nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Daily Fail Strikes again

Mr Trade In

:mad: Sick article overselling what could happen if war breaks out in Europe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054913/Europe-war-2018-As-Angela-Merkel-says-euro-meltdown-spark-battle.html

Particularly disgusted with the 15 deaths in Dublin in August 2012,sick bastards.

I didn't read it in the paper, I seen it on Google News, and no I don't read the Mail as it is a fcuking gutter rag as seen in this pisstake of an article.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Eurovisionmad

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Might want to check your map.

Nate

They're in the Eurovision

Mr Trade In

Yes I have it is a very biased English paper with a sh1te sports section. I haven't bought news papers in about 6 months now, all the news is online for free.

Teclo

thegreengoblin wrote: »

The one thing they get right in the article is the fact that Putin will still be there in 2018.

Thanks to cryonics Putin will be there in 2238.

dj jarvis

Dotrel wrote: »

Sorry. Meant to say " a lot of them". Also China aren't in G8 and have a big military.

china has numbers and some modern equipment but not a great air force,
it only has one air craft carrier ( and it is a ex Russian rust bucket that they have re fitted )

he who control's the air wins the war

the only real advances in military tech that is being used in real world situations are drones - cheap to build - unmanned - very hard to spot or destroy
this is why the Americans have gone full speed in drone development , drones and missiles - makes having loads of tanks and armor pointless, and that is what Russia - china - India ect ect have lots of but lack the former to the extent that the Americans have

you don't have to invade a country to destroy it - all can be done remotely

off topic
Ireland bought drones from Israel ( 3 i think ) , they were tested in ireland and then sent out to chad when the rangers went out - they sent it up and it decided it was going home - it wanted 2 fly from chad back to kildare because the last time it was used the gps was set to somewhere in kildare , some knuckle head forgot to reset it :eek: ( so the story goes anyway )

4leto

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I think Israel are only European when it comes to the Eurovision and the European cup.

They are on continental Europe its not land mass the continents are plates and Israel and Turkey are on the European plate. Both countries are eligible for EU membership if they reach certain criteria.

mongoman

Even by Daily Fail 'standards' that journalist has got some imagination.

charlemont

Scaremongering for the Brits, The Anti Europe brigade will love it.

ejmaztec

That sh1t-stained rag is pushing its anti EU agenda hard and fast these days, and winding up the cretins that read it.

They've already decided that the vast majority of British people want out of the EU, based on some poll where a few hundred people said they should pull out.

They should go the way of the News of The World.

RichieC

Funny how the rise of nuright fascists in Europe isn't mentioned in the causes.. oh right, that's their readers...

ejmaztec

RichieC wrote: »

Funny how the rise of nuright fascists in Europe isn't mentioned in the causes.. oh right, that's their readers...

I expect the rag would like to openly support the BNP, but they haven't quite got around to doing that yet.

RichieC

ejmaztec wrote: »

I expect the rag would like to openly support the BNP, but they haven't quite got around to doing that yet.

why? they had no problem being pro fascist in the lead up to ww2...

ejmaztec

RichieC wrote: »

why? they had no problem being pro fascist in the lead up to ww2...

They launched venomous attacks on the Labour government, and since they've been gone, they're now launching the same attacks on the new lot, so I think they've definitely got a hankering for the Rothermere days.

I'm surprised the paper's motto isn't "Arbeit Macht Frei".

Toby Take a Bow

4leto wrote: »

They are on continental Europe its not land mass the continents are plates and Israel and Turkey are on the European plate. Both countries are eligible for EU membership if they reach certain criteria.

No, the reason Israel (and Cyprus) see themselves as European is because of their culture and how they see it in relation to Europe. The division of Asia and Europe is kind of random, but Israel definitely isn't in it. It stops at the Bosphorus (which is why Turkey can be seen as a European country as part of their territory is actually in Europe - same goes for Kazakhstan) and the Ural mountains to the East. If Israel was part of Europe, would Syria, the Lebanon and Jordan be European too?

Yahew

ejmaztec wrote: »

That sh1t-stained rag is pushing its anti EU agenda hard and fast these days, and winding up the cretins that read it.

They've already decided that the vast majority of British people want out of the EU, based on some poll where a few hundred people said they should pull out.

They should go the way of the News of The World.

The actual argument was against a break-up of the EU, or it could be read that way. Its a worse case scenario if Europe does not get it's act together. I could see something like this in the Independent, although that article would be less jingoistic re the French.

I have never bought the Daily Mail, however the refusal to actually read an article because of where it comes from, is as small minded as the supposed small mindedness of the readership of whatever paper you dismiss. I recall even Stephen Fry on twitter linking to a "surprisingly" good Daily Mail article. I forget what it was about.

And if fewer people were keen to promote their anti-Mail credentials and had actually read the article, the thread might have been more interesting.

Sonics2k

dj jarvis wrote: »

he who control's the air wins the war

Funnily that was the U.S. mentality in Korea and Vietnam, and well.... yeah that didn't work out to well now did it.

Yahew

He who controls the air wins the war, except in jungles and other hard to see places.

Deserts are good though.

dj jarvis

Sonics2k wrote: »

Funnily that was the U.S. mentality in Korea and Vietnam, and well.... yeah that didn't work out to well now did it.

funny that was over 60+ years ago in useless first gen fighters with NON guided munitions

you are seriously try to compare today's GPS guided munitions and drones to the near balsa wood jets of the early 50's ???

for example for the US or UN to lets say take a bridge out in 1950 would involve lots of air craft and tones of munitions and NO guarantee of a hit

now its one dude sitting in a shipping container in Virgina USA controlling the drone that control's the cruise missile - one shot one hit

so your comparison is far off the mark - this is why all major powers are heading drone/missile rather than tanks and Armour

one drone can pin a motorized division - all ya need its lots of missiles and they are going no where

as i said in my post you don't need to actually invade a country to destroy it - all you need is to control the air
and in the 50's the did not control the air !!!

Yahew

You still have to go in an fight. Vietnam would still have been a nightmare. And who is winning in Afghanistan?

dj jarvis

Yahew wrote: »

He who controls the air wins the war, except in jungles and other hard to see places.

Deserts are good though.

you don't need to worry about foot soldiers with small arms if your not planning to invade on foot - all these troops hidden in the jungle need to be supported , munitions , food ect ect , these need to be transported over land of sea , transport and transport hubs can be wiped out by drones , as can bridges - power stations - ports - motorways , fuel depots arms dumps ect ect

no point having troops hiding in the jungle that have no way of moving , eating or fighting ,

my point being that 99% of the heavy lifting can be done via drones , this is why most powers are heading down this road

wipe the infrastructure out surgically ( unlike Korea or Vietnam ) and you take the need away for carpet bombing or costly land invasions

if im wrong why are there no new super tanks or ships ??? not needed because you cant defend them - even the USA newest ships are carriers , why ? for air power and drones

Yahew

Yesh, but you win with boots on the ground.

dj jarvis

Yahew wrote: »

You still have to go in an fight. Vietnam would still have been a nightmare. And who is winning in Afghanistan?

no you dont , you take the threat out , this is EXACTLY what they are doing in northern Pakistan , i think you a mixing dealing with terrorist/insurgents and waging war - in truth not a lot can be done about the former , my point was about nation waging large scale war - is that not what the thread was about ?

large scale wars have been using less ground based troops since 1900's ww1/ww2/korea/vietnam/first gulf war/ second gulf war / Afghanistan

the better the Ariel technology gets the less troops needed on the ground
history proves this

if the Americans had poor air power in iraq they would have needed 10 times the ground troops to finish the job- as with earlier conflicts

ejmaztec

Yahew wrote: »

The actual argument was against a break-up of the EU, or it could be read that way. Its a worse case scenario if Europe does not get it's act together. I could see something like this in the Independent, although that article would be less jingoistic re the French.

I have never bought the Daily Mail, however the refusal to actually read an article because of where it comes from, is as small minded as the supposed small mindedness of the readership of whatever paper you dismiss. I recall even Stephen Fry on twitter linking to a "surprisingly" good Daily Mail article. I forget what it was about.

And if fewer people were keen to promote their anti-Mail credentials and had actually read the article, the thread might have been more interesting.

It's unfortunate that you have to read through so much sh1te while you're trying to find the elusive "surprisingly" good Daily Mail article.

dj jarvis

Yahew wrote: »

Yesh, but you win with boots on the ground.

if you want to take total control of territory yes you do need to go in
but modern warfare is heading in the direction of total destruction of the enemy's ability to wage war from your own back garden

you dont have to invade to **** up a county good - and this way cost a fraction of as ground invasion - but we are talking about "good old fashioned war " and not a oil grab or blast some muslims - differnet ball game entirely

this thread was about European war - if there is another one it will be fought 90% in the air and with remote drones - not a necessity to go to ground in every conflict

amacachi

4leto wrote: »

France, in equipment and numbers followed closely by Britain. But that does not matter. Who could rearm the quickest and that would be our friends the Germans.

Aye, I've heard all the factories in Stuttgart can be converted to tank assembly lines in less than a day.

mikom

question for the military analysts on board......
If Russia invaded Turkey from the rear would Greece help?

dj jarvis

mikom wrote: »

question for the military analysts on board......
If Russia invaded Turkey from the rear would Greece help?

they would help ............................... the Russians
no love lost from Greece if turkey fell , and also strong ties between russia and greece from the old soviet days

still a huge communist vote in Greece and Italy - might not be goverment backed help but the population sure would

mikom

dj jarvis wrote: »

they would help ............................... the Russians
no love lost from Greece if turkey fell , and also strong ties between russia and greece from the old soviet days

still a huge communist vote in Greece and Italy - might not be goverment backed help but the population sure would

Thanks for clearing that up.

4zn76tysfajdxp

dj jarvis wrote: »

they would help ............................... the Russians
no love lost from Greece if turkey fell , and also strong ties between russia and greece from the old soviet days

still a huge communist vote in Greece and Italy - might not be goverment backed help but the population sure would

So you're saying that if a Turkish soldier attacked a Greek from behind, a Russian would help beat him off?

D1stant

thegreengoblin wrote: »

And then think of all that reconstruction work to be done across Europe....we'll be feckin rolling in it again.

Ah yes. We could disassemble the Eiffel tower for scafold, knock all the European state buildings and replace them with McInerney shoeboxes with 12.5% stamp duty

dsmythy

Are the anti-Daily Mail people purposely parodying themselves or is their hate obsession with the newspaper really this irrational?