, from commanders and officers of the Polish army all the way up to President Komorowski, the commander in chief.
> 
> 
> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/03/25/poli-m25.html



Polish solders killed 8 civilians. The English killed tens of millions of civilians.
BTW I've allways been against Poland's participation it US war against Afganistan.



Vergennes said:


> @Piotr I hope this picture deosn't hurt.
> 
> British soldiers from The Light Dragoons,US soldiers and Polish soldiers united together.
> 
> View attachment 387319
> 
> 
> The foreign troops received a warm welcome by the local Poles. @bobo6661



I'm waiting for you to sincerely apologize for calling me "a pole" instead of "a Pole" in other thread.


----------



## 313ghazi

The empire was never built on military power, it was built using "foreign investment" (people like East India Company) and by "securing it's interests" (using militias like Blackwater). They relied in traitors in the local people to gain influence. It's only once they had bought a country they'd roll in the British army for maintenance. They were a superpower only when they had the technological advantage of Rail to transport fighters and goods faster than tribals could. They used bullets against spears and swords, that was the super power.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pakdefender

The English are too shrewd , even when no more kings themselves they find ways make and break kings

Not quite over and done I would say


----------



## Blue Marlin

Piotr said:


> So why do you like @Vergennes calling me "a pole" instead of "a Pole".
> 
> 
> 
> Hate??? Is this how you call telling the truth? I'm not a hater like @Blue Marlin
> 
> 
> 
> Polish solders killed 8 civilians. The English killed tens of millions of civilians.
> BTW I've allways been against Poland's participation it US war against Afganistan.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for you to sincerely apologize for calling me "a pole" instead of "a Pole" in other thread.


i never said i hated all poles, some are nice .


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Guynextdoor2 said:


> 3 more exocet missiles and they would have lost the falklands.



No, Britain would have won even if the 3 missiles hit. Basically the US wanted the British to get their islands back. Even though our hands were tied due to defence treaties with South America we would have done what it takes behind the scenes to make sure the outcome was the same. If that means backing the UK in cutting some sweet deal with the rest of Europe to temporarily hand them 5 ships for every 1 they lost it would have been done.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani E

Britain is no longer a major military power? Maybe. Can it still project a strong force way beyond its' border and achieve military objectives? Yes. How many other other countries in the world that can do that?

I am sorry, but reservists in the British Army are better trained, equipped and led than most professional armies of the world. I can tell you that.

Keep dreaming folks. Some nations haven't even caught up with the 18th century Industrialize growth experienced by the U.K yet and they are dreaming of being major powers themselves.

What a bloody farce of a thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tshering22

Kitten said:


> I wonder what Mr. Trump would say if we billed the US for hosting USMC gear?



That's exactly what European countries are not doing.

Why do you think he has been audacious enough to do what he is doing?

You guys don't respond back fearing that if he backs off, you guys would be left vulnerable.



Kitten said:


> The better question to ask is what other then clownery and ignorance do you offer to this discussion? I guess we don't really need an answer from you since a mod has already obliged us with one instead.



Oh so I am offering clownery?

You guys just haven't even responded to a person who is blatantly accusing you of freeloading on his money despite the money you are telling me here that you guys spent.

The point is, trans-atlantic alliance isn't a practical one without a common enemy. US is eyeing China and China has no bone to pick with you. So where does this technically put European countries?


----------



## Verve

British excel at deception and spy games. That area they are really remarkable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## waz

Piotr said:


>








Piotr said:


> So why do you like @Vergennes calling me "a pole" instead of "a Pole".



Sorry you lost me. I have't called you a pole or thanked anyone calling you that. As for @Vergennes he is a very well respected member of the forum and a serving solider.




Piotr said:


> Hate??? Is this how you call telling the truth? I'm not a hater like @Blue Marlin



It's not the truth, you are kidding yourself. At times it seems like dross from the propaganda archives. You do have some points about colonial history.




Piotr said:


> Polish solders killed 8 civilians. The English killed tens of millions of civilians.
> BTW I've allways been against Poland's participation it US war against Afganistan.



The Polish soldiers were let off. The British justice system imprisoned a decorated and immensely valuable soldier in the form of Sergeant Blackman. The English have not killed tens of thousands of people. I do not want to turn this thread into a UK V Poland slug fest, because as mentioned earlier I respect Polish folks and secondly it takes the thread off-topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vergennes

@waz 

Is calling people from Poland "Poles or Pole" an insult or a degrading term ? I've seen lot of people using it on this forum,so I don't know. If that is the case,I apologize for using this term or if I hurt people.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Guynextdoor2 said:


> @Hamartia Antidote , having said that I'm not very sure about your commitment to help Argentina was as strong as you assume it to be. In the fight against communism, Latin America quickly descending into the red, I don't think you were that willing to lose an ally. And UK losing faulkands is actually no big deal. It's like Portugal losing Goa, after the deed was done, no one really gave a f**k. Life went on as normal for all.



Argentina was all messed up back in those days. The military pulled a coup and kicked out Isabel Peron. The economy was spiraling. People were angry and upset. You can think of it like Venezuela. Next thing you know they go and decide to retake the Falklands. The US thought it was a dumb and desperate act by the military just to get some thumbs up from the people and show they weren't a complete failure.


----------



## jhungary

Hamartia Antidote said:


> Argentina was all messed up back in those days. The military pulled a coup and kicked out Isabel Peron. The economy was spiraling. People were angry and upset. You can think of it like Venezuela. Next thing you know they go and decide to retake the Falklands. The US thought it was a dumb and desperate act by the military just to get some thumbs up from the people and show they weren't a complete failure.



In military term, Argentina is actually at underhand when they try to fend off the British Counter Attack. 

I have studied Falkland campaign extensively, written a few article in that matter as well, and I came up with the conclusion the Royal Navy role in Falkland is actually quite small. And even RN lost a couple more ship, eventually, they would still win.

The RN job in the Falkland campaign is to cover the landing at San Carlos. That's a better way to say it, the more realistic way to say is that the RN is basically bait for the FAA, so the FAA would go and attack the ship, instead of attacking the troop on the ground.

On the other hand, FAA can only offer some degree of air support, which most of them are pulled to defend Argentina mainland from Vulcan Bomber, which the strike from Operation Blackbuck alter the way Argentina thinking on using their air power.

That leave the causal engagement between ARA and RN, the result is quite deadly for ARA, not because of the Aircraft Carrier RN employed during the War, but rather for subsurface ship.

Without Naval and Air Support, Argentine Army is basically all but doomed in Falkland. To allow Naval Support, the Argentine needed the Air Support, and to allow air support, the FAA have to take care of the Threat as far as ascension (Where the Blackbuck raid was launched) which is nearly impossible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

Guynextdoor2 said:


> what if they had taken full delivery of exocet consignment and brought down more surface ships of RN? Public support for the war would be hit with a sledge hammer everytime that happened.



Wouldn't change much even if you sunk all 2 Destroyer and 6 frigate within San Carlos bay, the war is too far from England, and news coverage back then is not the same as today with Iraq and Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence can easily censor it, and it won't reach the British Public until the end of war.

Tactically, the ship within that bay where the argentine already sunk 1 Destroyer and 2 Frigate, there are only 2 Type 22 frigate and 1 destroy left to defend San Carlos (discounting the older frigate) which mean if ARA have enough power to make it there, they would have rolled up RN, the big question is "IF"

In reality, the main RN force is outside San Carlos Water, and is due south escorting the 2 aircraft carrier. Those force are too far for ARA to reach, and without airpower, basically they are untouchable. Hence, even with FAA and ARA received full batch of exocet missile, the RN ship that's matter will be too far for Argentine to reach and since the lacking of complex ADS, which mean most FAA power are draw back to mainland, and little were actually used in the war. Meaning, even if you have full batch of exocet, there are not enough FAA aircraft to use it and they are too far to make a different.


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Guynextdoor2 said:


> No dude, as long as it was not commie and the government was bulwark against them, you were not going to go against them. In the end you just let your 2 allies squabble it out. At no point of time did you intervene. When the exocets began to fly you didn't even bother to put pressure on your 'friends' in argentinian govt. to stop usiing them. During the cold war, especially as Kissinger rose, there was no consideration of governance in any decision making.
> 
> And let me tell you Thatcher's track record was no better than the argentinians in those days. Her own country was plunged into general strikes (the miners had locked down), multiple police crackdowns and spiraling into doom. UK was no different than Argentina in that sense. She got this god gifted shitty war and did exactly what you accuse the argentinians of doing- use it to rally people and take their attention away from the complete mess their country was in.
> 
> 
> 
> what if they had taken full delivery of exocet consignment and brought down more surface ships of RN? Public support for the war would be hit with a sledge hammer everytime that happened.



I wouldn't call Argentina some big ally of the US. Certainly not bigger than the UK. It just happened that we had signed a treaty with most South American countries after WW2 to defend them from attacks from outsiders ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Treaty_of_Reciprocal_Assistance ). We were bound to it no matter what moron was currently running Argentina. If Britain attacked the Argentine mainland we would be forced to join the War on Argentina's side whether we liked it or not.

So yes Argentina tried to invoke the treaty and we declined saying so far Britain hasn't done anything to Argentina to cause it to be invoked. We stayed on the sidelines with both sides wanting us in.


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Guynextdoor2 said:


> That's my point too. Britain had no automatic access to US support. Neither did Argentina of course.



Well just like Argentina; Thatcher could have tried to invoke Article 5 of NATO and have the US and others join in. Again the devil is in the details as it only covers stuff north of the Tropic of Cancer (which may exclude Hawaii BTW). So both sides were stymied by Treaty loopholes. That doesn't stop Thatcher from asking the non-US NATO members for material help. She could offer them some deal (possibly with US covert assistance) to help her out if needed.


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

Guynextdoor2 said:


> She might have. The point I'm making is that Britain *alone* winning the war had an element of luck to it. And that's the idea 'Great Britain' supporters are presenting. The fact is when the war brke out Argentinians had taken only a partial delivery of the Exocets they had ordered. The rest were lying with the French. A big mystery is- if Britain had continued to fight on its own, and if the Argentinians had taken full delivery, what would have been the result?



Certainly Britain was constrained militarily by the US's treaty with Argentina. If she were to do anything militarily that allowed Argentina to invoke the Treaty the war would be lost immediately. So she couldn't send her Air Force against the mainland, she couldn't use submarines to attack Argentine Navy ships in their territorial waters, and she couldn't sabotage any military complexes. Argentina itself was a military no-go zone. Not a great situation.

Britain's only option was to attempt to retake the islands. Luckily for them they own other islands in the Atlantic and were able to use them as staging/refueling areas. Otherwise it would have been really tricky for them to send an invasion fleet thousands of miles. It wouldn't have been a good outcome.

BTW these little islands Britain, France, US, and other have sprinkled across the world are critical to their being world military powers. It allows their militaries to move around the world seamlessly (and almost secretly) without the need for relying on third party countries for refueling. Britain isn't going to give them up easily.

Look at the maps in this thread and see how some countries can move around the world at will.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/nati...-overseas-territories-and-possessions.390961/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jungibaaz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> No- the decline is not because of neo-liberalism but because Britain doesn't have any special sauce that allows you to punch above your weight. A small country needs a very advanced culture to dominate despite its size- like Japan where the discipline and the focus of the whole community towards it's state is absolute. A bunch of beered up codgers lving in ancient glory and stolen money were never going to have that. it's delusional. Like, let me put these points across.



I'm not sure how much you know about the economic reasons for Britain's decline or relative slow down, your points on culture don't mean much. The economy is everything, and until about the 1980s, Britain's industries were not nearly as crippled or non-existent as they are today. I reiterate my point, neoliberal policy has accelerated decline that was to happen anyway, and added on some misery where it wasn't necessary.

The economy is everything and it sustains the toys you were listing and counting, and the decline in the UK's economy was sped up and helped to arrive at its conclusion by Mrs Thatcher. She destroyed what industry and manufacturing there was, while other subsidies their manufacturing sector, she eliminated all subsidies. From then on, Britain has had almost constant current account deficits, and it also marked a serious point of restructuring of the economy, there were immediate effects such as much higher unemployment, recession, but also a long term readjustment to higher levels of unemployment, a switch to the services sector, a disparity between savings and spending, which in turn lowered investment. 

It led to temporary growth and all the neoliberals were hailing it as a miracle, but they were proven wrong. It was pure short sighted and visionless leadership. They were none too bright, they sought to reduce inflation through monetarist policies, which they had to abandon for their own good for the massive recession it caused.

This was a major turning point in Britain's economy, now it's an economy driven by consumer growth, which in turn is cannibalised by higher inequality. Savings rates are super low, investment's weak, productivity growth is too low, and what little growth their is, is usually sustained by a ever increasing debt, both private and public, and a strong pound which exacerbates the effect of strong consumerism vs weak industry.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jugger

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11...no-longer-have-the-resources-for-a-major-war/

This Sunday, David Cameron will lay a wreath at the Cenotaph to commemorate those who made the ultimate sacrifice during two ruinous world wars. People will say ‘Never Again’ and Cameron will agree. But then, thanks to the drastic cuts he has made to the strength of our armed forces, the Prime Minister need not worry himself unduly about Britain’s involvements in any future conflicts. He need not gnash his teeth too much about MPs’ reluctance to back military intervention in Syria because, as matters stand, Britain would be unable to fight a major war even if it wanted to.


This would perhaps make sense in a time of great peace, but the world is not short on existential threats. Syria’s brutal civil war isn’t just a conflict between fanatical Sunni and Shia Muslim militias — the exponential growth of extreme Islamist groups such as Islamic State poses as much of a threat to the security of the West as it does to that of the Arab world. As Andrew Parker, MI5’s director-general, recently warned, Isis terrorists based in Syria — many of whom have UK passports — are actively planning mass-casualty attacks on the streets of Britain.

Then there is Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which is trying to flex its muscles on behalf of the beleaguered Bashar al-Assad. Russia’s intervention has confirmed what many of us have been saying for a year or more: you will not defeat Isis by air power alone.

Nor, during a scan for possible global threats, can we ignore George Osborne’s new Chinese chums in the People’s Liberation Army. Beijing’s apparent obsession with dominating the South China Sea has put it on a collision course with both Japan and the US. Washington has finally found the courage to confront China about this — but if China really is angling for a confrontation, which side will Mr Osborne choose? Our long-standing post-war allies, or his favoured nuclear energy providers?

These are just a few of the more visible threats we may face in the years ahead (and that’s without mentioning the Falklands), and yet Britain cannot right now respond in any meaningful military way. Our armed forces are so feeble as to be almost -irrelevant.

What did we do when Russia annexed Crimea? Downing Street dispatched 100 or so military advisers to Kiev to help train government forces. What did we do when Libya plunged, post-Gaddafi, into chaos? We deployed 300 non-combatant military personnel to South Sudan and Somalia.

It is a measure of just how far the stature of our armed forces has fallen in the past five years of cuts that our allies no longer talk of Britain deploying ‘boots on the ground’. They joke about us putting a few ‘sandals in the sand’.

We find ourselves in this parlous position largely because of the conclusions reached five years ago by the last government’s disastrous Strategic Defence and Security Review. The review was conducted on the naive assumption, presented in the government’s equally egregious National Security Strategy, that we faced no apparent threats to our security or national interests. It allowed the Tory/Lib Dem coalition to make the most drastic cuts to our defence budget for a generation.

The military has endured drastic cuts before. At the end of the Cold War, significant cuts were possible without losing fundamental military capabilities. But the problem with the 2010 review was that it prescribed significant cuts to military spending at a time when the defence budget was already under severe pressure as a consequence of New Labour’s ineptitude.

Tony Blair’s evangelical enthusiasm for military interventions was not matched by much extra money to pay for them. The real scandal of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts was the crippling equipment shortages that resulted in higher British fatality and casualty rates. The MoD’s efforts to plug these gaps by relocating funds from other programmes contributed to the infamous £37 billion black hole in defence spending that the Tories inherited when they came to power.

If balancing the books was, understandably, the previous government’s first priority on defence, the undisguised relish with which some ministers set about degrading Britain’s ability both to defend its interests and project power has had truly catastrophic consequences for our military capabilities.

Continue....
The scrapping of the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft programme without any proper consideration of its likely replacement means that now, when Russian submarines try to monitor the activities of the Trident fleet in the North Sea, we have to beg the French to loan us one of their planes to patrol our territorial waters. Manning levels in the Royal Navy have reached the point where serious questions are being asked about its ability to crew both of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, while cutting the number of soldiers by one fifth means the Army would struggle to replicate the division-strength deployments it managed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The general consensus in the military is that Britain has cut the strength of its armed forces by one third since the last strategic review. Officers talk about the military being ‘hollowed out’, so that while it still looks as though we have sufficient kit, our lack of personnel, lack of training and lack of readily available supplies mean our position is deceptive. If we ever needed the military to deploy in strength, the deployment would be unsustainable.

The question now is whether the new defence review — due later this month — will change anything. The Downing Street line is that now that the Tories enjoy an overall majority, Mr Cameron is personally invested in rebuilding Britain’s military standing. This is supposed to have been reflected in George Osborne’s announcement in his July budget that Britain would honour its Nato commitment to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence. That would be nice, but what will this 2 per cent figure amount to once Whitehall has undertaken its customary accounting skulduggery?

Oliver Letwin, for example, who is regarded as the ideological driving force behind the last parliament’s assault on our military infrastructure, is said to favour relocating a significant chunk of ‘defence spend’ to counter-terrorism operations — normally paid for by the combined budgets of MI6, MI5 and GCHQ. It’s whispered that military pensions, a significant cost that is usually separate from defence expenditure, could also now be included in it. Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, insists that Nato, not the UK government, will decide whether these clever accounting tricks meet alliance requirements.

The best indication of whether the Prime Minister actually plans to restore the fortunes of our armed forces is whether it looks as if he would actually deploy the armed forces in any meaningful fashion — and here things look less promising again, and not just because his MPs would rebel.

Mr Cameron provided a telling insight into how he sees the future of Britain’s involvement in overseas operations when he declared a preference for the extra funds to be spent on special forces and drones. It’s an alluring prospect — no squaddies in body bags; death delivered at a distance, risk-free. But as recent events in Syria and Iraq have shown, waging war by remote control only delivers marginal results. A year into the military campaign against Isis, in which the West has relied heavily on drones and special forces, Islamic State occupies more territory and boasts more followers than it did this time last year.

Relying on drones without useful intelligence on the ground can be highly counter-productive. In Afghanistan last month, a US drone hit what was supposed to be a Taleban stronghold in Kunduz, but turned out to be a hospital. Twenty-two innocent civilians were reported to have been killed and many more injured. This one drone disaster has been invaluable to Islamist groups across the world. Look what America does, they say — it kills the innocent and sick. Technology that was supposed to save innocent lives has ended up endangering far more.

We’re all wary of boots on the ground — but the truth is that sometimes the alternative is worse. Look at Libya, where Islamist militants have prospered as a direct result of the government’s refusal to deploy ground forces during the military campaign to overthrow Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Although Mr Cameron was one of the cheerleaders for military intervention, he now behaves as though he would rather everyone forgot about his contribution to the creation of this lawless calamity.

It has fallen to Mr Putin to demonstrate that, while the West seems obsessed with waging war by remote control, there is no substitute for drawing on raw military power to achieve your goals. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea and perhaps even Damascus demonstrate what can be achieved through the application of force.

No one is suggesting Britain and its allies should embark on a campaign of conquest in central Europe and the Middle East. But if we are to prevent others from so doing, then we will need more than a few drones and special forces to protect our interests.
-------------------
Old but interesting article.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Trango Towers

Try picking a fight with the British and you will know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Guynextdoor2

Jungibaaz said:


> I'm not sure how much you know about the economic reasons for Britain's decline or relative slow down, your points on culture don't mean much. The economy is everything, and until about the 1980s, Britain's industries were not nearly as crippled or non-existent as they are today. I reiterate my point, neoliberal policy has accelerated decline that was to happen anyway, and added on some misery where it wasn't necessary.
> 
> The economy is everything and it sustains the toys you were listing and counting, and the decline in the UK's economy was sped up and helped to arrive at its conclusion by Mrs Thatcher. She destroyed what industry and manufacturing there was, while other subsidies their manufacturing sector, she eliminated all subsidies. From then on, Britain has had almost constant current account deficits, and it also marked a serious point of restructuring of the economy, there were immediate effects such as much higher unemployment, recession, but also a long term readjustment to higher levels of unemployment, a switch to the services sector, a disparity between savings and spending, which in turn lowered investment.
> 
> It led to temporary growth and all the neoliberals were hailing it as a miracle, but they were proven wrong. It was pure short sighted and visionless leadership. They were none too bright, they sought to reduce inflation through monetarist policies, which they had to abandon for their own good for the massive recession it caused.
> 
> This was a major turning point in Britain's economy, now it's an economy driven by consumer growth, which in turn is cannibalised by higher inequality. Savings rates are super low, investment's weak, productivity growth is too low, and what little growth their is, is usually sustained by a ever increasing debt, both private and public, and a strong pound which exacerbates the effect of strong consumerism vs weak industry.



Your points don't make sense. Britain's GDP has expanded all through this time, so it cannot be the economy. It is the natural characteristic of a 'small country' and it's attendant limitations that is coming into play here. More money has not changed that. As for the others- countries like Russia have faced similar issues and still remained major powers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jungibaaz

Guynextdoor2 said:


> Your points don't make sense. Britain's GDP has expanded all through this time, so it cannot be the economy. It is the natural characteristic of a 'small country' and it's attendant limitations that is coming into play here. More money has not changed that. As for the others- countries like Russia have faced similar issues and still remained major powers.



My points do make sense if you have an understanding of what they mean, the GDP did expand but only at a slower pace than before and with inflation remaining high, Britain's long term economic prospects were hit, you don't need a shrinking GDP for that to be the case.


----------



## Azadkashmir

ask the older 50s over which are struggling badly even young no jobs low pay, high taxes public services is window shopping like healthcare, police dont arrive unless to give you fine, ambulances response is slow, food prices up, no money for winter heating. Nowadays you have to be fraudster or drug dealer to get somwere or to open a bussiness. people in the streets increased alcoholism, depression, mental illness. This is never shown in media instead they show rich areas of london while rest of population is having hard time.

The elite own all the industries, little bussiness cant compete instead close down.
In my town they got no money for one of the high school, which requires writing books for students studying english.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

He's a troll and was banned for getting personal last time. So what does he do first thing back, tag me and fire off sarcastic comments my way. 
Appolgies for the throwing a spanner in the works.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TMA

Verve said:


> British excel at deception and spy games. That area they are really remarkable.


Oh yes. Lawrence of Arabia was even fooled.


----------



## Azadkashmir

wrong the mongol khazar/ashkenazi are the greatest deception of britain that they own whole of western europe and usa and the people think it ruled by goyum europeans. Worse of all they actually do own muslims countries too ahem saudi arabia comes to mind.

http://tomatobubble.com/id852.html

These rulers have common traits to crusaders templars / mongols. 

invade pillage and kill everything, charge taxes and usury.
put fear in their victims. fifth columnist.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ashok321

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/842767753463418880


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

ashok321 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/842767753463418880



Dude... who cares?


----------



## TMA

Azadkashmir said:


> wrong the mongol khazar/ashkenazi are the greatest deception of britain that they own whole of western europe and usa and the people think it ruled by goyum europeans. Worse of all they actually do own muslims countries too ahem saudi arabia comes to mind.
> 
> http://tomatobubble.com/id852.html
> 
> These rulers have common traits to crusaders templars / mongols.
> 
> invade pillage and kill everything, charge taxes and usury.
> put fear in their victims. fifth columnist.


Tomato bubble is a great website.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Guynextdoor2 said:


> *IT NEVER WAS A MAJOR MILITARY POWER!!!!!!!
> *
> I can't understand how they managed to con everyone for so long!
> 
> 
> 
> the day they declared the Falklands a major war itself this became clear.


I suppose that's why upon independence India's army, navy and airforce were rife with British equipment.

And surely, most armed forces can do this, right? I mean, the flight distance from London to Port Stanley is just a mere 7815.02 miles / 12577.06 km.


----------



## Piotr

First of all sorry for replying late.


waz said:


> Sorry you lost me. I have't called you a pole or thanked anyone calling you that. As for @Vergennes he is a very well respected member of the forum and a serving solider.



I haven’t said you called me a pole or thanked anyone calling me that. I asked you:


> So why do you like @Vergennes calling me "a pole" instead of "a Pole".


And it’s true you like @Vergennes calling me "a pole". Proof:https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/un-recognizes-crimea-as-occupied-for-the-first-time.461318/page-2
post #28 It’s you who liked this post.

It seems you are educated person. I’m sure you know a distinct difference between “Pole” and “pole”.
Haters who today target Poles, tomorrow can target Pakistanis. You should be aware of this.



> It's not the truth, you are kidding yourself. At times it seems like dross from the propaganda archives.



And maybe it is you who are kidding yourself.



> The Polish soldiers were let off. The British justice system imprisoned a decorated and immensely valuable soldier in the form of Sergeant Blackman.



And what about English war criminal Tony Blair ? He is not in prison. So much about English “justice system”



> The English have not killed tens of thousands of people.



In 1943 in Bengal alone England killed millions of people. If you deny that I challenge you to discuss this in thread https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/did-winston-churchill-kill-4-million-indians.480744/
The problem is some people who are on the Queen of England payroll will never admit that England commited many heinous crimes against humanity. They won’t bite the hand that feeds them.



> I do not want to turn this thread into a UK V Poland slug fest, because as mentioned earlier I respect Polish folks and secondly it takes the thread off-topic.



I respect honest English people who do not lick boots of the so called “Queen of England” I respect Matthew Jamison and Caroline Elkins (I’m reading her book “Imperial Reckoning” about English death camps in Kenya now).

More about England stronk:
*Britain may not be able to fight a war because weapons are too expensive*

Britain’s ability to wage war is being undermined because of the cost of arms and equipment, with an influential committee saying that equipping the military is becoming unaffordable.
The concerns were raised by the Public Accounts Committee as part of a defense spending review, which found that there were serious questions over whether the current £178 billion (about US$228 billion) designated for military spending was viable, the Times reported Wednesday.

The investigations cited a projected £5 billion gap caused by the drop in the value of the pound due to Brexit.
The committee also warned that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was still underestimating the cost of expensive equipment such as F-35 fighter jets, despite claims that previous errors had now been dealt with.

MoD cost estimates for major projects are contested but some figures put the F-35 program at £1.5 trillion, while the tab for replacing the Trident nuclear submarine fleet is estimated at £205 billion and the forthcoming Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers are expected to cost up to £9 billion.

“_We are worried that the increase in commitments without a commensurate increase in funding puts this stability and the ability of the department to deliver what our forces need to operate effectively at real risk,_” the committee warned in a defense equipment review.

“_Uncertainties and over-optimism in project costs mean that the cost of the plan might be significantly understated._

“_We are very concerned that the Ministry of Defence’s equipment plan is at greater risk of becoming unaffordable than at any time since its inception in 2012,_” it said.

The committee suggested a number of measures to ensure that confidence could be restored to defense spending programs.
These include an investigation by the treasury to see if it would have to pour cash into any budget gap resulting from a collapse of the pound.

The government maintains that spending is decided on the basis of security needs and to deliver the most cost-effective use of taxpayers’ cash.
Source: https://www.rt.com/uk/386191-weapons-expense-defence-war/

Deal with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

ashok321 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/842767753463418880


Better safe than sorry.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

The UK has good training and technology, but it's army is minuscule.


----------



## Penguin

Piotr said:


> I haven’t said you called me a pole or thanked anyone calling me that. I asked you:
> 
> And it’s true you like @Vergennes calling me "a pole". Proof:https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/un-recognizes-crimea-as-occupied-for-the-first-time.461318/page-2
> post #28 It’s you who liked this post.
> 
> It seems you are educated person. I’m sure you know a distinct difference between “Pole” and “pole”.
> Haters who today target Poles, tomorrow can target Pakistanis. You should be aware of this.


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pole
Take your pick.

You know how many times on fora (including this one) I've been called a) American/CIA, b) Jew/Mossad, c) Indian?. Not to mention all manner of insults. Despite that I'm a simple Dutch (if recently labelled NAZI by the Turkish Führer). I suggest to develop a somewhat thicker skill (I mean, come on, no one here uses a p instead of a P on purpose to signal 'hate')



Piotr said:


> In 1943 in Bengal alone England killed millions of people. If you deny that I challenge you to discuss this in thread https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/did-winston-churchill-kill-4-million-indians.480744/
> The problem is some people who are on the Queen of England payroll will never admit that England commited many heinous crimes against humanity. They won’t bite the hand that feeds them.


Any nation/country that engaged in conquest and/or colonization at some point committed atrocities. This should be and is acknowledged [for the most part]. Applies also with Germans for Nazi era, and allied soldier behavior during final years of ww2. That doesn't make it right, nor does it mean denial. It also doesn't mean that this is held against a nation/country for all eternity.



Piotr said:


> More about England stronk:
> *Britain may not be able to fight a war because weapons are too expensive*
> Source: https://www.rt.com/uk/386191-weapons-expense-defence-war/


Same applies for France, China, Russia, even USA.
But what can you expect from RT.com (Russian government propaganda mouthpiece)?



Piotr said:


> Deal with it.


Just did.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Piotr

Penguin said:


> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pole
> Take your pick.
> 
> You know how many times on fora (including this one) I've been called a) American/CIA, b) Jew/Mossad, c) Indian?. Not to mention all manner of insults. Despite that I'm a simple Dutch (if recently labelled NAZI by the Turkish Führer). I suggest to develop a somewhat thicker skill (I mean, come on, no one here uses a p instead of a P on purpose to signal 'hate')



It’s not just using “pole” instead of “Pole”. One English member here even said that he hate most Poles and called us “bloody leeches".

Last year several English teen thugs beaten to death Arkadiusz Jóźwik in Essex. It was a hate crime. He was killed because he was speaking in Polish. There were many more such hate crimes. English haters do not target the Dutch. They target Polish people.



> Any nation/country that engaged in conquest and/or colonization at some point committed atrocities.



No country committed such heinous atrocities like England. They committed ethnic cleansing in North America and Australia. They were engaged in slave trade and drug trade.



> Applies also with Germans for Nazi era ...



German government doesn’t honor Hitler, while English government still honor Churchill (Churchill killed millions of innocent civilians)



> It also doesn't mean that this is held against a nation/country for all eternity.



In 2011 (just 6 years ago) England invaded Libya. Before invasion Libya has had the highest standard of living in Africa. Now Libya is a mess. There is no much difference between terrorist queen Victoria, terrorist Churchill or terrorist Tony Blair. So stop talking about eternity. England committs crimes as we speak.
But let’s not make @waz angry by going to off-topic. If you want to discuss about English crimes against humanity like holocaust of Native Americans or English smuggling of drugs to China let’s do it in other thread.



> Same applies for France, China, Russia, even USA.



There is a great difference between China, Russia and USA on the one hand and England on the other. China, Russia and USA produce most of weapons on their own while England is increasingly dependent on imports. England can’t even produce 5th gen. fighters and has to import F-35 Turd. So most of the money China, Russia and USA spend on weapons goes to theirs companies (end strengthen theirs economies), while England has to enrich Lockmart.

BTW China and Russia are going to be even less dependent on imports but England is more and more dependent on imports.



> But what can you expect from RT.com (Russian government propaganda mouthpiece)?



RT.com is much more reliable than English state founded propaganda bullhorn and fake news media outlet BBC


It seems English aerospace industry will end up like English coal and steel industry. Yankee will finish Rolls-Royce off like they finished Canadian Avro:

*Rolls-Royce posts historic £4.6bn loss for 2016*
Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:26AM

*British engine-maker Rolls-Royce says it has suffered the biggest loss in its history due to bribery scandals and the impact of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union (EU) on the country’s currency.*

On Tuesday, Rolls reported a massive £4.6 billion statutory pre-tax loss for 2016, one of the largest amounts in Britain’s history as well.

The loss included a £4.4 billion write-down on the value of financial hedges that Rolls uses to protect itself against currency fluctuations and a £700m charge for the penalties the company has agreed to pay to settle bribery and corruption charges with the UK Serious Fraud Office, the US Department of Justice, and Brazilian authorities.

The multinational company, which sells turbines and engines for passenger jets and military aircraft, will pay £497 million to the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) after a high court approval, $169m (£140m) to the US Department of Justice and $25m to the Brazilian authorities.

Since the company, which also builds aircraft engines, made most of its aerospace deals in dollars, it was hit hard by the British pound’s slump in value following last June’s referendum to depart from the EU.

In mid-January, the British sterling dropped to $1.20, a record 31-year low.

Rolls’ profits fell to £813 million, down 49 percent from £1.4 billion the previous year.

The company has been dealing with corruption over the past 25 years. The cases, for which Rolls has apologized “unreservedly” for, involve illegally using local middlemen and paying bribes to win deals in Indonesia, Thailand, China and Russia.

The Derby-based group, which employs about half of its 50,000-strong workforce in the UK has been axing thousands of jobs over the last couple of years as part of a cost-cutting overhaul.

The biggest loss in British history is the £24bn recorded by Royal Bank of Scotland for 2008.
Source: http://217.218.67.231/Detail/2017/02/14/510481/UK-Rolls-Royce-Brexit-EU


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

Piotr said:


> It’s not just using “pole” instead of “Pole”. One English member here even said that he hate most Poles and called us “bloody leeches".
> 
> Last year several English teen thugs beaten to death Arkadiusz Jóźwik in Essex. It was a hate crime. He was killed because he was speaking in Polish. There were many more such hate crimes. English haters do not target the Dutch. They target Polish people.



Well, I know a lot of Polish people in Poland hate all immigrants to Poland so what is the problem? Do I need to show pictures/Videos of anti-muslim rallies in Poland? I wouldn't generalize just because some jerks had a problem with a polish person. 

Yes please keep complaining about anti-immigrants in England when in Poland you have this

















Piotr said:


> No country committed such heinous atrocities like England. They committed ethnic cleansing in North America and Australia. They were engaged in slave trade and drug trade.



What are you talking about? My country Egypt and other Arab countries have done far worse. Our slave trade was notoriously horrific with castration.

_*"The Arab trade of Zanj (Bantu) slaves in Southeast Africa is one of the oldest slave trades, predating the European transatlantic slave trade by 700 years."*_

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

In fact one of the reasons the American revolution happened was the British essentially banning any more settlement of Native American lands.

*"On October 7, 1763, King George III issued a proclamation that forbade colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains."*

http://www.history.com/news/remembering-the-proclamation-of-1763

Ever nation on earth has committed some horrific crime in the past. Blaming only the English is kinda unfair.





Piotr said:


> while English government still honor Churchill (Churchill killed millions of innocent civilians



So? The american government still honors Andrew Jackson and a lot of people in the South still wave confederate flags proudly... 









Piotr said:


> RT.com is much more reliable than English state founded propaganda bullhorn and fake news media outlet BBC




RT is a media group that is *funded by the government of RUSSIA.
*
http://archives.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Piotr

EgyptianAmerican said:


> Well, I know a lot of Polish people in Poland hate all immigrants to Poland so what is the problem? Do I need to show pictures/Videos of anti-muslim rallies in Poland?



Some people in Poland hate immigrants. Not "a lot".



> What are you talking about? My country Egypt and other Arab countries have done far worse. Our slave trade was notoriously horrific with castration.



What a BS. If you are Egyptian then you are self hating Egyptian brainwashed by US propaganda.



> So? The american government still honors Andrew Jackson and a lot of people in the South still wave confederate flags proudly.


 
They should be condemned too.



> RT is a media group that is *funded by the government of RUSSIA*, I hardly doubt a media outlet like the BBC can be less of a propaganda loud speaker.



BBC is a media group that is *funded by the government of "UK"
*
As I said earlier we should not get to of-topic. So let's discus about England not being major military power.
Here's from your favorite RT that English government is trying to forbid in England:

*Navy’s £1bn high-tech destroyers break down in warm water*

The British military’s supposedly cutting-edge Type 45 destroyers are effectively overheating and shutting down outside of cold waters, the Defence Select Committee has heard.
On Tuesday defense chiefs admissions to committee suggested that the program is not as successful as made out. This is despite years of downplaying the vessel’s failures as mere teething problems.

They told the committee that the Type 45s could not handle warm waters and would have their apparently sub-standard Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbines replaced with diesel generators.

The current system is said to leave the vessel vulnerable to “_total electronic failure_” which would leave it without propulsion and unable to fire its weapon systems.

The navy originally wanted 12 Type 45’s, but ended up with six destroyers at a cost to the taxpayer of £1 billion (US$1.45 billion) each.

The committee actually warned of issues with the destroyer as long ago as 2009, when it reported that there was “_persistent over optimism and underestimation of the technical challenges combined with inappropriate commercial arrangements._”

Problems with the vessel were also raised after the Type 45 HMS Darin lost power in the Atlantic in 2010 and had to be repaired in Canada.

One source told the Daily Record newspaper that the UK “_can’t have warships that cannot operate if the water is warmer than it is in Portsmouth harbor._”

The slow-burning issue of the Type 45’s may also have informed delays with the navy’s Type 26 frigates which are being built at shipyards on the Clyde in Scotland.

Lord West of Spithead, former head of the Royal Navy, told the committee that the military faces a long delay during which its fleet would be “_inadequate._” He also said that financing the projects was a major issue.

“_There's almost no money available this year, and we are really strapped next year. The government aren't coming clean about that._

"_To pretend that you're going to order all of these, that they are really important, but that 'there are little problems over design and things' is, I'm afraid, being economical with the actuality,_” he added.
Source: https://www.rt.com/uk/345838-royal-navy-destroyers-overheat/

Rolls-Royce again


----------



## EgyptianAmerican

Piotr said:


> Some people in Poland hate immigrants. Not "a lot".



















*"Some"*



Piotr said:


> What a BS. If you are Egyptian then you are self hating Egyptian brainwashed by US propaganda.



I am not a "self-hating" Egyptian, I love my country and my homeland. I have no problem with acknowledging our dark past. It is better to confront and acknowledge what horrible things our ancestors did in the past and move on.

_*"The Arab trade of Zanj (Bantu) slaves in Southeast Africa is one of the oldest slave trades, predating the European transatlantic slave trade by 700 years."*_

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

Nonetheless Britain is a power to be feared and respected. No matter how small their army looks compared to China or Russia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Piotr said:


> It’s not just using “pole” instead of “Pole”. One English member here even said that he hate most Poles and called us “bloody leeches".


Then you should use the report button and let forum management deal with it.



Piotr said:


> Last year several English teen thugs beaten to death Arkadiusz Jóźwik in Essex. It was a hate crime. He was killed because he was speaking in Polish. There were many more such hate crimes. English haters do not target the Dutch. They target Polish people.


You have morons like that in any country (but you don't blame all that country's people for it). I'm quite sure, if there were a lot of Dutch coming to work in the UK, these a-holes would just as soon do the same to a Dutchman.



Piotr said:


> No country committed such heinous atrocities like England. They committed ethnic cleansing in North America and Australia. They were engaged in slave trade and drug trade.


I'm so glad you are not looking into my country's historic record...... 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies#Dutch_conquests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aceh_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_West_India_Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Slave_Coast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Antilles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suriname#Colonial_period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Netherlands



Piotr said:


> German government doesn’t honor Hitler, while English government still honor Churchill (Churchill killed millions of innocent civilians)


Yeah, well, .... it's a bit less one sided a story, possibly.

There has been debate over Churchill's alleged culpability in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Indians during the Bengal famine of 1943 where London ate India’s bread while India starved, some commentators point to the disruption of the traditional marketing system and maladministration at the provincial level as a cause with Churchill saying that the famine was the Indians own fault for “breeding like rabbits".
Arthur Herman, author of _Churchill and Gandhi_, contends, 'The real cause was the fall of Burma to the Japanese, which cut off India's main supply of rice imports when domestic sources fell short ... [though] it is true that Churchill opposed diverting food supplies and transports from other theatres to India to cover the shortfall: this was wartime.' In response to an urgent request by the Secretary of State for India (Leo Amery) and Viceroy of India (Wavell), to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram to Wavell asking, if food was so scarce, "why Gandhi hadn't died yet".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Indian_independence

Bengal's economy was predominantly agrarian.  For at least a decade before the crisis, between half and three fourths of those dependent on agriculture were already at near subsistence level. Underlying causes of the famine included inefficient agricultural practices, population and de-peasantisation through usury and land grabbing. Proximate causes comprise localised natural disasters (a cyclone, storm surges and flooding, and rice crop disease) and at least five consequences of war: initial, general war-time inflation of both demand-pull and monetary origin; loss of rice imports due to the Japanese occupation of Burma (modern Myanmar); near-total disruption of Bengal's market supplies and transport systems by the preemptive, defensive scorched earth tactics of the Raj (the "denial policies" for rice and boats); and later, massive inflation brought on by repeated policy failures, war profiteering, speculation, and perhaps hoarding. Finally, the government prioritised military and defense needs over those of the rural poor, allocating medical care and food immensely in the favour of the military, labourers in military industries, and civil servants. All of these factors were further compounded by restricted access to grain: domestic sources were constrained by emergency inter-provincial trade barriers, while access to international sources was largely denied by the War Cabinet of Great Britain. The relative impact of each of these contributing factors to the death toll and economic devastation is still a matter of controversy. Different analyses frame the famine against natural, economic, or political causes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Debate_over_primary_cause.28s.29



Piotr said:


> In 2011 (just 6 years ago) England invaded Libya. Before invasion Libya has had the highest standard of living in Africa. Now Libya is a mess. There is no much difference between terrorist queen Victoria, terrorist Churchill or terrorist Tony Blair. So stop talking about eternity. England committs crimes as we speak.


After the Arab Spring movements overturned the rulers of Tunisia and Egypt, Libya experienced a full-scale revolt beginning on 17 February 2011.

_England _invaded Libya in 2011? England+Wales+Scotland=Great Britain. Great Britain + Northern Ireland = United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland aka* the UK*

After the Arab Spring movements overturned the rulers of Tunisia and Egypt, Libya experienced a full-scale revolt beginning on 17 February 2011. Libya's authoritarian regime led by Muammar Gaddafi put up much more of a resistance compared to the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia. The first announcement of a competing political authority appeared online and declared the Interim Transitional National Council as an alternative government. By 20 February, the unrest had spread to Tripoli. On 27 February 2011, the National Transitional Council was established to administer the areas of Libya under rebel control. On 10 March 2011, _France _became the first state to officially recognise the council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.
Pro-Gaddaffi forces were able to respond militarily to rebel pushes in Western Libya and launched a counterattack along the coast toward Benghazi, the _de facto_ centre of the uprising. The town of Zawiya, 48 kilometres (30 mi) from Tripoli, was bombarded by air force planes and army tanks and seized by Jamahiriya troops, "exercising a level of brutality not yet seen in the conflict."
Organizations of the _United Nations_, including United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the United Nations Human Rights Council, _condemned the crackdown_ as violating international law, with the latter body expelling Libya outright in an unprecedented action urged by Libya's own delegation to the UN.
On 17 March 2011 _the UN Security Council_ passed _Resolution 1973_, with a 10–0 vote and five abstentions including Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany. The resolution sanctioned the _establishment of a no-fly zone_ and the _use of "all means necessary" to protect civilians within Libya_. On 19 March, the first act of _NATO_ allies to secure the no-fly zone by destroying Libyan air defences began when _French _military jets entered Libyan airspace on a reconnaissance mission heralding attacks on enemy targets.
In the weeks that followed, _American _forces were in the forefront of NATO operations against Libya. More than 8,000 American personnel in warships and aircraft were deployed in the area. At least 3,000 targets were struck in 14,202 strike sorties, 716 of them in Tripoli and 492 in Brega. The American air offensive included flights of B-2 Stealth bombers, each bomber armed with sixteen 2000-pound bombs, flying out of and returning to their base in Missouri on the continental United States. The support provided by the NATO airforces contributed to the ultimate success of the revolution.
By 22 August 2011, rebel fighters had entered Tripoli and occupied Green Square, which they renamed Martyrs' Square in honour of those killed since 17 February 2011. On 20 October 2011 the last heavy fighting of the uprising came to an end in the city of Sirte, where Gaddafi was captured and killed. The defeat of loyalist forces was celebrated on 23 October 2011, three days after the fall of Sirte. At least 30,000 Libyans died in the civil war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#2011_Civil_War
Enforcing UNSC Resolution 1973:NATO. NATO members: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States

*Foreign military intervention*
The Royal Canadian Navy frigate HMCS _Charlottetown_ was deployed to the Mediterranean off the coast of Libya on 2 March 2011, but did not take immediate action once arrived. Seventeen days later, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was taken in response to events then occurring during the conflict. That same day, military operations began, with US forces and one British submarine firing cruise missiles. the Royal Canadian Air Force, French Air Force, United States Air Force, and British Royal Air Force undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by the Royal Navy.
From the beginning of the intervention, the coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US expanded to 17 states. Newer states mostly enforced the no-fly zone and naval blockade or provided military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by the United States. NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector. An attempt to unify the military command of the air campaign (while keeping political and strategic control with a small group), first failed due to objections by the French, German, and Turkish governments. On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone, while command of targeting ground units remained with coalition forces.
In May 2011, when Gaddafi's forces were still fighting, and the end result of the civil war was still uncertain, Putin and Dmitri Medvedev's Russian government recognized the National Transitional Council (NTC) of Libya as a legitimate dialogue partner. On 9 June 2011,some negotiators from NTC arrived in Beijing to have negotiations with the Chinese government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)#Foreign_military_intervention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

Yeah, _England _totally invaded Libya in 2011....

The Libyan economy depends primarily upon revenues from the oil sector, which accounts for 80% of GDP and 97% of exports. Libya holds the largest proven oil reserves in Africa and is an important contributor to the global supply of light, sweet crude. Apart from petroleum, the other natural resources are natural gas and gypsum. The International Monetary Fund estimated Libya's real GDP growth at 122% in 2012 and 16.7% in 2013, after a 60% plunge in 2011.
The World Bank defines Libya as an 'Upper Middle Income Economy', along with only seven other African countries. Substantial revenues from the energy sector, coupled with a small population, give Libya one of the highest per capita GDPs in Africa. This allowed the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya state to provide an extensive level of social security, particularly in the fields of housing and education.
Libya faces many structural problems including a lack of institutions, weak governance, and chronic structural unemployment. The economy displays a lack of economic diversification and significant reliance on immigrant labour. Libya has traditionally relied on unsustainably high levels of public sector hiring to create employment. In the mid-2000s, the government employed about 70% of all national employees.
Unemployment has risen from 8% in 2008 to 21%, according to the latest census figures. According to an Arab League report, based on data from 2010, unemployment for women stands at 18% while for the figure for men is 21%, making Libya the only Arab country where there are more unemployed men than women. Libya has high levels of social inequality, high rates of youth unemployment and regional economic disparities. Water supply is also a problem, with some 28% of the population not having access to safe drinking water in 2000.
Libya imports up to 90% of its cereal consumption requirements, and imports of wheat in 2012/13 was estimated at about 1 million tonnes. The 2012 wheat production was estimated at about 200,000 tonnes. The government hopes to increase food production to 800,000 tonnes of cereals by 2020. However, natural and environmental conditions limit Libya’s agricultural production potential. Before 1958, agriculture was the country’s main source of revenue, making up about 30% of GDP. With the discovery of oil in 1958, the size of the agriculture sector declined rapidly, comprising less than 5% GDP by 2005.
The country joined OPEC in 1962. Libya is not a WTO member, but negotiations for its accession started in 2004.
In the early 1980s, Libya was one of the wealthiest countries in the world; its GDP per capita was higher than some developed countries.
Oil is the major natural resource of Libya, with estimated reserves of 43.6 billion barrels. In the early 2000s officials of the Jamahiriya era carried out economic reforms to reintegrate Libya into the global economy. UN sanctions were lifted in September 2003, and Libya announced in December 2003 that it would abandon programs to build weapons of mass destruction. Other steps have included applying for membership of the World Trade Organization, reducing subsidies, and announcing plans for privatization.
Authorities privatized more than 100 government owned companies after 2003 in industries including oil refining, tourism and real estate, of which 29 were 100% foreign owned. Many international oil companies returned to the country, including oil giants Shell and ExxonMobil. After sanctions were lifted there was a gradual increase of air traffic, and by 2005 there were 1.5 million yearly air travellers. Libya had long been a notoriously difficult country for Western tourists to visit due to stringent visa requirements.
In 2007 Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the second-eldest son of Muammar Gaddafi, was involved in a green development project called the Green Mountain Sustainable Development Area, which sought to bring tourism to Cyrene and to preserve Greek ruins in the area.
In August 2011 it was estimated that it would take at least 10 years to rebuild Libya's infrastructure. Even before the 2011 war, Libya's infrastructure was in a poor state due to "utter neglect" by Gaddafi's administration, according to the NTC. By October 2012, the economy had recovered from the 2011 conflict, with oil production returning to near normal levels.[166] Oil production was more than 1.6 million barrels per day before the war. By October 2012, the average oil production has surpassed 1.4 million bpd. The resumption of production was made possible due to the quick return of major Western companies, like Total, Eni, Repsol, Wintershall and Occidental. In 2016, an announcement from the company said the company aims 900,000 barrel per day in the next year. Oil production has fallen from 1.6 million barrel per day to 900,000 in four years of war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Economy



Piotr said:


> There is a great difference between China, Russia and USA on the one hand and England on the other. China, Russia and USA produce most of weapons on their own while England is increasingly dependent on imports. England can’t even produce 5th gen. fighters and has to import F-35 Turd. So most of the money China, Russia and USA spend on weapons goes to theirs companies (end strengthen theirs economies), while England has to enrich Lockmart.


Ever hear of e.g. BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Babcock International, Cerco, Cobham, QinetiQ, GKN Aerospace, Ultra Electronics, Meggit, Chemring? These 10 companies are all in the world top 100 defence companies. Versus: 
U.S.: 41
U.K.: 10
Russia: 8
Japan: 7 
France: 5 
4 companies: Israel, South Korea
Germany: 3 
2 companies: Italy, India, Norway, Singapore, Turkey
1 company: Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, Ukraine, South Africa
https://www.artillerymarketing.com/fs/defense-news-top-100-global-companies-2015

Incidentally, noticed that in Europe major weapon systems are increasingly international cooperative efforts e.g. Tornado, Typhoon, certain naval platforms etc.?

Correction: UK co-develops F-35B 

5th gen fighters: U.S., Russia, China, India, Japan, Turkey, of which only US, Russia and China have them in service or with flying prototypes.

So, where are all those Polish defence companies? And what are they making and marketing succesfully?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Piotr

EgyptianAmerican said:


> *"Some"*



Video you posted has fake title. This video shows celebrations of Poland’s Independence Day (11.11). It had nothing to do with Muslim immigration. I can as well post video of Egyptian Army march with a title “Egyptian solders march against Martian immigration” 



> I am not a "self-hating" Egyptian, I love my country and my homeland.







> I have no problem with acknowledging our dark past. It is better to confront and acknowledge what horrible things our ancestors did in the past and move on.
> 
> _*"The Arab trade of Zanj (Bantu) slaves in Southeast Africa is one of the oldest slave trades, predating the European transatlantic slave trade by 700 years."*_
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade



Did the English ethnically cleansed two continents ? Yes, they ethnically cleansed North America and Australia.

Did the Arabs ethnically cleansed any continent ? No they didn’t

Did the English distributed blankets containing smallpox to Native Americans ? Yes they did.

Did the Arabs distributed blankets containing smallpox to Native Americans ? No they didn’t

Arabs are angels compared to the English.



> Nonetheless Britain is a power to be feared and respected. No matter how small their army looks compared to China or Russia.



That’s what English propaganda bullhorns like BBC are saying. The fact is England don't even have nuclear triad.



Penguin said:


> You have morons like that in any country (but you don't blame all that country's people for it).



I don’t blame all English people. I blame English haters. I’ve already said that I respect some English people like Caroline Elkins



> Yeah, well, .... it's a bit less one sided a story, possibly.
> 
> There has been debate over Churchill's alleged culpability in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Indians during the Bengal famine of 1943 where London ate India’s bread while India starved, some commentators point to the disruption of the traditional marketing system and maladministration at the provincial level as a cause with Churchill saying that the famine was the Indians own fault for “breeding like rabbits".
> Arthur Herman, author of _Churchill and Gandhi_, contends, 'The real cause was the fall of Burma to the Japanese, which cut off India's main supply of rice imports when domestic sources fell short ... [though] it is true that Churchill opposed diverting food supplies and transports from other theatres to India to cover the shortfall: this was wartime.' In response to an urgent request by the Secretary of State for India (Leo Amery) and Viceroy of India (Wavell), to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram to Wavell asking, if food was so scarce, "why Gandhi hadn't died yet".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Indian_independence
> 
> Bengal's economy was predominantly agrarian.  For at least a decade before the crisis, between half and three fourths of those dependent on agriculture were already at near subsistence level. Underlying causes of the famine included inefficient agricultural practices, population and de-peasantisation through usury and land grabbing. Proximate causes comprise localised natural disasters (a cyclone, storm surges and flooding, and rice crop disease) and at least five consequences of war: initial, general war-time inflation of both demand-pull and monetary origin; loss of rice imports due to the Japanese occupation of Burma (modern Myanmar); near-total disruption of Bengal's market supplies and transport systems by the preemptive, defensive scorched earth tactics of the Raj (the "denial policies" for rice and boats); and later, massive inflation brought on by repeated policy failures, war profiteering, speculation, and perhaps hoarding. Finally, the government prioritised military and defense needs over those of the rural poor, allocating medical care and food immensely in the favour of the military, labourers in military industries, and civil servants. All of these factors were further compounded by restricted access to grain: domestic sources were constrained by emergency inter-provincial trade barriers, while access to international sources was largely denied by the War Cabinet of Great Britain. The relative impact of each of these contributing factors to the death toll and economic devastation is still a matter of controversy. Different analyses frame the famine against natural, economic, or political causes.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Debate_over_primary_cause.28s.29



Are you trying to whitewash English crimes against humanity ?



> After the Arab Spring movements overturned the rulers of Tunisia and Egypt, Libya experienced a full-scale revolt beginning on 17 February 2011.
> 
> _England _invaded Libya in 2011? England+Wales+Scotland=Great Britain. Great Britain + Northern Ireland = United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland aka* the UK*
> 
> After the Arab Spring movements overturned the rulers of Tunisia and Egypt, Libya experienced a full-scale revolt beginning on 17 February 2011. Libya's authoritarian regime led by Muammar Gaddafi put up much more of a resistance compared to the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia. The first announcement of a competing political authority appeared online and declared the Interim Transitional National Council as an alternative government. By 20 February, the unrest had spread to Tripoli. On 27 February 2011, the National Transitional Council was established to administer the areas of Libya under rebel control. On 10 March 2011, _France _became the first state to officially recognise the council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.
> Pro-Gaddaffi forces were able to respond militarily to rebel pushes in Western Libya and launched a counterattack along the coast toward Benghazi, the _de facto_ centre of the uprising. The town of Zawiya, 48 kilometres (30 mi) from Tripoli, was bombarded by air force planes and army tanks and seized by Jamahiriya troops, "exercising a level of brutality not yet seen in the conflict."
> Organizations of the _United Nations_, including United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the United Nations Human Rights Council, _condemned the crackdown_ as violating international law, with the latter body expelling Libya outright in an unprecedented action urged by Libya's own delegation to the UN.
> On 17 March 2011 _the UN Security Council_ passed _Resolution 1973_, with a 10–0 vote and five abstentions including Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany. The resolution sanctioned the _establishment of a no-fly zone_ and the _use of "all means necessary" to protect civilians within Libya_. On 19 March, the first act of _NATO_ allies to secure the no-fly zone by destroying Libyan air defences began when _French _military jets entered Libyan airspace on a reconnaissance mission heralding attacks on enemy targets.
> In the weeks that followed, _American _forces were in the forefront of NATO operations against Libya. More than 8,000 American personnel in warships and aircraft were deployed in the area. At least 3,000 targets were struck in 14,202 strike sorties, 716 of them in Tripoli and 492 in Brega. The American air offensive included flights of B-2 Stealth bombers, each bomber armed with sixteen 2000-pound bombs, flying out of and returning to their base in Missouri on the continental United States. The support provided by the NATO airforces contributed to the ultimate success of the revolution.
> By 22 August 2011, rebel fighters had entered Tripoli and occupied Green Square, which they renamed Martyrs' Square in honour of those killed since 17 February 2011. On 20 October 2011 the last heavy fighting of the uprising came to an end in the city of Sirte, where Gaddafi was captured and killed. The defeat of loyalist forces was celebrated on 23 October 2011, three days after the fall of Sirte. At least 30,000 Libyans died in the civil war.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#2011_Civil_War
> Enforcing UNSC Resolution 1973:NATO. NATO members: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States
> 
> *Foreign military intervention*
> The Royal Canadian Navy frigate HMCS _Charlottetown_ was deployed to the Mediterranean off the coast of Libya on 2 March 2011, but did not take immediate action once arrived. Seventeen days later, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was taken in response to events then occurring during the conflict. That same day, military operations began, with US forces and one British submarine firing cruise missiles. the Royal Canadian Air Force, French Air Force, United States Air Force, and British Royal Air Force undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by the Royal Navy.
> From the beginning of the intervention, the coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US expanded to 17 states. Newer states mostly enforced the no-fly zone and naval blockade or provided military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by the United States. NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector. An attempt to unify the military command of the air campaign (while keeping political and strategic control with a small group), first failed due to objections by the French, German, and Turkish governments. On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone, while command of targeting ground units remained with coalition forces.
> In May 2011, when Gaddafi's forces were still fighting, and the end result of the civil war was still uncertain, Putin and Dmitri Medvedev's Russian government recognized the National Transitional Council (NTC) of Libya as a legitimate dialogue partner. On 9 June 2011,some negotiators from NTC arrived in Beijing to have negotiations with the Chinese government.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)#Foreign_military_intervention
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
> 
> Yeah, _England _totally invaded Libya in 2011....
> 
> The Libyan economy depends primarily upon revenues from the oil sector, which accounts for 80% of GDP and 97% of exports. Libya holds the largest proven oil reserves in Africa and is an important contributor to the global supply of light, sweet crude. Apart from petroleum, the other natural resources are natural gas and gypsum. The International Monetary Fund estimated Libya's real GDP growth at 122% in 2012 and 16.7% in 2013, after a 60% plunge in 2011.
> The World Bank defines Libya as an 'Upper Middle Income Economy', along with only seven other African countries. Substantial revenues from the energy sector, coupled with a small population, give Libya one of the highest per capita GDPs in Africa. This allowed the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya state to provide an extensive level of social security, particularly in the fields of housing and education.
> Libya faces many structural problems including a lack of institutions, weak governance, and chronic structural unemployment. The economy displays a lack of economic diversification and significant reliance on immigrant labour. Libya has traditionally relied on unsustainably high levels of public sector hiring to create employment. In the mid-2000s, the government employed about 70% of all national employees.
> Unemployment has risen from 8% in 2008 to 21%, according to the latest census figures. According to an Arab League report, based on data from 2010, unemployment for women stands at 18% while for the figure for men is 21%, making Libya the only Arab country where there are more unemployed men than women. Libya has high levels of social inequality, high rates of youth unemployment and regional economic disparities. Water supply is also a problem, with some 28% of the population not having access to safe drinking water in 2000.
> Libya imports up to 90% of its cereal consumption requirements, and imports of wheat in 2012/13 was estimated at about 1 million tonnes. The 2012 wheat production was estimated at about 200,000 tonnes. The government hopes to increase food production to 800,000 tonnes of cereals by 2020. However, natural and environmental conditions limit Libya’s agricultural production potential. Before 1958, agriculture was the country’s main source of revenue, making up about 30% of GDP. With the discovery of oil in 1958, the size of the agriculture sector declined rapidly, comprising less than 5% GDP by 2005.
> The country joined OPEC in 1962. Libya is not a WTO member, but negotiations for its accession started in 2004.
> In the early 1980s, Libya was one of the wealthiest countries in the world; its GDP per capita was higher than some developed countries.
> Oil is the major natural resource of Libya, with estimated reserves of 43.6 billion barrels. In the early 2000s officials of the Jamahiriya era carried out economic reforms to reintegrate Libya into the global economy. UN sanctions were lifted in September 2003, and Libya announced in December 2003 that it would abandon programs to build weapons of mass destruction. Other steps have included applying for membership of the World Trade Organization, reducing subsidies, and announcing plans for privatization.
> Authorities privatized more than 100 government owned companies after 2003 in industries including oil refining, tourism and real estate, of which 29 were 100% foreign owned. Many international oil companies returned to the country, including oil giants Shell and ExxonMobil. After sanctions were lifted there was a gradual increase of air traffic, and by 2005 there were 1.5 million yearly air travellers. Libya had long been a notoriously difficult country for Western tourists to visit due to stringent visa requirements.
> In 2007 Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the second-eldest son of Muammar Gaddafi, was involved in a green development project called the Green Mountain Sustainable Development Area, which sought to bring tourism to Cyrene and to preserve Greek ruins in the area.
> In August 2011 it was estimated that it would take at least 10 years to rebuild Libya's infrastructure. Even before the 2011 war, Libya's infrastructure was in a poor state due to "utter neglect" by Gaddafi's administration, according to the NTC. By October 2012, the economy had recovered from the 2011 conflict, with oil production returning to near normal levels.[166] Oil production was more than 1.6 million barrels per day before the war. By October 2012, the average oil production has surpassed 1.4 million bpd. The resumption of production was made possible due to the quick return of major Western companies, like Total, Eni, Repsol, Wintershall and Occidental. In 2016, an announcement from the company said the company aims 900,000 barrel per day in the next year. Oil production has fallen from 1.6 million barrel per day to 900,000 in four years of war.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Economy



England participated in invasion of Libya. This is why USA and England invaded Libya: http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillar...ecutions-coveting-libyan-oil-and-gold/5499358



> Ever hear of e.g. BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Babcock International, Cerco, Cobham, QinetiQ, GKN Aerospace, Ultra Electronics, Meggit, Chemring? These 10 companies are all in the world top 100 defence companies. Versus:
> U.S.: 41
> U.K.: 10
> Russia: 8
> Japan: 7
> France: 5
> 4 companies: Israel, South Korea
> Germany: 3
> 2 companies: Italy, India, Norway, Singapore, Turkey
> 1 company: Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, Ukraine, South Africa
> https://www.artillerymarketing.com/fs/defense-news-top-100-global-companies-2015




These 10 companies are not in the world top 100 defence companies. These 10 companies are in the world top 100 defence companies according to BS rank made by CIA trolls from www.artillerymarketing.com.

Come on. Rank from www.artillerymarketing.com is total BS. Have you ever heard of AVIC of China ? It produce J-20 and FC-31 5th gen. fighter jets and Y-20 (biggest transport airplane currently in production). And according to CIA trolls from www.artillerymarketing.com AVIC is not among top 100 defence companies . 
BTW it’s funny how CIA trolls from www.artillerymarketing.com place BAE Systems above Airbus Group.



> So, where are all those Polish defence companies? And what are they making and marketing succesfully?



We suffered devastating losses during World War 2 started by Hitler who was founded by England and USA but we are making progress:

https://poland.pl/politics/home/polish-defence-sectors-rich-offering/

BTW we successfully aborted deal to buy Caracal helicopters (also known in Poland as karakan – eng. cockroach). Hopefully helicopters for Wojsko Polskie will be built in Poland (either in Świdnik or Mielec).


----------



## Penguin

Piotr said:


> Are you trying to whitewash English crimes against humanity ?


No. Meanwhile, are you trying to deny there is debate about Churchill's role i.e. present something as fact when in reality there are different viewpoints on this?



Piotr said:


> England participated in invasion of Libya. This is why USA and England invaded Libya: http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillar...ecutions-coveting-libyan-oil-and-gold/5499358


You said UK invaded Libya. In reality, a coalition of nations including Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, United Arab Emirates, UK and USA contributed military assets to enforce Resolution 1973. France led the international community in advancing the case for military intervention in Libya in February and March 2011. UK policy followed decisions taken in France. Military action commenced on 19 March 2011, when the coalition targeted Libyan air defences and military targets with aircraft and missiles. NATO assumed command of all coalition military operations in relation to Libya as part of NATO Operation Unified Protector on 31 March 2011. The NTC forces were supported by NATO air power, which facilitated their combat performance. The deployment of coalition air assets shifted the military balance in the Libyan civil war in favour of the rebels. The combat performance of rebel ground forces was enhanced by personnel and intelligence provided by states such as the UK, France, Turkey, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. You do know the difference between intervention and invasion?




Piotr said:


> These 10 companies are not in the world top 100 defence companies. These 10 companies are in the world top 100 defence companies according to BS rank made by CIA trolls from www.artillerymarketing.com.
> 
> Come on. Rank from www.artillerymarketing.com is total BS. Have you ever heard of AVIC of China ? It produce J-20 and FC-31 5th gen. fighter jets and Y-20 (biggest transport airplane currently in production). And according to CIA trolls from www.artillerymarketing.com AVIC is not among top 100 defence companies .
> BTW it’s funny how CIA trolls from www.artillerymarketing.com place BAE Systems above Airbus Group.



Glad you read it so well and notice the following reference: "The companies listed below are based on the Defense News Top 100 2015." In other words, not by artillerymarketing.com
*Top 100 for 2016*
http://people.defensenews.com/top-100/
Goes back to 2000

It states:

Data for the Top 100 list comes from information Defense News solicited from companies, from companies’ annual reports and from Defense News staff research.
Companies were contacted by Defense News and asked to fill out a survey reporting their total annual revenue and revenue derived from defense, homeland security and other national security contracts.
Currency conversions for non-US firms were calculated using average market conversion rates over each firm's fiscal year, when available, to mitigate the effects of currency fluctuations.
Perhaps AVIC declined to participate?

* About Us*
Founded in 1986, Defense News is the authoritative, independent, professional news source for the world's defense decision-makers. In print and online, we provide the global defense community with the latest news and analysis on programs, policy, business and technology. Our bureaus and reporters around the world set the standard for accuracy, credibility and timeliness in defense reporting.

Our weekly newspaper circulates to top leaders and decision makers around the world. The website, DefenseNews.com, provides up-to-date and essential coverage on breaking events via desktop and mobile devices. Our Early Bird Brief and other newsletters deliver focused coverage to your inbox. Defense News TV, airing weekly, is televisions all-defense news show.

*Our coverage includes: * 
· Defense policies, politics and legislation
· Worldwide market developments and trends
· New products, technologies and programs
· Interviews with defense leaders
· Defense industrial plans, finance and developments
· Military budgets and the politics of defense
· Commentary and analysis
· Special Reports on defense technologies, regional activities and major programs

...

*Sightline Media Group*
Defense News and DefenseNews.com are produced by Sightline Media Group (Sightline), the world's leading publisher of news about military and government.

Sightline Media Group also publishes Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, Marine Corps Times, newsweeklies and web sites for the rank and file of the U.S. military that cover pay, benefits, careers, operations and lifestyles; Federal Times, the leading newsweekly for federal government managers; and C4ISR & Networks, which tells defense and government communities about technology and network innovations.

http://www.defensenews.com/aboutus



Piotr said:


> We suffered devastating losses during World War 2 started by Hitler who was founded by England and USA but we are making progress:
> 
> https://poland.pl/politics/home/polish-defence-sectors-rich-offering/
> 
> BTW we successfully aborted deal to buy Caracal helicopters (also known in Poland as karakan – eng. cockroach). Hopefully helicopters for Wojsko Polskie will be built in Poland (either in Świdnik or Mielec).



I'm quite aware of Polish losses in WW2. Wouldn't you agree the rise of Hitler primarily had to do with ... well, ... Germans? You do not think Herr Hitler would have come to power anyway (as if he had no backing among the Germany people or from German industry, military and political establishment etc.)? Or would not have started war anyway?

I also would hope you can tell the difference between financing a bankrupt country, the international funding of businesses (esp. in the case of multinationals) and funding by some influential individuals of other individual politicians.

Lastly this:

I have great respect for the Polish military. Not in the last place because my country was liberated largely by the First Canadian Army which included, in addition to Canadian forces, the British I Corps and the 1st Polish Armoured Division (16,000 strong, commanded by Major General Stanisław Maczek) as well as, at various times, American, Belgian, Dutch and Czechoslovak troops.

A successful outflanking manoeuvre planned and performed by General Maczek allowed the liberation of the city of Breda without any civilian casualties (29 October 1944). The Division spent the winter of 1944-1945 on the south bank of the river Rhine, guarding a sector around Moerdijk, Netherlands. In early 1945, it was transferred to the province of Overijssel and started to push with the Allies along the Dutch-German border, liberating the eastern parts of the provinces of Drenthe and Groningen including the towns of Emmen, Coevorden and Stadskanaal.

This was after the Polish 1st Independent Parachute Brigade (2400 strong, under Major General Stanislaw Sosabowksi) had already been among the Allied forces taking part in Operation Market Garden in september 1944. In 1945, the Brigade was attached to the Polish 1st Armoured Division and undertook occupation duties in Northern Germany until it was disbanded on 30 June 1947. The majority of its soldiers chose to stay in exile rather than hazard returning to the new Communist Poland.

In April 1945, the 1st Armoured entered Germany in the area of Emsland. On 6 May, the Division seized the Kriegsmarine naval base in Wilhelmshaven, where General Maczek accepted the capitulation of the fortress, naval base, East Frisian Fleet and more than 10 infantry divisions. There the Division ended the war and, joined by the Polish 1st Independent Parachute Brigade, undertook occupation duties until it was disbanded in 1947; it, together with the many Polish displaced persons in the Western occupied territories, formed a Polish enclave at Haren in Germany, which was for a while known as "Maczków". The majority of its soldiers opted not to return to Poland, which fell under Soviet occupation, preferring instead to remain in exile

Shortly after the war, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands wanted to award the Parachute Brigade and wrote the government a request. However, the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time, Eelco van Kleffens, opposed the idea. He thought an award for the Poles would upset the relations with the ‘Big Three’ and harm national interests. Nevertheless, more than 61 years after World War II, on 31 May 2006, the Brigade was finally awarded the Military Order of William by Queen Beatrix for its distinguished and outstanding acts of bravery, skill and devotion to duty during Operation Market Garden. Mind you, the military order of William is the highest Dutch military award. Only eleven units have ever been awarded this honor, of which only 2 are non Dutch. The award is now worn by the 6th Airborne Brigade which inherited the battle honours of the Independent Polish Para brigade.

At the same time that the brigade was honored, and despite British diplomatic pressure, the brigade's commander, Sosabowski, was posthumously awarded the "Bronze Lion". In part this was the result of a Dutch TV documentary depicting the brigade as having played a far more significant role in Market Garden than had hitherto been acknowledged. The Bronze Lion is a high Royal Dutch award, intended for servicemen who have shown extreme bravery and leadership in battle favouring The Netherlands (though in some special cases it can be awarded to Dutch or foreign _civilians _as well). It was first created in 1944 and has since been issued a total of 1210 times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Armoured_Division_(Poland)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Independent_Parachute_Brigade_(Poland)


----------



## Vergennes

Piotr said:


> BTW we successfully aborted deal to buy Caracal helicopters (also known in Poland as karakan – eng. cockroach). Hopefully helicopters for Wojsko Polskie will be built in Poland (either in Świdnik or Mielec).



Ins't there an ongoing investigation about foul play of M. Berczynski about the non-transparent conditions of the abortion of the Caracal deal ? He claimed was the mandatary of the Minister of Defence and who even boasted to the Gazeta Prawna (about the Smolensk comission) that he finished the Caracal ?

It's interesting to note that Berczynski has both Polish and American citizenship,that he worked as a Boeing engineer,Boeing who funded his studies according to the Polish press.

The former Polish Defense Minister, Tomasz Siemoniak, told _Le Monde_ that this is a serious affair about the conditions,in which discussions with Airbus Helicopters have been broken,lack transparency. "Mr. Berczynski's ties with American interests are obviously problematic. All these uncertainties undermine the credibility of this government to conduct any negotiations",he said.

The Caracal was chosen as it was the helicopter that met most of the criterias imposed by YOU.
Airbus with ToT,was ready to open a local plant to produce the helicopters for the Polish army's needs and international needs. Airbus confirmed that it offered offset contract above the net value of the contract.
YOU probably forgot that Airbus opened in Lodz a research and development center.

That is YOUR loss.

Franco-Polish relations aren't that good since this saga,and have already badly started since the election of our new President.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bobo6661

Piotr said:


> Video you posted has fake title. This video shows celebrations of Poland’s Independence Day (11.11). It had nothing to do with Muslim immigration. I can as well post video of Egyptian Army march with a title “Egyptian solders march against Martian immigration”



Yee but you can't deny the opening slogans like "Polska dla Polakow" and the Slogan on flag "stop islamizacji Polski" ONR flags ... Next time they need to put them on the end not begining... Im starting to fear what will happen in next years ...



Piotr said:


> BTW we successfully aborted deal to buy Caracal helicopters (also known in Poland as karakan – eng. cockroach). Hopefully helicopters for Wojsko Polskie will be built in Poland (either in Świdnik or Mielec).



OMG next moron and Caracals would be build in Łodz like other in Świdnik or Mielec not those companies are Polish ... Both are Sold ... So whats the difrence ? Not like Black Hawks will be made 100% in Poland and AW will not be build 100% in Poland. OR maby we will make a new one with Ukraine like Macierewicz dreamed?. You one of those dreamers like the Mistral for 1 $ ...


----------



## vostok

Piotr said:


> That’s what English propaganda bullhorns like BBC are saying. The fact is England don't even have nuclear triad.


To be precise, only Russia and the United States have nuclear triad. Britain do not even have its own missiles, they use US missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Timur

vostok said:


> To be precise, only Russia and the United States have nuclear triad. Britain do not even have its own missiles, they use US missiles.



maybe you coul add they dont even have their own language they use US language..

they are the same ppl working together.. what do you expect?


----------



## Fledgingwings

They dont need to,as they are one of the super economies in the world.Robbing and looting the world for 200+ years is enough worth of great wealth and resources to make the britian so called the UK.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Piotr

Penguin said:


> No. Meanwhile, are you trying to deny there is debate about Churchill's role i.e. present something as fact when in reality there are different viewpoints on this?



Not a „debate” but desperate attempts to whitewash monster terrorists Churchill.



> You said UK invaded Libya. In reality, a coalition of nations including Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, United Arab Emirates, UK and USA contributed military assets to enforce Resolution 1973.



This is what Sergey Lavrov said about UN Resolution 1973:

_“Today we witness that some NATO actions in Libya are exceeding the framework defined by the UN Security Council. It is already being discussed that UN Resolution 1973 could also be used for ground operations,”_ Lavrov declared.

_“The resolution does not provide for such actions and does not approve them, nor does the UN deal support regime change in Libya,”_ admonished the Russian foreign minister.
Source: https://www.rt.com/news/russia-nato-un-resolution-libya/



> You do know the difference between intervention and invasion?



English and Yankee imperialists like to use nice words like: “humanitarian intervention”, “responsibility to protect”, “democracy”, “human rights” ,.while in fact they care only about power and money. USA and England use depleted uranium in operation they call: “Operation Enduring Freedom” in Afganistan. Depleted uranium is what US “freedom” is all about. You can use term “intervention in Libya”, I will call it invasion of Libya.



> Glad you read it so well and notice the following reference: "The companies listed below are based on the Defense News Top 100 2015." In other words, not by artillerymarketing.com
> *Top 100 for 2016*
> http://people.defensenews.com/top-100/
> Goes back to 2000
> 
> It states:
> 
> Data for the Top 100 list comes from information Defense News solicited from companies, from companies’ annual reports and from Defense News staff research.
> Companies were contacted by Defense News and asked to fill out a survey reporting their total annual revenue and revenue derived from defense, homeland security and other national security contracts.
> Currency conversions for non-US firms were calculated using average market conversion rates over each firm's fiscal year, when available, to mitigate the effects of currency fluctuations.
> Perhaps AVIC declined to participate?




"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Quote by Benjamin Disraeli

Rank from www.artillerymarketing.com or whatever they are called qualifies as third kind of lies.



> * About Us*
> Founded in 1986, Defense News is the authoritative, independent, professional news source for the world's defense decision-makers...



What do you expect them to write in their About Us section? That they are unreliable, dependent and unprofessional ?



> I'm quite aware of Polish losses in WW2. Wouldn't you agree the rise of Hitler primarily had to do with ... well, ... Germans? You do not think Herr Hitler would have come to power anyway (as if he had no backing among the Germany people or from German industry, military and political establishment etc.)? Or would not have started war anyway?



Rise of Hitler primarily had to do with England and USA. England and USA were mostly to blame for World War II


"(...)
The total amount of foreign investments in German industry during 1924-1929 amounted to almost 63 billion gold Marks (30 billion was accounted for by loans), and the payment of reparations — 10 billion Marks. 70% of revenues were provided by bankers from the United States, and most of the banks were from JP Morgan. As a result, in 1929, German industry was in second place in the world, but it was largely in the hands of America's leading financial-industrial groups.

"Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie", the main supplier of the German war machine, financed 45% of the election campaign of Hitler in 1930, and was under the control of Rockefeller "Standard oil". Morgan, through "General Electric", controlled the German radio and electrical industry via AEG and Siemens (up to 1933, 30% of the shares of AEG owned "General Electric") through the Telecom company ITT — 40% of the telephone network in Germany.

In addition, they owned a 30% stake in the aircraft manufacturing company "Focke-Wulf". "General Motors", belonging to the DuPont family, established control over "Opel". Henry Ford controlled 100% of the shares of "Volkswagen". In 1926, with the participation of the Rockefeller Bank "Dillon, Reed & Co." the second largest industrial monopoly in Germany after "I.G Farben" emerged — metallurgical concern "Vereinigte Stahlwerke" (Steel trust) Thyssen, Flick, Wolff, Feglera etc.

American cooperation with the German military-industrial complex was so intense and pervasive that by 1933 the key sectors of German industry and large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Donat Bank etc were under the control of American financial capital.

The political force that was intended to play a crucial role in the Anglo-American plans was being simultaneously prepared. We are talking about the funding of the Nazi party and A. Hitler personally.
(...)"
Source: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/05/hitler-was-financed-by-federal-reserve.html



> Lastly this:
> 
> I have great respect for the Polish military. Not in the last place because my country was liberated largely by the First Canadian Army which included, in addition to Canadian forces, the British I Corps and the 1st Polish Armoured Division (16,000 strong, commanded by Major General Stanisław Maczek) as well as, at various times, American, Belgian, Dutch and Czechoslovak troops.
> 
> A successful outflanking manoeuvre planned and performed by General Maczek allowed the liberation of the city of Breda without any civilian casualties (29 October 1944). The Division spent the winter of 1944-1945 on the south bank of the river Rhine, guarding a sector around Moerdijk, Netherlands. In early 1945, it was transferred to the province of Overijssel and started to push with the Allies along the Dutch-German border, liberating the eastern parts of the provinces of Drenthe and Groningen including the towns of Emmen, Coevorden and Stadskanaal.
> 
> This was after the Polish 1st Independent Parachute Brigade (2400 strong, under Major General Stanislaw Sosabowksi) had already been among the Allied forces taking part in Operation Market Garden in september 1944. In 1945, the Brigade was attached to the Polish 1st Armoured Division and undertook occupation duties in Northern Germany until it was disbanded on 30 June 1947. The majority of its soldiers chose to stay in exile rather than hazard returning to the new Communist Poland.
> 
> In April 1945, the 1st Armoured entered Germany in the area of Emsland. On 6 May, the Division seized the Kriegsmarine naval base in Wilhelmshaven, where General Maczek accepted the capitulation of the fortress, naval base, East Frisian Fleet and more than 10 infantry divisions. There the Division ended the war and, joined by the Polish 1st Independent Parachute Brigade, undertook occupation duties until it was disbanded in 1947; it, together with the many Polish displaced persons in the Western occupied territories, formed a Polish enclave at Haren in Germany, which was for a while known as "Maczków". The majority of its soldiers opted not to return to Poland, which fell under Soviet occupation, preferring instead to remain in exile
> 
> Shortly after the war, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands wanted to award the Parachute Brigade and wrote the government a request. However, the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time, Eelco van Kleffens, opposed the idea. He thought an award for the Poles would upset the relations with the ‘Big Three’ and harm national interests. Nevertheless, more than 61 years after World War II, on 31 May 2006, the Brigade was finally awarded the Military Order of William by Queen Beatrix for its distinguished and outstanding acts of bravery, skill and devotion to duty during Operation Market Garden. Mind you, the military order of William is the highest Dutch military award. Only eleven units have ever been awarded this honor, of which only 2 are non Dutch. The award is now worn by the 6th Airborne Brigade which inherited the battle honours of the Independent Polish Para brigade.
> 
> At the same time that the brigade was honored, and despite British diplomatic pressure, the brigade's commander, Sosabowski, was posthumously awarded the "Bronze Lion". In part this was the result of a Dutch TV documentary depicting the brigade as having played a far more significant role in Market Garden than had hitherto been acknowledged. The Bronze Lion is a high Royal Dutch award, intended for servicemen who have shown extreme bravery and leadership in battle favouring The Netherlands (though in some special cases it can be awarded to Dutch or foreign _civilians _as well). It was first created in 1944 and has since been issued a total of 1210 times.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Armoured_Division_(Poland)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Independent_Parachute_Brigade_(Poland)



General Maczek after the War worked as bartender in a bar owned by his previous subordinate. (Source: https://www.tygodnikprzeglad.pl/przegrani-zwyciezcy/ @bobo6661 to może Ciebie zainteresować)
Once you've served your purpose, you're no longer needed. That’s how things often are in England and not only in England.


And the best:

"During the Second World War the gold reserves of Poland were transferred to Great Britain and Canada. After the war, a bill for over 68 million pounds sterling, covering the equipment and operating costs of the Polish Air Force in Great Britain, was paid from the Polish gold reserves deposited in Canada."

Above is a quote from old version of Wikipedia article about National Bank of Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Bank_of_Poland&oldid=714700215
In current version of Wikipedia article about National Bank of Poland there is nothing about it (censorship ??)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bank_of_Poland

So in other words England stolen our gold. French poet Augustin Louis de Ximénès was right to call England “Perfidious Albion”



Vergennes said:


> Ins't there an ongoing investigation about foul play of M. Berczynski about the non-transparent conditions of the abortion of the Caracal deal ? He claimed was the mandatary of the Minister of Defence and who even boasted to the Gazeta Prawna (about the Smolensk comission) that he finished the Caracal ?
> 
> It's interesting to note that Berczynski has both Polish and American citizenship,that he worked as a Boeing engineer,Boeing who funded his studies according to the Polish press.



According to (source)
"Berczyński zniknął. Gdzie jest? Prawdopodobnie w USA."
Berczyński has disappeared. Where is he? Most probably in the USA.




> The Caracal was chosen as it was the helicopter that met most of the criterias imposed by YOU.



Caracal was chosen by previous government of Platforma Obywatelska (pro EU), now there is government of Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (more pro US)



> Airbus with ToT,was ready to open a local plant to produce the helicopters for the Polish army's needs and international needs. Airbus confirmed that it offered offset contract above the net value of the contract.
> YOU probably forgot that Airbus opened in Lodz a research and development center.



According to information obtained by Radio RMF FM from anonymous source “French proposals were bad” and “France treated Poland as a colony”. According to aforementioned source there were no concrete proposals from Airbus to create 6 thousand jobs in Poland. There was only PowerPoint presentation. Aforementioned source also said that Poland has nothing to worry about in case of a lawsuit because negotiations (between Airbus and Poland) were recorded.
Source: http://kresy.pl/wydarzenia/neokolonialne-negocjacje-ws-caracali/

So it seems that Caracal deal was not good. AFAIK Airbus hasn’t sued Poland. So most probably aforementioned allegations are true. That’s why I think that Caracal deal was bad.

According to Aleksander Kwaśniewski (former President of Poland) France was supposed to get a deal for Caracal helicopters in return for canceling Mistral deal.
If it’s true that means that you shot yourself in foot by canceling Mistral deal and you get nothing in return. IMHO you should blame USA not Poland for that.



> Franco-Polish relations aren't that good since this saga,and have already badly started since the election of our new President.



I support good relations between Poland and France but that does not mean I support bad Caracal deal. Airbus should try harder. BTW it’s very likely that USA had a finger in the pie. USA does not want strong and independent EU.



bobo6661 said:


> Yee but you can't deny the opening slogans like "Polska dla Polakow" and the Slogan on flag "stop islamizacji Polski" ONR flags ... Next time they need to put them on the end not begining... Im starting to fear what will happen in next years ...



“Polska dla Polaków” is not the same as „Polska tylko dla Polaków” nethertheless I agree that they shouldn’t be in the front.



> You one of those dreamers like the Mistral for 1 $ ...



IMO Macierewicz is not stupid. He just wants to weaken France which is major competitor to USA and England in Arms exports. Macierewicz supports USA and England not the EU.



vostok said:


> To be precise, only Russia and the United States have nuclear triad. Britain do not even have its own missiles, they use US missiles.



England is only good in hiding behind US back and chest-thumping. USA is still major power, England is not. Lackeys of the Queen of England believe that England is still a major power because they are constantly exposed to BS from BBC and other English fake news media outlets.


----------



## Penguin

Piotr said:


> Not a „debate” but desperate attempts to whitewash monster terrorists Churchill.


Yes, incredibly desperate  Sorry, you are wrong on this.



Piotr said:


> This is what Sergey Lavrov said about UN Resolution 1973:
> 
> _“Today we witness that some NATO actions in Libya are exceeding the framework defined by the UN Security Council. It is already being discussed that UN Resolution 1973 could also be used for ground operations,”_ Lavrov declared.
> 
> _“The resolution does not provide for such actions and does not approve them, nor does the UN deal support regime change in Libya,”_ admonished the Russian foreign minister.
> Source: https://www.rt.com/news/russia-nato-un-resolution-libya/
> [/quoe]It doesn't matter. You claim UK invaded Libya. Simply isn't the case, no matter what Lavrov said. Where/when/how/how many UK troops landed?
> 
> 
> 
> Piotr said:
> 
> 
> 
> English and Yankee imperialists like to use nice words like: “humanitarian intervention”, “responsibility to protect”, “democracy”, “human rights” ,.while in fact they care only about power and money. USA and England use depleted uranium in operation they call: “Operation Enduring Freedom” in Afganistan. Depleted uranium is what US “freedom” is all about. You can use term “intervention in Libya”, I will call it invasion of Libya.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you are ranting about things we were not discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> Piotr said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Quote by Benjamin Disraeli
> 
> Rank from www.artillerymarketing.com or whatever they are called qualifies as third kind of lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, ignore the valid original source. Ranking has nothing to do with statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> Piotr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect them to write in their About Us section? That they are unreliable, dependent and unprofessional ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the point. It tells you what busines they are in and what other things they publish (that are relatively good sources, certainly compared to e.g. conspiracy theory blogs or russian back agitprop from RT or SputnikNews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piotr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rise of Hitler primarily had to do with England and USA. England and USA were mostly to blame for World War II
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to believe that, feel free. Just shows you know little of history and have learned little from it. Which - considering you are from Poland - is quite shocking, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> Piotr said:
> 
> 
> 
> "(...)
> The total amount of foreign investments in German industry during 1924-1929 amounted to almost 63 billion gold Marks (30 billion was accounted for by loans), and the payment of reparations — 10 billion Marks. 70% of revenues were provided by bankers from the United States, and most of the banks were from JP Morgan. As a result, in 1929, German industry was in second place in the world, but it was largely in the hands of America's leading financial-industrial groups.
> 
> "Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie", the main supplier of the German war machine, financed 45% of the election campaign of Hitler in 1930, and was under the control of Rockefeller "Standard oil". Morgan, through "General Electric", controlled the German radio and electrical industry via AEG and Siemens (up to 1933, 30% of the shares of AEG owned "General Electric") through the Telecom company ITT — 40% of the telephone network in Germany.
> 
> In addition, they owned a 30% stake in the aircraft manufacturing company "Focke-Wulf". "General Motors", belonging to the DuPont family, established control over "Opel". Henry Ford controlled 100% of the shares of "Volkswagen". In 1926, with the participation of the Rockefeller Bank "Dillon, Reed & Co." the second largest industrial monopoly in Germany after "I.G Farben" emerged — metallurgical concern "Vereinigte Stahlwerke" (Steel trust) Thyssen, Flick, Wolff, Feglera etc.
> 
> American cooperation with the German military-industrial complex was so intense and pervasive that by 1933 the key sectors of German industry and large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Donat Bank etc were under the control of American financial capital.
> 
> The political force that was intended to play a crucial role in the Anglo-American plans was being simultaneously prepared. We are talking about the funding of the Nazi party and A. Hitler personally.
> (...)"
> Source: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/05/hitler-was-financed-by-federal-reserve.html
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So what? We do know that prominent European and American industrialists were sponsoring all manner of totalitarian political groups at that time, including Communists and various Nazi groups.

But .. You completely ignore the Germans

In 1928, GM bought 80% of Opel shares and then the balance in 1931, for a total of $33 million. But then the Germans seized Opel in WW2 and GM didn't regain control untill 1948.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=y6ej6MYr6sMC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl#v=onepage&q&f=false
So it went with many companies.

As for Volkswagen, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen#1932.E2.80.931938:_People.27s_Car_project
Sure you are not confused wih Henry Ford II?




Piotr said:


> General Maczek after the War worked as bartender in a bar owned by his previous subordinate. (Source: https://www.tygodnikprzeglad.pl/przegrani-zwyciezcy/ @bobo6661 to może Ciebie zainteresować)
> Once you've served your purpose, you're no longer needed. That’s how things often are in England and not only in England.


Beats getting deported and die under Stalin's Easten Europen puppet regimes.





Piotr said:


> And the best:
> 
> "During the Second World War the gold reserves of Poland were transferred to Great Britain and Canada. After the war, a bill for over 68 million pounds sterling, covering the equipment and operating costs of the Polish Air Force in Great Britain, was paid from the Polish gold reserves deposited in Canada."
> 
> Above is a quote from old version of Wikipedia article about National Bank of Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Bank_of_Poland&oldid=714700215
> In current version of Wikipedia article about National Bank of Poland there is nothing about it (censorship ??)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bank_of_Poland
> 
> So in other words England stolen our gold. French poet Augustin Louis de Ximénès was right to call England “Perfidious Albion”


 Well, there you have it. They stole your gold. They must have financed uncle Adolf therefore.

It seems perfectly justified that there is a bill. Dutch gold went to Canada too. I'm sure we payed the UK some money for letting our queen and government stay in the UK and run a bit of military there.


----------



## Piotr

Penguin said:


> Yes, incredibly desperate  Sorry, you are wrong on this.
> 
> So what? We do know that prominent European and American industrialists were sponsoring all manner of totalitarian political groups at that time, including Communists and various Nazi groups.



English attack dog Hitler killed millions of people and you are asking "So what?"



> You completely ignore the Germans



Germans are also to blame. But England was helping Hitler:




@1:50 Hitler and his ally PM of the UK Chamberlain.

There is no much difference between England and Nazi Germany.



> Beats getting deported and die under Stalin's Easten Europen puppet regimes.



Beats getting killed in English death camps in Kenya.




> It seems perfectly justified that there is a bill.



This is English gratitude. We were defending them and they stolen our gold. With allies like England you don't need enemies.



Fledgingwings said:


> They dont need to,as they are one of the super economies in the world.Robbing and looting the world for 200+ years is enough worth of great wealth and resources to make the britian so called the UK.



I'm sure Pakistan, India and other victims of England will sooner or later force England to return what England looted. England has to pay compensations. It will make England even less relevant. England will not only cease to me major power. England will also cease to be regional power.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mike2000 is back

EgyptianAmerican said:


> *"Some"*
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a "self-hating" Egyptian, I love my country and my homeland. I have no problem with acknowledging our dark past. It is better to confront and acknowledge what horrible things our ancestors did in the past and move on.
> 
> _*"The Arab trade of Zanj (Bantu) slaves in Southeast Africa is one of the oldest slave trades, predating the European transatlantic slave trade by 700 years."*_
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
> 
> Nonetheless Britain is a power to be feared and respected. No matter how small their army looks compared to China or Russia.


That dude is a Russian living in Poland. So chill, his views are expected. 
Plus they(Russians) hate muslims more than anything western powers can ever do.lol



Piotr said:


> Not a „debate” but desperate attempts to whitewash monster terrorists Churchill.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what Sergey Lavrov said about UN Resolution 1973:
> 
> _“Today we witness that some NATO actions in Libya are exceeding the framework defined by the UN Security Council. It is already being discussed that UN Resolution 1973 could also be used for ground operations,”_ Lavrov declared.
> 
> _“The resolution does not provide for such actions and does not approve them, nor does the UN deal support regime change in Libya,”_ admonished the Russian foreign minister.
> Source: https://www.rt.com/news/russia-nato-un-resolution-libya/
> 
> 
> 
> English and Yankee imperialists like to use nice words like: “humanitarian intervention”, “responsibility to protect”, “democracy”, “human rights” ,.while in fact they care only about power and money. USA and England use depleted uranium in operation they call: “Operation Enduring Freedom” in Afganistan. Depleted uranium is what US “freedom” is all about. You can use term “intervention in Libya”, I will call it invasion of Libya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Quote by Benjamin Disraeli
> 
> Rank from www.artillerymarketing.com or whatever they are called qualifies as third kind of lies.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect them to write in their About Us section? That they are unreliable, dependent and unprofessional ?
> 
> 
> 
> Rise of Hitler primarily had to do with England and USA. England and USA were mostly to blame for World War II
> 
> 
> "(...)
> The total amount of foreign investments in German industry during 1924-1929 amounted to almost 63 billion gold Marks (30 billion was accounted for by loans), and the payment of reparations — 10 billion Marks. 70% of revenues were provided by bankers from the United States, and most of the banks were from JP Morgan. As a result, in 1929, German industry was in second place in the world, but it was largely in the hands of America's leading financial-industrial groups.
> 
> "Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie", the main supplier of the German war machine, financed 45% of the election campaign of Hitler in 1930, and was under the control of Rockefeller "Standard oil". Morgan, through "General Electric", controlled the German radio and electrical industry via AEG and Siemens (up to 1933, 30% of the shares of AEG owned "General Electric") through the Telecom company ITT — 40% of the telephone network in Germany.
> 
> In addition, they owned a 30% stake in the aircraft manufacturing company "Focke-Wulf". "General Motors", belonging to the DuPont family, established control over "Opel". Henry Ford controlled 100% of the shares of "Volkswagen". In 1926, with the participation of the Rockefeller Bank "Dillon, Reed & Co." the second largest industrial monopoly in Germany after "I.G Farben" emerged — metallurgical concern "Vereinigte Stahlwerke" (Steel trust) Thyssen, Flick, Wolff, Feglera etc.
> 
> American cooperation with the German military-industrial complex was so intense and pervasive that by 1933 the key sectors of German industry and large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Donat Bank etc were under the control of American financial capital.
> 
> The political force that was intended to play a crucial role in the Anglo-American plans was being simultaneously prepared. We are talking about the funding of the Nazi party and A. Hitler personally.
> (...)"
> Source: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/05/hitler-was-financed-by-federal-reserve.html
> 
> 
> 
> General Maczek after the War worked as bartender in a bar owned by his previous subordinate. (Source: https://www.tygodnikprzeglad.pl/przegrani-zwyciezcy/ @bobo6661 to może Ciebie zainteresować)
> Once you've served your purpose, you're no longer needed. That’s how things often are in England and not only in England.
> 
> 
> And the best:
> 
> "During the Second World War the gold reserves of Poland were transferred to Great Britain and Canada. After the war, a bill for over 68 million pounds sterling, covering the equipment and operating costs of the Polish Air Force in Great Britain, was paid from the Polish gold reserves deposited in Canada."
> 
> Above is a quote from old version of Wikipedia article about National Bank of Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Bank_of_Poland&oldid=714700215
> In current version of Wikipedia article about National Bank of Poland there is nothing about it (censorship ??)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bank_of_Poland
> 
> So in other words England stolen our gold. French poet Augustin Louis de Ximénès was right to call England “Perfidious Albion”
> 
> 
> 
> According to (source)
> "Berczyński zniknął. Gdzie jest? Prawdopodobnie w USA."
> Berczyński has disappeared. Where is he? Most probably in the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caracal was chosen by previous government of Platforma Obywatelska (pro EU), now there is government of Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (more pro US)
> 
> 
> 
> According to information obtained by Radio RMF FM from anonymous source “French proposals were bad” and “France treated Poland as a colony”. According to aforementioned source there were no concrete proposals from Airbus to create 6 thousand jobs in Poland. There was only PowerPoint presentation. Aforementioned source also said that Poland has nothing to worry about in case of a lawsuit because negotiations (between Airbus and Poland) were recorded.
> Source: http://kresy.pl/wydarzenia/neokolonialne-negocjacje-ws-caracali/
> 
> So it seems that Caracal deal was not good. AFAIK Airbus hasn’t sued Poland. So most probably aforementioned allegations are true. That’s why I think that Caracal deal was bad.
> 
> According to Aleksander Kwaśniewski (former President of Poland) France was supposed to get a deal for Caracal helicopters in return for canceling Mistral deal.
> If it’s true that means that you shot yourself in foot by canceling Mistral deal and you get nothing in return. IMHO you should blame USA not Poland for that.
> 
> 
> 
> I support good relations between Poland and France but that does not mean I support bad Caracal deal. Airbus should try harder. BTW it’s very likely that USA had a finger in the pie. USA does not want strong and independent EU.
> 
> 
> 
> “Polska dla Polaków” is not the same as „Polska tylko dla Polaków” nethertheless I agree that they shouldn’t be in the front.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO Macierewicz is not stupid. He just wants to weaken France which is major competitor to USA and England in Arms exports. Macierewicz supports USA and England not the EU.
> 
> 
> 
> England is only good in hiding behind US back and chest-thumping. USA is still major power, England is not. Lackeys of the Queen of England believe that England is still a major power because they are constantly exposed to BS from BBC and other English fake news media outlets.


Why don't you tell your country Russia to try and invade Britain and let's see how it goes for you then? 
Britain still has the world's second largest defence industry even today. We can produce almost any strategic weapons needed for a war if needed. The fact that we have a small army/personnel is because we have no real threats and we have to justify any high amount of money we spend on our military to our public(we are democracy unlike authoritative Russia were Put in can make any law as he pleases unchallenged) and prioritise spending on social programs(education,health etc). so makes no sense to keep such a large army(well to our public and even some politicians), it's a political decision not a lack of capability dude. It's the same reason we had a far smaller army prior to WWI and even WWII compared to even other European powers , but once the war started we quickly recuruted and mobilised hundreds of thousands of soldiers and churned out more military equipment than ever before. 
We have everything(industrial,technological, military capabilities) to ward off ANY WORLD POWER in case of a full scale war, except the U.S. Our army is very skilled, and experienced fighting wars continuously for over a century as well. Only a fool will think otherwise. Any country is welcome to try though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bobo6661

Piotr said:


> “Polska dla Polaków” is not the same as „Polska tylko dla Polaków” nethertheless



......... thats the same ...... 



Piotr said:


> IMO Macierewicz is not stupid. He just wants to weaken France which is major competitor to USA and England in Arms exports. Macierewicz supports USA and England not the EU.



He is stupid without competition we will buy more expensive stuff... Not like we need EU ... 



Piotr said:


> I support good relations between Poland and France but that does not mean I support bad Caracal deal. Airbus should try harder. BTW it’s very likely that USA had a finger in the pie. USA does not want strong and independent EU.



The others should try harder to thats why they lost with Airbus ... 
Offers submitted by WSK PZL Świdnik S.A and consortium Sikorsky International Operations Incorporation, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, together with Polish Aircraft Sp. Z. O. Z. Mielec did not meet the formal and technical requirements, among others. The delivery date, helicopter equipment in the system, there is no inaccuracies or false. The French won the tender they had offered for better conditions, despite the fact that the pilot was in a lost position. It is worth the place of senseless speculation and illogical arguments that appear to be satisfying with a well-made choice.
http://www.nowastrategia.org.pl/ec-725-caracal-duzo-szumu-malo-faktow/
http://www.armia24.pl/analizy-felietony-2/2691-wybor-h225m-caracal-dla-polskiej-armii-czy-trafnie


----------



## Penguin

Piotr said:


> English attack dog Hitler killed millions of people and you are asking "So what?"


Yep. Read it and weep.



Piotr said:


> Germans are also to blame. But England was helping Hitler:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @1:50 Hitler and his ally PM of the UK Chamberlain.


All sorts of places were helping Hitler. And Hitler was helping all sorts of others (see e.g. Spain). Likewise uncle Joe.



Piotr said:


> There is no much difference between England and Nazi Germany.


Says you. Just that Poland didn't get occupied by UK (_look up England pls_) and that doesn't seem to bother you. Perhaps you are more in uncle Joe's camp?





Location of England (dark green) in the United Kingdom (green) in Europe (grey)



Piotr said:


> Beats getting killed in English death camps in Kenya.


Or in German death camps in Namibia, under rule of one mister Goring (yes, that's Goring sr.). What is your point?

All colonial nations at some point committed attrocities. It is inherent in colonization. Meanwhile, lets not pretend no attrocities were committed among European peoples earlier on in their history. Likewise all great conquests in history. It proves nothing nor does it change anything nor does it excuse anything in relation to the rise to power of Hitler in Germany, or how the Germans dealt with Hitler.



Piotr said:


> This is English gratitude. We were defending them and they stolen our gold. With allies like England you don't need enemies.


Hahaha, right. Poland was defending the UK during WW2. Well, so was the Netherlands and many other nations from occupied countries (including also e.g. France, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Czechoslovakia) that were taken in by the UK / Great Britain. Perhaps you didn't know, but the UK in turn had to pay the US for all the stuff 'we' as free Dutch and free Poles got (=bought) from the British. Ultimately, lend-lease cost GB its global empire (it even traded some of its overseas bases to the US so as to finance its rearmament after Dunkirk).

And, clearly, the Poles got much MUCH better treatment from the USSR, right? I mean, how again did that secret clause in the non-aggression (Molotov-Ribbentrop) pact work out for the Poles? What was that again with the uprising in Warsaw in 1944? And what happened again to those that returned from UK to Soviet occupied Poland post WW2?

Nah, I would too keep complaining about the UK if I were you.



Piotr said:


> I'm sure Pakistan, India and other victims of England will sooner or later force England to return what England looted. England has to pay compensations. It will make England even less relevant. England will not only cease to me major power. England will also cease to be regional power.


I think you have a problem with 'England'. Interesting though that you have no apparent problem with the US and even not with CCCP/Mothr Russia.

Besides, don't forget to deduct:




http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/uk-foreign-aid-budget_uk_57d953afe4b00f741735477f
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Official_Development_Assistance_received
http://www.theweek.co.uk/63394/how-much-does-the-uk-spend-on-foreign-aid
Let's count those anuals up, say, from just after WW2 untill now.

Pakistan
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/pakistan
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/pakistan#tab-donors
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-handouts-despite-having-space-programme.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid_to_Pakistan
https://www.cgdev.org/page/aid-pakistan-numbers

India
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/india
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/india#tab-donors
https://www.theguardian.com/global-...ays-department-international-development-dfid
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4407935?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Kenya
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/kenya/
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/kenya/#tab-donors

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Piotr

mike2000 is back said:


> That dude is a Russian living in Poland. So chill, his views are expected.



I’m Polish.



> Plus they(Russians) hate muslims more than anything western powers can ever do.lol



England hate Muslims.
England uses depleted uranium against Muslims in Afganistan.
England is contaminating Afganistan to kill Muslims. You want to kill Afghans like you killed Natives in North America and Australia. England is commiting another holocaust.



> Britain still has the world's second largest defence industry even today. We can produce almost any strategic weapons needed for a war if needed.



England can’t even produce 5th gen. fighter jet and you are saying that “Britain still has the world’s second largest defence industry”. You can’t produce strategic bombers, you don’t have land based nuclear weapons. You are only good in chest-thumping.



> The fact that we have a small army/personnel is because we have no real threats ...



You forget about Malvinas and Gibraltar English colonists (illiegal aliens) occupy. You do have real threats. Argentina and Spain will sooner or later kick you out of Malvinas and Gibraltar.



> ... and we have to justify any high amount of money we spend on our military to our public(we are democracy





The so called “UK” is not a democracy. The so called “UK” is a kingdom run by unelected Nazi Queen of England.



> ... and prioritise spending on social programs(education,health etc).



Tell this to more than 100000 homeless children in the so called “UK”



bobo6661 said:


> ......... thats the same ......



Prof. Dudek explained that slogan “Polska dla Polaków” does not exclude enyone.



> *Prof. Dudek: hasło "Polska dla Polaków" nikogo nie wyklucza*
> 2015-11-11, 20:21
> Oznacza jedynie, że w tym państwie gospodarzem jest naród polski, co nie musi oznaczać wykluczania kogokolwiek. Oburzałoby mnie wykluczające wszystkich innych hasło ”Polska tylko dla Polaków” - powiedział w programie Gość Wydarzeń w Polsat News prof. Antoni Dudek, politolog i historyk.
> Profesor ocenił w ten sposób hasło tegorocznego marszu narodowców "Polska dla Polaków. Polacy dla Polski".
> 
> Gość Polsat News przypomniał ostre spory o wizję kraju polityków II Rzeczpospolitej. - Dmowski, Piłsudski, Witos, oni się spierali, ale wszyscy mieli na myśli dobro Polski. Podobnie będzie z dzisiejszymi przywódcami większych obozów politycznych w Polsce. Musimy nabrać dystansu, aby ocenić ich zasługi, a także porażki - powiedział prof. Dudek.
> 
> - Jeśli chodzi o bohaterów II Rzeczpospolitej, którzy byli ze sobą w ostrym konflikcie, to wszyscy oni są uznawani za bohaterów narodowych - ocenił profesor, dodając, że nie zauważa ostrego ataku na żadną z postaci. - Oczywiście są ludzie, którzy bardzo nie lubią Dmowskiego i całej tradycji narodowej demokracji. Nieco mniej jest tych, którzy krytycznie mówią o Piłsudskim, ale i ich znajdziemy. Najmniejsze emocje budzi Witos - zauważył.
> 
> Profesor przypomniał, że język polityki w czasach II Rzeczpospolitej był bardziej brutalny niż dzisiaj. - Nie było wtedy telewizji, radio raczkowało, gazety czytali nieliczni. W efekcie ten brutalny język nie przedostawał się do świadomości masowego odbiorcy i nie oddziaływał na niego. A dzisiaj otwieramy telewizor i widzimy krzyczących na siebie polityków. Te emocje się na nas przenoszą i zbyt często im ulegamy - powiedział prof. Dudek.
> 
> - W tej chwili mamy sytuację, w której jeden obóz polityczny zdobył wszystko i to on będzie nadawał ton polskiemu życiu publicznemu. Albo będzie eskalował język, z którym mieliśmy do czynienia, albo będzie go łagodził. Czas pokaże - dodał.
> 
> *"Spokojne obchody to dobry znak" *
> 
> Profesor ocenił również przebieg obchodów Dnia Niepodległości. Próba stworzenia jednego marszu nie została w tym roku podjęta. - To jest trudne, dlatego że zaczęli narodowcy, w opozycji dla tego prezydent Komorowski próbował zainicjować Marsz dla Niepodległej. Duda wycofał się z tego marszu i pozostaje pytanie, co będzie z marszem niepodległości - zastanawiał się gość Polsat News.
> 
> Zdaniem profesora, spokojny przebieg marszu niepodległości to dobry znak na przyszłość. - To, że dzisiaj nie mieliśmy awantur, które obserwowaliśmy w minionych latach, jest krokiem w dobrym kierunku - zauważył. - Być może uda się nakłonić organizatorów do zrezygnowania z niektórych radykalnych haseł i wtedy ten marsz niepodległości może stać się tym głównym marszem, w którym także prezydent i władze Rzeczpospolitej wezmą udział - ocenił prof. Dudek.


Source: http://www.polsatnews.pl/wiadomosc/...haslo-polska-dla-polakow-nikogo-nie-wyklucza/

Ja nie popieram takich haseł, ale myslę, że za takimi hasłami nie zawsze są złe intencje (dużo zależy od kontekstu w jakim takie hasła padają)
I don't support such slogans, but I don't think that they are offensive.



> He is stupid without competition we will buy more expensive stuff...



Or maybe we won’t buy at all 



> Not like we need EU ...



The EU needs us more than we need the EU.
http://tomaszcukiernik.pl/artykuly/teksty-o-unii-europejskiej/prawda-i-falsz-o-dotacjach-z-ue/



> The others should try harder to thats why they lost with Airbus ...
> Offers submitted by WSK PZL Świdnik S.A and consortium Sikorsky International Operations Incorporation, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, together with Polish Aircraft Sp. Z. O. Z. Mielec did not meet the formal and technical requirements, among others.



According to Platforma Obywatelska. 



> The delivery date, helicopter equipment in the system, there is no inaccuracies or false. The French won the tender they had offered for better conditions, despite the fact that the pilot was in a lost position. It is worth the place of senseless speculation and illogical arguments that appear to be satisfying with a well-made choice.
> http://www.nowastrategia.org.pl/ec-725-caracal-duzo-szumu-malo-faktow/
> http://www.armia24.pl/analizy-felietony-2/2691-wybor-h225m-caracal-dla-polskiej-armii-czy-trafnie



IMO all contenders should try harder.


----------



## -SINAN-

Piotr said:


> I’m Polish.
> 
> 
> 
> England hate Muslims.
> England uses depleted uranium against Muslims in Afganistan.
> England is contaminating Afganistan to kill Muslims. You want to kill Afghans like you killed Natives in North America and Australia. England is commiting another holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> England can’t even produce 5th gen. fighter jet and you are saying that “Britain still has the world’s second largest defence industry”. You can’t produce strategic bombers, you don’t have land based nuclear weapons. You are only good in chest-thumping.
> 
> 
> 
> You forget about Malvinas and Gibraltar English colonists (illiegal aliens) occupy. You do have real threats. Argentina and Spain will sooner or later kick you out of Malvinas and Gibraltar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The so called “UK” is not a democracy. The so called “UK” is a kingdom run by unelected Nazi Queen of England.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell this to more than 100000 homeless children in the so called “UK”
> 
> 
> 
> Prof. Dudek explained that slogan “Polska dla Polaków” does not exclude enyone.
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.polsatnews.pl/wiadomosc/...haslo-polska-dla-polakow-nikogo-nie-wyklucza/
> 
> Ja nie popieram takich haseł, ale myslę, że za takimi hasłami nie zawsze są złe intencje (dużo zależy od kontekstu w jakim takie hasła padają)
> I don't support such slogans, but I don't think that they are offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe we won’t buy at all
> 
> 
> 
> The EU needs us more than we need the EU.
> http://tomaszcukiernik.pl/artykuly/teksty-o-unii-europejskiej/prawda-i-falsz-o-dotacjach-z-ue/
> 
> 
> 
> According to Platforma Obywatelska.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO all contenders should try harder.


Dude what's the obsession with England ? Are you a Russia fan ?


----------



## KediKesenFare3

Sinan said:


> Dude what's the obsession with England ? Are you a Russia fan ?



Just ask ordinary English citizens for their opinion about Polish people and you'll understand why he's so special towards England.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Army research

KediKesenFare said:


> Just ask ordinary English citizens for their opinion about Polish people and you'll understand why he's so special towards England.


Yup, I'm from Britain and all I can say is , they're like the Afghan refugees of Pakistan(this is not my personal view I have many polski friends, this is the general view of your average white man , not me )

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Timur said:


> maybe you coul add they dont even have their own language they use US language..


Oh, the Brits now speak Spanish?


----------



## bobo6661

Piotr said:


> Prof. Dudek explained that slogan “Polska dla Polaków” does not exclude enyone.



Ehhh yee everyone got its explanation but if we start to ignore such slogans there is big chance it will get worse and when i see ONR and "Polska dla Polaków" ... There is nothing to explain. 



Piotr said:


> Or maybe we won’t buy at all



I would not be surprised, looking on his recent fantasies about railguns/lasers etc.



Piotr said:


> The EU needs us more than we need the EU.



EU is not just subsidy... I watched one movie with this guy he was not very convincing.



Piotr said:


> According to Platforma Obywatelska.



According to PIS ... PIS did not show nothing that would tell us it was a wrong choice... The problem was offset and no one is showing us anything hiding behind state secret... 



Piotr said:


> IMO all contenders should try harder.



The problem was Swidnik and Mielec didnt so they lost ... and i think the problem got more to do with PIS 500+ and the Schools reform ...


----------



## Piotr

Sinan said:


> Dude what's the obsession with England ? Are you a Russia fan ?



I’m fed up with Poland-bashing coming from BBC and other English fake news media outlets. England supported Hitler, and now BBC and other goons use term “Polish concentration camps” (source).

Yes I am a Russia fan. But first and foremost I’m a multi-polar world order fan. That’s why I’m also a fan of China, Pakistan and other independent countries.




bobo6661 said:


> Ehhh yee everyone got its explanation but if we start to ignore such slogans there is big chance it will get worse and when i see ONR and "Polska dla Polaków" ... There is nothing to explain.



There are haters in every country including Poland. While we should not ignore xenophobia, neither should we overestimate it. Let’s not forget that there are about half a million emigrants from Ukraine in Poland. And let’s not forget about Muslim Tatar Minority living peacefully in Poland for hundreds of years.



> According to PIS ... PIS did not show nothing that would tell us it was a wrong choice... The problem was offset and no one is showing us anything hiding behind state secret...



Airbus hasn’t sued us for cancelation of Caracal deal so maybe their offer was not as good as they claim.



> The problem was Swidnik and Mielec didnt so they lost ... and i think the problem got more to do with PIS 500+ and the Schools reform ...



It’s possible that Caracal deal was canceled because of lack of money. It’s also possible that Caracal deal was canceled because Mielec is located in Podkarpacie (PiS stronghold), Świdnik in Lubelszczyzna (another PiS stronghold) and Łódź is more pro Platforma Obywatelska. Nethertheless Caracal deal has been canceled so IMO there should be a new tender. And since neither Mielec, nor Świdnik nor Airbus gave us good conditions IMO we should also seek other alternatives (like Z-20 or Z-18 from China or Mi-171A2 from Russia). I know that this won’t happen as long as Macierewicz is “Minister of War”.

And going back to the topic. Supapowa England:




England stronk!!! 

What a pity I can’t insert flag of England (I mean sth like  but with flag of England)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vergennes

Piotr said:


> I’m fed up with Poland-bashing coming from BBC and other English fake news media outlets. England supported Hitler, and now BBC and other goons use term “Polish concentration camps” (source).
> 
> Yes I am a Russia fan. But first and foremost I’m a multi-polar world order fan. That’s why I’m also a fan of China, Pakistan and other independent countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are haters in every country including Poland. While we should not ignore xenophobia, neither should we overestimate it. Let’s not forget that there are about half a million emigrants from Ukraine in Poland. And let’s not forget about Muslim Tatar Minority living peacefully in Poland for hundreds of years.
> 
> 
> 
> Airbus hasn’t sued us for cancelation of Caracal deal so maybe their offer was not as good as they claim.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s possible that Caracal deal was canceled because of lack of money. It’s also possible that Caracal deal was canceled because Mielec is located in Podkarpacie (PiS stronghold), Świdnik in Lubelszczyzna (another PiS stronghold) and Łódź is more pro Platforma Obywatelska. Nethertheless Caracal deal has been canceled so IMO there should be a new tender. And since neither Mielec, nor Świdnik nor Airbus gave us good conditions IMO we should also seek other alternatives (like Z-20 or Z-18 from China or Mi-171A2 from Russia). I know that this won’t happen as long as Macierewicz is “Minister of War”.
> 
> And going back to the topic. Supapowa England:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> England stronk!!!
> 
> What a pity I can’t insert flag of England (I mean sth like  but with flag of England)



The nation and army you are making fun of is among the first contributor to the NATO enhanced forward presence and reassurance mission..... and is fairly commited to the protection of the Baltic states and Poland. In case something ever happens to Poland,they'll be on the frontline protecting you fighting alongside Polish soldiers.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
5


----------



## waz

Piotr said:


> And going back to the topic. Supapowa England:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> England stronk!!!
> 
> What a pity I can’t insert flag of England (I mean sth like  but with flag of England)



I take it you are a firm believer that every drill should go smoothly, or troops should't be stretched?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani E

waz said:


> I take it you are a firm believer that every drill should go smoothly, or troops should't be stretched?



Because a random video of guys untrained (these guys are army) in marine landings practicing proves that the U.K military is not a capable force. 

Logic??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Piotr

Vergennes said:


> The nation and army you are making fun of is among the first contributor to the NATO enhanced forward presence and reassurance mission..... and is fairly commited to the protection of the Baltic states and Poland. In case something ever happens to Poland,they'll be on the frontline protecting you fighting alongside Polish soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 399625



Like they “protected” us in September 1939 when Hitler attacked us. Bear in mind that Polish-British common defence pact was signed on 25 August 1939. Hitler could had been easily defeated by us together with England and France, but all England did to help us was dropping leaflets. England founded Hitler and simply wanted Hitler to defeat us. With “ally” like England we don’t need enemies. IMO all those “enhanced forward presence” as you called it has more to do with extorting more money from Poland (and some other European countries as well) by US military industry than with protecting us. Trump has already said he wants more money for US military industry.



waz said:


> I take it you are a firm believer that every drill should go smoothly, or troops should't be stretched?



I take it you are a firm believer that troops from supapowa England should be stuck in mud.

More from English supapowa. English Sea Vixen:


----------



## NoOne'sBoy

I understand this dude's obsession with England. It's like my obsession with ****. I know it's wrong but once I turn on the computer, boy it's all a river of chewing gum.


----------



## Piotr

NoOne'sBoy said:


> I understand this dude's obsession with England. It's like my obsession with ****. I know it's wrong but once I turn on the computer, boy it's all a river of chewing gum.



I'm against English terrorists like Tony Blair or Teresa May who are using depleted uranium against civilians in Afganistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

