Originally posted by richfeetI hate to state the obvious but the Royal Navy is the elite of the world Navy's plus the SAS is far superior than the Seals too.
The US Navy is the most self contained armed force in the world each Navy task force has enough fire power and weapons to blow up this world 20x over the Navy with its US Marines can attack from anywhere in the world the US Coast Guard is also a part of the US Navy in wartime as you can see the Navy has its own combat aircraft, its own ground troops the Ma ...[text shortened]... he armed forces these are your true heros not Fakers like GEORGE W.BUSH AND HIS WHITE HOUSE PALS
Yes you have the firepower but we have the far better intellegence, expertise and skills for any job over the Americans.
This is from an ex submariner of the Royal Navy who used to frequent the US, this question was always asked in the mess hall between the US and the UK and the US agreed that we were the best. (That was from the mouths of your own men!)
🙂
Originally posted by chancremechanicNow THAT is funny!
You are desrcibing Scandinavia: Norway and Sweden, specifically. Your media and leaders declare multiculturalism but disallow Muslims professional employment and place Muslim immigrants in suburban slums becaue it would be 'racist' to try to 'assimilate' them to Swedish culture and language requirements. Allowing them to grow and multiply without b ...[text shortened]... come a majority, and apply Sharia law, it will be you who will have to "assimilate".
I think it's this kind of blind nonsense that gives Americans a bad name.
1 edit
Originally posted by WheelyYea, I kinda laughed at that too. You have to understand that chancre is not very... well, educated in these matters. So he's going to say things like that proving to everyone how wrong he really is. Be tolerant. 😀
Now THAT is funny!
I think it's this kind of blind nonsense that gives Americans a bad name.
* Looking up, waiting for the chancre missile to fall, hi hi *
Although, there has been some who question what religious freedom actually is. Is it the right to choose for yourself what you believe in and does it give you the right to practise your beliefs in public. I think so. Does it give you the right to live under special laws, different from those of the government because of your religion? I'd definitely say no. This is where some people (most notably muslims these days) have a hickup. They take it that because they can't have special holidays or practise certain rituals (like hanging cows upside down and slitting their throat while alive) they are being targeted and do not have religious freedom. Which of course is BS. They have as much rights as anyone else in this country (and Norway).
The larger part of the world consider scandinavian countries (possibly excluding Denmark) to be the most democratic and just socities in the world to date. That doesn't mean there are no problems over here. In fact, from what I can tell things have changed for the worse these past 10-20 years. Everything is more and more americanised. People are even starting to talk like capitalists over here. leading to increased problems with homeless people and inadequate hospital care. Perhaps in another 10 or 20 years, we won't be so lucky to be able to say: "This is one of the most enlightened societies in the world to date". Perhaps, all we can say is: "This is the little US".
Originally posted by stockenIncidently, I just realised that I banged my head on the sharp headed nail on this one.
Does it [your religion] give you the right to live under special laws, different from those of the government because of your religion? I'd definitely say no.
We tell the world that we're a secular society, where religious freedom is an important ingredient in this whole democracy soup. No religion is to be favourised. People can't have special laws and privileges because of their religion, but they're free to practise their religion within our democratic laws. So far, so good.
Well, the soup is not very tasty when we consider the fact that kids are automatically free from school on the christian holidays (christmas and the christian version of easter most notably). How's that for secular justice? And, apparently, there are similar laws here in Sweden for the jews.
I am puzzled by that, to say the least. 😞
4 edits
Originally posted by chancremechanicyou just can't get it? the world doesn't need a bully-nation to 'police' everyone else. you're stirring up more trouble than you're solving.
Our pleasure.....pick up the slack and do your own policing....
how would you like if say, north-korea regarded it as their business to 'police' the world? they have the military power, having the second largest army after u.s. -what if they stormed all over the world, waging war where ever they felt 'freedom should be enforced'?
u.s. has attacked a foreign country 70+ times after WW2. how would you like if north-korea attacked as much? what if north-korea declared tomorrow "japan is hiding WMD, if they won't give them up by tomorrow, we will execute a pre-emptive strike."
you're gonna say "yea, but it's completely different, north-korea is...", but is it really different? does it matter to the dead and destroyed what their attacker thought was a proper political system?
"yes, we're all dead now, but luckily we were killed by a democracy!"
1 edit
Originally posted by richfeetIt's there but what does it DO? Can't win in Iraq or Afganistan. Did nothing in Somalia. Didn't prevent an invasion in Kuwait. And protects against what? The Irish in their cockleboats? Where are the threats?
The US Navy is the most self contained armed force in the world each Navy task force has enough fire power and weapons to blow up this world 20x over the Navy with its US Marines can attack from anywhere in the world the US Coast Guard is also a part of the US Navy in wartime as you can see the Navy has its own combat aircraft, its own ground troops the Ma ...[text shortened]... he armed forces these are your true heros not Fakers like GEORGE W.BUSH AND HIS WHITE HOUSE PALS
After the fall of the USSR, there are no major potential naval enemies left. That was the rationale for the US navy strength. But, the military industrial complex has too much strength and influence in US politics that if they do not have enemies, they will manufacture one. And keep naval strength up. Couldn't the money be used better - like to reduce the US national debt?
Originally posted by buffalobillIt provides short range, stealthy nuke threats. We don't need that as much these days. It transports Marines around which is very important. It provides airbases in the ocean which is important. It's used to fight pirates; that was why the US Navy was first created actually. It enforces blockades.
It's there but what does it DO? Can't win in Iraq or Afganistan. Did nothing in Somalia. Didn't prevent an invasion in Kuwait. And protects against what? The Irish in their cockleboats? Where are the threats?
After the fall of the USSR, there are no major potential naval enemies left. That was the rationale for the US navy strength. But, the military ...[text shortened]... naval strength up. Couldn't the money be used better - like to reduce the US national debt?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung"We don't need that as much these days"? So why are there so many?
It provides short range, stealthy nuke threats. We don't need that as much these days. It transports Marines around which is very important. It provides airbases in the ocean which is important. It's used to fight pirates; that was why the US Navy was first created actually. It enforces blockades.
Face it, nukes are not useable in modern warfare with no Russia around. Anyway, who needs stealthy with nukes? And who are these nukes supposedly aimed at? North Korea? Iran? Don't make me laugh. China? Russia? Are you stupid?
Conventional forces that are fast and mobile are good. But the US doesn't do that - slow and cumbersome is the order of the day. Witness any of the US' recent wars.
"Fight pirates"? Why the hell aren't they doing that then? There's lots of international piracy the US Navy is doing diddly squat about.
The fact is, the US military (including the Navy) is a massive self-sustaining force that needs to justify its existence and continued growth. It will do this through whatever means available, including manufactured enemies.
Originally posted by buffalobillSo why are there so many?
"We don't need that as much these days"? So why are there so many?
Face it, nukes are not useable in modern warfare with no Russia around. Anyway, who needs stealthy with nukes? And who are these nukes supposedly aimed at? North Korea? Iran? Don't make me laugh. China? Russia? Are you stupid?
Conventional forces that are fast and mobile are good. But ...[text shortened]... wth. It will do this through whatever means available, including manufactured enemies.
I don't know. I am not defending possession of nukes.
Conventional forces that are fast and mobile are good. But the US doesn't do that - slow and cumbersome is the order of the day. Witness any of the US' recent wars.
What are you talking about? Please defend this claim. I think it's BS.
"Fight pirates"? Why the hell aren't they doing that then?
They are.
The US navy says it has captured a number of suspected pirates in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Somalia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4636588.stm
Originally posted by rmackenWell you brits are a number one alli and we all know the Brittish Navy ruled the 7 seas until ww2 when the US NAVY gained prominence. All are Naval Customs originate from the Royal Navy.
I hate to state the obvious but the Royal Navy is the elite of the world Navy's plus the SAS is far superior than the Seals too.
Yes you have the firepower but we have the far better intellegence, expertise and skills for any job over the Americans.
This is from an ex submariner of the Royal Navy who used to frequent the US, this question was always as ...[text shortened]... e UK and the US agreed that we were the best. (That was from the mouths of your own men!)
🙂
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo more nukes. So we are agreed there. But it remains that the US keeps the largest nuke arsenal and has been slowest to disarm.
[b]So why are there so many?
I don't know. I am not defending possession of nukes.
Conventional forces that are fast and mobile are good. But the US doesn't do that - slow and cumbersome is the order of the day. Witness any of the US' recent wars.
What are you talking about? Please defend this claim. I think it's BS.
"Fight p ...[text shortened]... cean off the coast of Somalia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4636588.stm[/i]
Both attacks on Iraq in recent years and that in Afghanistan have been well telegraphed and slowly built up. Nothing to do with mobility.
You dig up one incidence of anti-piracy action when the same article mentions 35 previous incidences that were unanswered? This doesn't sound like the most effective use of the world's most massive navy to me, if it's there to fight piracy. I'm not impressed and I remain unconvinced that's this is it's primary or even secondary purpose.
I'm going to be provocative - the job of the Navy is to keep the generals and civilian contractors in work.
Originally posted by buffalobillWe are not agreed that the US should not have nukes. I am simply not prepared to defend the position that we should. Nor am I willing or able to defend the position that we should not.
No more nukes. So we are agreed there. But it remains that the US keeps the largest nuke arsenal and has been slowest to disarm.
Both attacks on Iraq in recent years and that in Afghanistan have been well telegraphed and slowly built up. Nothing to do with mobility.
You dig up one incidence of anti-piracy action when the same article mentions 35 pr ...[text shortened]... ovocative - the job of the Navy is to keep the generals and civilian contractors in work.
I am also not willing to defend whether or not the US Navy is good at fighting pirates. What I said was that was part of it's purpose and that they are indeed doing it. The article, by the way, did not say those 35 incidences were "unanswered" - just that "shipping companies" said they occurred. I don't know how easy it is to catch pirates. I imagine it's pretty hard since there are lots of people out there who don't want to be robbed by them yet pirates have always existed.
I do know that the region in question is quite far from the US. It's near Somalia. I wonder how much piracy goes on that close to the US?
I'm going to be provocative - the job of the Navy is to keep the generals and civilian contractors in work.
That is not true. Corruption may have set in such that these people are benefitting from the Navy to the detriment of it's effectiveness at dealing with it's jobs, but this is not one of it's jobs.
Wikipedia disagrees with your analysis of the US military:
The United States military is unique in the amount of power it can project globally. Although France and the United Kingdom, as well as Germany, Spain, Italy, PRC and European Union, are capable of projecting power overseas, the United States military is the only one with the higher military capacity to fight a major regional war at a distance from its homeland. The U.S. is also one of the few nations in the world that has a sizable nuclear arsenal and maintains active doctrines for plausible nuclear attack operations.
As such, much of the U.S. military capabilities are tied up in logistics and transportation, which allow rapid buildup of forces as needed. The Air Force maintains a large fleet of C-5 Galaxy, C-17 Globemaster, and C-130 Hercules transportation aircraft. The Marine Corps maintains Marine Expeditionary Units at sea with the Navy's Atlantic and Pacific Fleets. The Navy's fleet of 12 aircraft carriers, combined with a military doctrine of power projection, enable a flexible response to potential threats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_military
Clearly the US has quite good strategic mobility. You seem to be talking more about tactical mobility I'm guessing? How many other powers can move large forces around at night? How many other powers can move as close to enemy radar as the US? Part of any "telegraphing" the US has been doing lately is intentional. "Shock and Awe" and all that...it's not because of inability to do otherwise.
Please give specifics about how the US mobility "weakness" you claim exists caused problems in warfare.
Originally posted by buffalobillNo the mission of the US NAVY is to protect the us and her allies and to keep the sea lanes open and to conduct combat oparations at sea i thinks thats honorable. I SALUTE the Veterans of the US AND OUR ALLIES THESE are true HEROS WHICH I THINK WE TAKE FOR GRANTED.
No more nukes. So we are agreed there. But it remains that the US keeps the largest nuke arsenal and has been slowest to disarm.
Both attacks on Iraq in recent years and that in Afghanistan have been well telegraphed and slowly built up. Nothing to do with mobility.
You dig up one incidence of anti-piracy action when the same article mentions 35 pr ...[text shortened]... ovocative - the job of the Navy is to keep the generals and civilian contractors in work.