Originally Posted by cookie65

As stated I am not a party spokesman, nor am I a General/Admiral. making the very tenuous leap that i would ever be in the cabinet I would be guided by the military advice given.
Of course this does not give you an opportunity to leap in and claim UKIPs policy is useless based upon the answers given by a non expert member of the party.

UKIP defence policy [sic] is not pants because of your refusal to engage in the tricky and incoherent parts, you just confirm the 'awkward' inconsistancies are so awkward that even its own promoters and fans are unwilling to engage and explain.

It stands upon its own merits as "incoherent fantasy analysis and planning using ToothFairy Finance funding calculations."

Have fun going around the forums promoting the parts you're comfortable with and, for your sake, I hope that not too many people come along and upset you by asking the more awkward questions.

Originally Posted by King_of_the_Burpas

I'm sure they are.

But at the centre of the puzzle is the bizarre commitment to some international treaties and NATO, applications to join ANZUS, etc on the one hand....

And on the other .... a commitment not to have anything to do with the EU, despite the fact that it is full of the "traditional partners" that we fight alongside now and have done for decades past.

"Recommendation 1: To defend our national interests, maintain the NATO alliance, support our
traditional partners. To disentangle our forces from the EU To keep our
independence by retaining – always – ultimate command and control over our
national forces."

Weird.

Not Really, We are still committed to NATO which has argueably kept the peace in Europe for 67 years, We would continue to train, practice and maintain common standards with our NATO allies. We would refuse to take part in any EU games or deployments, even if our NATO allies did.
We would also continue to collabrate with other EU members on mutually beneficial equipment programs.

Originally Posted by whitecity

UKIP defence policy [sic] is not pants because of your refusal to engage in the tricky and incoherent parts, you just confirm the 'awkward' inconsistancies are so awkward that even its own promoters and fans are unwilling to engage and explain.

It stands upon its own merits as "incoherent fantasy analysis and planning using ToothFairy Finance funding calculations."

Have fun going around the forums promoting the parts you're comfortable with and, for your sake, I hope that not too many people come along and upset you by asking the more awkward questions.

How the hell am I suppsed to answer some stupid vague hypothetical question that gives nowhere near enough information. Tell you what, We will use the carrier group from Afghanistan shall we? Seeing as our deployment there will be long over, before any of our carriers not to mention air groups are anywhere near ready.
Tedious

And what's this all about? "UKIP will maintain our historic and important defence relationship with our American
allies. Our military links with the US are vital to our defence effectiveness. We have
the only forces sufficiently hi-tech to operate alongside them..."

This comes from the same document that whines on and on about how shite our kit is.

Originally Posted by King_of_the_Burpas

And what's this all about? "UKIP will maintain our historic and important defence relationship with our American
allies. Our military links with the US are vital to our defence effectiveness. We have
the only forces sufficiently hi-tech to operate alongside them..."

This comes from the same document that whines on and on about how shite our kit is.

So you are saying we do not have some worn out, outdated equipment then?

Originally Posted by cookie65

Tedious

Precisely.

It is tedious having people come along asking for 'expert' commentary on tedious political drivel. It is tedious when those asking for that commentary get upset when they don't get the responses they expected.

It is tedious when people come advertising populous ideas to garner support and feel uncomfortable when the audiance wants to talk about other things.

It is tedious when a paid up member of a political party and public promoter of their manifesto thinks discussing elements which are written down as "unconditional responsibilities" as "tedious".

Originally Posted by whitecity

Precisely.

It is tedious having people come along asking for 'expert' commentary on tedious political drivel. It is tedious when those asking for that commentary get upset when they don't get the responses they expected.

It is tedious when people come advertising populous ideas to garner support and feel uncomfortable when the audiance wants to talk about other things.

It is tedious when a paid up member of a political party and public promoter of their manifesto thinks discussing elements which are written down as "unconditional responsibilities" as "tedious".

I take it you have seen me promote this policy then? I thought I had asked for opinions on it. I am afraid it is you I find tedious, not our "unconditional responsibilities"
I would send both carriers around an assault capability, I would also include Submarines in this task force. OK rip it to bits now!
(Chile comes to the aid of it's friends with a deathstar deployed to easter Island)

Originally Posted by cookie65

We would refuse to take part in any EU games or deployments, even if our NATO allies did.

Why?

Originally Posted by Victorian_Major

Why?

Sorry,my mistake. We would not take any actions dictated by the EU that were not in our interest.

Well that is that one put to bed then.

If anyone had any doubt about UKIP and its proponents being somewhat pointless, this thread pretty much proves it...

Then again, anyone who thought Farage was the messiah did not have far to go.....
Seriously, pretending to have a UK government policy (not worth updating for 4 years it seems), without EVER even managing to get a single MP elected is humorous, even more hilarious is the fact that the general standard of Brit MP's is certainly not top tier, but the LEADER still manages to fail to get elected....oh dear...

Remind us again why this (no MP ever) bunch of clowns is a political force to be reckoned with? How they have "got to grips" with the issues facing the UK?