|
|
Post by baldrick on Nov 14, 2024 22:08:41 GMT
The base is staying though, and how much did we actually utilise it? It's mainly a US asset for long range aircraft and pre positioned shipping. We don't have much with range and I'd suggest our bases in Mina Salman, Duqm, Sembawang, Al Udeid, and Al Minhad are more used. Plus, when Aukus is up and running in a few years, access to Western Australia. We use it regularly as do many other allied countries. We let the US manage it. The amount of usage isn't really the factor anyway. Labour are trying to give it back as some sort of hero apology, when it us just daft and dangerous. The Americans will be scratching their heads and will probably circumnavigate our plan with one of their own. It's a very important outpost for them. The agreement was done under the Conservatives, Biden was on board, the bases remain for us to use. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,437
|
Post by oldie on Nov 14, 2024 22:11:26 GMT
So says the entitled some in the West. Per norm, are you completely oblivious of how that reads? It's not good. It happened, it's not our fault today. Handing it back does not right any previous wrong and is a very bad move for global security. What evidence can you provide that proves it's a bad move for global security? |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Nov 14, 2024 22:14:22 GMT
We use it regularly as do many other allied countries. We let the US manage it. The amount of usage isn't really the factor anyway. Labour are trying to give it back as some sort of hero apology, when it us just daft and dangerous. The Americans will be scratching their heads and will probably circumnavigate our plan with one of their own. It's a very important outpost for them. The agreement was done under the Conservatives, Biden was on board, the bases remain for us to use. Base. This has been rumbling on for decades. Labour have rushed into an agreement without, it appears, consulting properly. Otherwise, why the noise from Farage? |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Nov 14, 2024 22:20:06 GMT
It's not good. It happened, it's not our fault today. Handing it back does not right any previous wrong and is a very bad move for global security. What evidence can you provide that proves it's a bad move for global security? Strategic outpost with UK sovereignty, managed by ally superpower gets handed to Mauritius who are friends with non allies. It's not evidence you need, it's common sense but your motive for such questions isn't about that is it? The island and surrounding islets are uninhabitable. So what's the point? |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,437
|
Post by oldie on Nov 14, 2024 22:25:49 GMT
What evidence can you provide that proves it's a bad move for global security? Strategic outpost with UK sovereignty, managed by ally superpower gets handed to Mauritius who are friends with non allies. It's not evidence you need, it's common sense but your motive for such questions isn't about that is it? The island and surrounding islets are uninhabitable. So what's the point? So you have zero evidence other than what the vested interests tell you, which slavishly repeat in the public domain, is that right? |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,942 
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Nov 14, 2024 22:27:12 GMT
The agreement was done under the Conservatives, Biden was on board, the bases remain for us to use. Base. This has been rumbling on for decades. Labour have rushed into an agreement without, it appears, consulting properly. Otherwise, why the noise from Farage? The agreement was all but signed under the Tories. Labour haven't rushed into it. Farage asked the question so he could ask the PM to applaud DT winning. It was all about his mate, nothing to do with the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Nov 14, 2024 22:29:42 GMT
Strategic outpost with UK sovereignty, managed by ally superpower gets handed to Mauritius who are friends with non allies. It's not evidence you need, it's common sense but your motive for such questions isn't about that is it? The island and surrounding islets are uninhabitable. So what's the point? So you have zero evidence other than what the vested interests tell you, which slavishly repeat in the public domain, is that right? Like I said, it's not evidence you need. If you are unable to understand how strategic outposts work, perhaps you should avoid that part of the topic. The agreement is pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Nov 14, 2024 22:32:05 GMT
Base. This has been rumbling on for decades. Labour have rushed into an agreement without, it appears, consulting properly. Otherwise, why the noise from Farage? The agreement was all but signed under the Tories. Labour haven't rushed into it. Farage asked the question so he could ask the PM to applaud DT winning. It was all about his mate, nothing to do with the UK. For clarity. If the tories had done this, it would still be stupid. It's not a tory v labour thing. Just that Labour have rushed into it, which they have because they'd been in office what, a few weeks and pushed it through! Hardly low hanging fruit. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,437
|
Post by oldie on Nov 14, 2024 22:39:42 GMT
So you have zero evidence other than what the vested interests tell you, which slavishly repeat in the public domain, is that right? Like I said, it's not evidence you need. If you are unable to understand how strategic outposts work, perhaps you should avoid that part of the topic. The agreement is pointless. Pointing out that you are repeating, without question, what you are told, is not an indicator of my understanding of how our military strategy works. That you use the term "strategic outposts", itself such a Victorian term, is indicative. |
|
