Britain to permanently deploy warships in Asian waters - Good Luck!!! It's going to be very very expensive, but of course, the British had raided the rest of the world of their gold, diamonds, treasures... for hundreds of years...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/britain-to-permanently-deploy-warships-in-asian-waters/vi-AAMmA3d?ocid=msedgntp

It is expensive to permanently deploy in Asian waters. The long arduous
journeys will tire them. However, our guess is they might make transit
parking of their ships in Singapore for refuel and interim rest point before
commencing their trips in Asian waters, with interval stops along all ports
of calls at those Asian countries. At each port of call, they will delight
themselves for sex.

Looking at it, there was a tender notice in the Singapore newspapers some
months ago by the British defence ministry requesting bids for the building
of a refuel depot in Singapore. It seems they have been given the licence to
set up a fuel depot to supply fuel for their navy.

From the look of it, their change of crews will probably fly in from UK.
Their long rest point will either be their 5 eyes countries like Australia
or New Zealand. These two buddy countries will be used for their long
enjoyable rendezvous recreation with their white women and white men and
boozy buddies.

"Rusty Wyse" wrote in message
news:30e98abf-9d78-4ab3-a7af-a77e5b71f1a4n@googlegroups.com...

Britain to permanently deploy warships in Asian waters - Good Luck!!! It's
going to be very very expensive, but of course, the British had raided the
rest of the world of their gold, diamonds, treasures... for hundreds of
years...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/britain-to-permanently-deploy-warships-in-asian-waters/vi-AAMmA3d?ocid=msedgntp

"sukiki" wrote in message news:sd902j$hpv$1@dont-email.me...
>
> It is expensive to permanently deploy in Asian waters.

That's what overseas bases are for, sockpuppet.

Too bad your "islands" in the South China Sea are becoming more
trouble than they're worth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAN_YJdpJoM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUoTtn3ULY4

On 22/07/21 5:22 am, Byker wrote:
> "sukiki"  wrote in message news:sd902j$hpv$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> It is expensive to permanently deploy in Asian waters.
>
> That's what overseas bases are for, sockpuppet.
>
> Too bad your "islands" in the South China Sea are becoming more trouble
> than they're worth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAN_YJdpJoM
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUoTtn3ULY4

I wonder if the poster didn't connect with the fact that his beloved
'empire' has the same restrictions and costs...
Now, if the Chinese, Russians and North Koreans played nice no-one would
be subjected to these costs

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 3:59:14 PM UTC-4, George Black wrote:
> On 22/07/21 5:22 am, Byker wrote:
> > "sukiki" wrote in message news:sd902j$hpv$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>
> >> It is expensive to permanently deploy in Asian waters.
> >
> > That's what overseas bases are for, sockpuppet.
> >
> > Too bad your "islands" in the South China Sea are becoming more trouble
> > than they're worth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAN_YJdpJoM
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUoTtn3ULY4
> I wonder if the poster didn't connect with the fact that his beloved
> 'empire' has the same restrictions and costs...
> Now, if the Chinese, Russians and North Koreans played nice no-one would
> be subjected to these costs

I wonder if the poster noticed that the so called liberal internationalism is historically
speaking, lose-lose. The conviction during the 19th and the 20th century was that it was
capable of reform. Reality seems to conclude otherwise. How else would European
neighbors involved themselves in suicidal wars. Not once, but twice.

Did they fought because the Chinese and Koreans were not playing nice too?
I am sure the Brits are capable of rational thinking. But from time to time, they let their
sanctimonious side taking over.

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:22:18 AM UTC-7, Byker wrote:
> "sukiki" wrote in message news:sd902j$hpv$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> > It is expensive to permanently deploy in Asian waters.
> That's what overseas bases are for, sockpuppet.
>
> Too bad your "islands" in the South China Sea are becoming more
> trouble than they're worth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAN_YJdpJoM

As I have been saying...
The U.S. under-estimated China's military and over-estimated it's own...
Examples have been all over since the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the wars in the Middle East,...
And remember, the 8,000 miles of the Pacific Ocean against today's missiles...
And concerning those artificial islands, it's a distraction to the U.S. and very expensive to destroy...
The U.S. can not afford a war in the South China Sea...

>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUoTtn3ULY4

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 12:59:14 PM UTC-7, George Black wrote:
> On 22/07/21 5:22 am, Byker wrote:
> > "sukiki" wrote in message news:sd902j$hpv$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>
> >> It is expensive to permanently deploy in Asian waters.
> >
> > That's what overseas bases are for, sockpuppet.
> >
> > Too bad your "islands" in the South China Sea are becoming more trouble
> > than they're worth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAN_YJdpJoM
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUoTtn3ULY4
> I wonder if the poster didn't connect with the fact that his beloved
> 'empire' has the same restrictions and costs...
> Now, if the Chinese, Russians and North Koreans played nice no-one would
> be subjected to these costs

Just think of the cost for the U.S. to keep all those military bases around the world...

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 12:37:17 AM UTC+8, yale...@gmail.com wrote:
> Britain to permanently deploy warships in Asian waters - Good Luck!!! It's going to be very very expensive, but of course, the British had raided the rest of the world of their gold, diamonds, treasures... for hundreds of years... Boris Johnson need not
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/britain-to-permanently-deploy-warships-in-asian-waters/vi-AAMmA3d?ocid=msedgntp
----------

The world is laughing at second-rate power Britain sending its grandiosely named "armada", led by aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, to the South China Sea for permanent station to "confront" China (whatever that meaningless word in this context means). I just saw a video reporting that Britain has only one operational destroyer (the rest are undergoing repair or maintenance).

The last time the Brits tried a similar stunt was in WWII, when it sent an armada to the South China Sea. The Japanese had no trouble sending its fighter bombers and torpedo aircraft all the way from Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City) to dispatch the armada's lead ship, HMS Prince of Wales, Britain's mightiest battleship, and the battle cruiser HMS Repulse to the bottom of the sea. The Brits need not send any warship for permanent station in the South China Sea today. HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse are already stationed there permanently .

The British "armada" led by HMS Queen Elizabeth to the South China Sea is farcical, vainglorious buffoonery with British characteristics.

Wakalukong