Does the US Navy Need to be so...Large?

[jonathan]

In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
than both combined? The Chinese sub fleet appears
to be the only real threat to us, but from what
I read they mostly sit in port and rarely patrol.

With the post 9/11 spending binge, and the rapid
advance of technology, as far as I can see, the US
military has never been more overwhelming
than right now. Even at the height of WW2, the
US military still had serious competition.
Not so today.

Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
East, and democracy in China someday soon, will
allow a significant downsizing of the US military.


Jonathan

s

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jul 5, 8:57 am, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
> and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
> than both combined?

Given its mission- yes. Even bigger would be justified as well. It's
strength could even be called de minimus for its mission.

Now, if the only threat the Navy needed to worry about were other
ships, then no. The US navy is approximately the size of every other
navy in the world, combined, and even then most of the non-US fleet is
in extemely reliable US allies.

BUT... the major threat to shiping the free navigation of waterways is
in aircraft. And the entire US Navy would be hard pressed to take on
the Chinese or Russian Air Force on its own. A full carrier battle
group would be hard pressed to take on even a single air base.

[jonathan]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ifbv7dor4dbfu7ke...@4ax.com...

> "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>>and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>>than both combined?
>>
>

> Yes, and that's none too big. We could use more ships.



We need ...more then 43 Los Angeles class attack submarines,
...more than 60 Arleigh Burke destroyers ...more than 22 cruisers
....more than 12 aircraft carriers...more than 8 amphibious
landing ships... not to mention the 15 or so new Virginia class attack
submarines coming online? Why do we need 14 Boomers with
some 96 warheads each? Who are we going to be launching
over1300 nukes at?

If you combine British and US naval forces, they account
for some 60% of the world combat tonnage, while
Russia is about 8% and China 3%.

What war do you envision needing such a large navy?


>
> Why don't you start by doing away with 90% of your local police and
> fire protection and see how that works out for you?


Hardly a relevant analogy. Do you remember the old quote
about absolute power? Too much can be a liability in itself.


>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn

[Keith W]

jonathan wrote:
> "Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9ifbv7dor4dbfu7ke...@4ax.com...
>> "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>>> and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>>> than both combined?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and that's none too big. We could use more ships.
>
>
>
> We need ...more then 43 Los Angeles class attack submarines,
> ...more than 60 Arleigh Burke destroyers ...more than 22 cruisers

To cover the US committments in the Middle East, Europe,
the Pacific and Atlatic thats not very many

Consider that of those 43 SSN's in peace time conditions
you will have around 20 on patrol. Of the others some
will be in refit and others working or in transit to or
from patrol.

> ....more than 12 aircraft carriers...more than 8 amphibious
> landing ships... not to mention the 15 or so new Virginia class attack
> submarines coming online? Why do we need 14 Boomers with
> some 96 warheads each? Who are we going to be launching
> over1300 nukes at?
>

14 boomers gives you maybe 8 on patrol to coverin
potential threats in the Pacific, Middle East and the
North Atlantic. Thats actually stretching them rather thinly

> If you combine British and US naval forces, they account
> for some 60% of the world combat tonnage, while
> Russia is about 8% and China 3%.
>
> What war do you envision needing such a large navy?
>

The USN maintains the capability to project power
in the form of sea and ground forces anywhere in the
world. That requires a lot of sea lift capacity and the
ships to protect them.

In the modern world this means being able to react
to threats that arise as distant as Asia and the Middle
East.

Its no good having a dozen ships in harbour at
Newport News if the North Koreans and Iranians
both decided to kick off.

>
>>
>> Why don't you start by doing away with 90% of your local police and
>> fire protection and see how that works out for you?
>
>
> Hardly a relevant analogy. Do you remember the old quote
> about absolute power? Too much can be a liability in itself.
>

Recall the old Roman adage - Si vis pacem, para bellum

If you would have peace then prepare for war.

In the 1930's the US rather naively believed that if they
kept to themselves they would have no problems.
The result was that Germany and Japan decided they
would be a walkover. We all know how that worked out.

Keith

[jonathan]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KtmJr.498936$2l2.1...@fx01.am4...

I see your point about our commitments, it just seems
we're keeping a cold war level while the threats have
reduced to a few rogue states. I just feel that once the
remaining threats, like Iran, N Korea and China end
up falling to democracy, we can begin to think about
a much different level of military spending.

Before long high energy lasers will be everywhere, we'll
have things like X-37C's or UAV's buzzing about able
to see and strike anything at a moments notice.

Add all that post 9/11 technology coming along to our
current levels of conventional forces, and the US could
become more than the only superpower, but a monster
with a life of it's own no one can control.

Do we want our future to be like the strikes in Pakistan?
Bolts from above?


Jonathan


s









>
> Keith
>

[Nomen Nescio]

All it takes is one.

--
Bub

[David E. Powell]

On Jul 5, 10:01 pm, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:KtmJr.498936$2l2.1...@fx01.am4...
>
>
>
>
>
> > jonathan wrote:
> >> "Fred J. McCall" <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I like the idea of Crowbar satellites myself.... but as neat as a
weapons system is, it has to be a component of a whole system. Drones
aren't able to do everything by themselves just yet.

One example from Yemen recently was a US Drone finding a terrorist
camp in the desert. There was a battery of Yemeni artillery nearby and
the two units cooperated to drop shells on the camp. It was old school
but it did a lot more damage than a Hellfire missile or two would
have. Since it was the middle of the desert, collateral damage was
probably considered a non-factor.

Drones need air superiority to be really effective as deep penetrators
right now, so the Air Force, plus Naval, Marine and Army Aviation
probably will be sticking around a long time.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

The spread of empire has never resulted in downsizing, at least not until the final disintegration.
--
Gernot Hassenpflug

[Nomen Nescio]

I could be wrong, but I think that the more accurate word in this
case is desolation, in the WWIII sense meaning total destruction.

Global extinction.

--
Bub

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 05/07/2012 18:22, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

> "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>> and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>> than both combined?
>>
>

> Yes, and that's none too big. We could use more ships.

I guess that jonathan don't have a clue on the issues of an global Navy
instead of an regional one, and the weight of logistics and strategic
movement... in other words, I guess that instead of insulting him,
perhaps was better elucidating him the meaning of the proverbial "where
are the carriers"

I have haved some hell of days and on top of it, this end-week I have
guest here, so I don't have much time to do a patient explanation of the
above..

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[Keith W]

They have not done so at this point

> Before long high energy lasers will be everywhere, we'll
> have things like X-37C's or UAV's buzzing about able
> to see and strike anything at a moments notice.
>

They cant stop an artilery barrage of the sort the DPRK
can unleash on Seoul nor can they prevent the Iranians
closing the straits of Hormuz with mines and they
sure as hell cant escort merchant ships.

> Add all that post 9/11 technology coming along to our
> current levels of conventional forces, and the US could
> become more than the only superpower, but a monster
> with a life of it's own no one can control.
>
> Do we want our future to be like the strikes in Pakistan?
> Bolts from above?
>

Actually what causes most casualties in Pakistan and Afghanistan
is the good old fashioned bomb left at the roadside to kill
passers by. It would be familiar to a 19th century anarchist.

Keith

[Mark Test]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:9ifbv7dor4dbfu7ke...@4ax.com...

"jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>than both combined?
>

Yes, and that's none too big. We could use more ships.

>

>The Chinese sub fleet appears
>to be the only real threat to us,
>

Reality seems reluctant to conform to how things seem to you.

>
>but from what
>I read they mostly sit in port and rarely patrol.
>

Reality is also apparently reluctant to conform to what you read.

>
>With the post 9/11 spending binge, and the rapid
>advance of technology, as far as I can see, the US
>military has never been more overwhelming
>than right now.
>

Your myopia is a personal problem, I expect.

>
>Even at the height of WW2, the
>US military still had serious competition.
>Not so today.
>

Whatever you're smoking, you should probably stop.

>
>Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
>East,
>

The spread of WHAT WHERE, again?

>
>and democracy in China someday soon,
>

For a definition of 'soon' that corresponds to 'probably never'.

>
>will allow a significant downsizing of the US military.
>

Why don't you start by doing away with 90% of your local police and
fire protection and see how that works out for you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spot on as usual Fred.

Mark

[george152]

Keith W wrote:

> They cant stop an artilery barrage of the sort the DPRK
> can unleash on Seoul nor can they prevent the Iranians
> closing the straits of Hormuz with mines and they
> sure as hell cant escort merchant ships.

No-one has to stop such attacks
Either of those actions will be a declaration of war and neither of the
nutters who lead those countries want that.
That's why all those Navies are out there.
If you want peace prepare for war.....

[Keith W]

george152 wrote:
> Keith W wrote:
>
>> They cant stop an artilery barrage of the sort the DPRK
>> can unleash on Seoul nor can they prevent the Iranians
>> closing the straits of Hormuz with mines and they
>> sure as hell cant escort merchant ships.
>
> No-one has to stop such attacks

The South Koreans can be expected to disagree
and the USN has been rather keen to keep the
straits open on previous occasions.

> Either of those actions will be a declaration of war and neither of
> the nutters who lead those countries want that.
> That's why all those Navies are out there.
> If you want peace prepare for war.....

The trouble with that theory is that the Iranians HAVE
used mines in the straits before without the US declaring
war on them. As for the DPRK their leadership is
so unpredictable there is no telling what they will do.

Keith

[jonathan]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message
news:hDwJr.188625$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

> Il 05/07/2012 18:22, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>> "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>>> and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>>> than both combined?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and that's none too big. We could use more ships.
>

> I guess that jonathan don't have a clue on the issues of an global Navy
> instead of an regional one,

Of course I do, what bugs me is why the US has to shoulder
so much of the burden of defending the world. The EU has
a total economy roughly the size of the US, yet the US spends
some 4.7% of gdp on military spending, almost 20% of our
federal budget. While the EU spends 1.6%....1/3 the amount
of the US.

Sooner or later the rest of the world has to start taking
responsibility for their own waters and their own problems.
While we spend like crazy, the Europeans sit back and
point the finger at ...us for all the world's problems.

I especially liked the long lived European policy of placating
terrorists so they would leave Europe alone and come after
the US and Israel. European xenophobia and apathy is
a large part of the mess the US has had to clean up by itself
for the last 20 years. Not to mention the ...European world
wars.

It's getting old, Europe needs to start stop blaming others
and start stepping up their military budgets. Right now the
Iranians want to build the bomb and shut down the Gulf.
And what are the Euros doing about it? Buying oil elsewhere
is about it, since that doesn't really cost them a dime.
I don't see the EU moving aircraft and ships into the
area preparing for war.

And don't get me started on the asshole Russians, someone
needs to give them a swift kick in the ass and make them
start behaving like a civilized nation. All the while the US
allows China to rig their currency so we send massive
trade deficits over there, sending our national wealth
overseas to help the poor Chinese lift themselves out
of poverty.

If the Chinese people had a backbone they'd
toss the communists out long ago and the US wouldn't
have to keep sacrificing it's wealth, it's troops and
national reputation. Same thing for the Russians, how
much of US wealth went to outspending the communists
until they went broke over the last 50 years.

People need to understand that democracy and freedom
can't wait for the US to establish, they need to get some
courage and do what is needed. We're giving many of
these Middle East nations a chance for democracy, but
they have to make it work, and Europe needs to do
more then point fingers.

Whew....that felt good~




Jonathan


s

[Bill]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:37:02 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Of course I do, what bugs me is why the US has to shoulder
>so much of the burden of defending the world. The EU has
>a total economy roughly the size of the US, yet the US spends
>some 4.7% of gdp on military spending, almost 20% of our
>federal budget. While the EU spends 1.6%....1/3 the amount
>of the US.

The people of Europe prefer free healthcare and decent welfare systems
to guns.

That's a free choice both parties can enter into.

We all live in free societies and elect governments that decide what
to spend the money on.

>Sooner or later the rest of the world has to start taking
>responsibility for their own waters and their own problems.
>While we spend like crazy, the Europeans sit back and
>point the finger at ...us for all the world's problems.

As a rule we don't.

As a rule we back you up, even when we're pretty certain it'll all
end in tears, like in Afghanistan...

>I especially liked the long lived European policy of placating
>terrorists so they would leave Europe alone and come after
>the US and Israel.

I especially liked the US policy of placing terrorists so that they'd
blow up British soldiers.

Or don't Irish Catholic terrorists count?

>It's getting old, Europe needs to start stop blaming others
>and start stepping up their military budgets.

We don't blame anyone much.

>And what are the Euros doing about it? Buying oil elsewhere
>is about it, since that doesn't really cost them a dime.
>I don't see the EU moving aircraft and ships into the
>area preparing for war.

Well no.

What are you suggesting exactly?

If you'd like to invade Iran then go ahead.

I imagine you'll get the usual European states to send their young men
to die alongside yours.

The problem is that it won't work.

>And don't get me started on the asshole Russians, someone
>needs to give them a swift kick in the ass and make them
>start behaving like a civilized nation.

Ah, now that's been tried by several people, including Napoleon and
Hitler.

As a general rule that ends in tears as well...

All the while the US
>allows China to rig their currency so we send massive
>trade deficits over there, sending our national wealth
>overseas to help the poor Chinese lift themselves out
>of poverty.
>
>If the Chinese people had a backbone they'd
>toss the communists out long ago and the US wouldn't
>have to keep sacrificing it's wealth, it's troops and
>national reputation.

OK, convince them.

Same thing for the Russians, how
>much of US wealth went to outspending the communists
>until they went broke over the last 50 years.

That really was a choice the US made on their own.

Everyone else had worked out that they weren't actually a serious
treat as long as they were not provoked years ago.

>People need to understand that democracy and freedom
>can't wait for the US to establish, they need to get some
>courage and do what is needed. We're giving many of
>these Middle East nations a chance for democracy, but
>they have to make it work, and Europe needs to do
>more then point fingers.

I think you'll probably find that the British and Italians were well
in front of you in Libya and the French are well in front of you in
Syria

>Whew....that felt good~

You're an idiot son.

[Paul J. Adam]

On 07/07/2012 00:00, Bill wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:37:02 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I especially liked the long lived European policy of placating
>> terrorists so they would leave Europe alone and come after
>> the US and Israel.
>
> I especially liked the US policy of placing terrorists so that they'd
> blow up British soldiers.
>
> Or don't Irish Catholic terrorists count?

Freedom fighters, Bill, heroic freedom fighters, battling against the
tyranny of an elected democracy, one murdered civilian at a time. (Going
after soldiers turned out to be too difficult and dangerous by the 1980s)

Mind you, the Protestant terrorists managed to be as bad or worse. Talk
about "a plague on both your houses"...

>> And don't get me started on the asshole Russians, someone
>> needs to give them a swift kick in the ass and make them
>> start behaving like a civilized nation.
>
> Ah, now that's been tried by several people, including Napoleon and
> Hitler.

And us in the 1850s and again in 1919.

>
> As a general rule that ends in tears as well...

Ah, but our experience is ancient and historical and no longer relevant,
so should be ignored. The US have a splendid master plan for success
that they've copied from "South Park".

1. Start kicking the Russians.
2. ...er...not sure about this part
3. VICTORY!!!!!!

It's the same plan they used for the quick, clean, tidy conquest of Iraq
and the painless, straightforward pacification of Afghanistan that we've
enjoyed watching - or in some cases participating in - over the last
decade. How can any rational being expect any problems at all?

<Cue the 'Crelm Toothpaste / American Defence' animation from Monty Python>


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[tutall]

On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

> To cover the US committments in the Middle East, Europe,
> the Pacific and Atlatic thats not very many
>

Then the US needs to rethink those committments, or start raising a
tax on the nations who's interests coincide with ours.

This policeman for the world thing has gotten old. Need a new
paradigm.

[jonathan]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rvqev7d3p7i9gv1vg...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:37:02 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Of course I do, what bugs me is why the US has to shoulder
>>so much of the burden of defending the world. The EU has
>>a total economy roughly the size of the US, yet the US spends
>>some 4.7% of gdp on military spending, almost 20% of our
>>federal budget. While the EU spends 1.6%....1/3 the amount
>>of the US.
>
>
> The people of Europe prefer free healthcare and decent welfare systems
> to guns.

Which is a luxury they can afford since they don't have
to defend themselves.

>
> That's a free choice both parties can enter into.
>
> We all live in free societies and elect governments that decide what
> to spend the money on.

And why aren't you speaking German or Russian today
and living under a fascist or communist government?
Be honest now, if the US had been as xenophobic
and weak during WW2 as Europe is today, you
would be.

>
>>Sooner or later the rest of the world has to start taking
>>responsibility for their own waters and their own problems.
>>While we spend like crazy, the Europeans sit back and
>>point the finger at ...us for all the world's problems.
>
> As a rule we don't.
>
> As a rule we back you up, even when we're pretty certain it'll all
> end in tears, like in Afghanistan...

But then you go and point fingers at Afghanistan and say
it's our fault. Thanks for proving my point.

>
>>I especially liked the long lived European policy of placating
>>terrorists so they would leave Europe alone and come after
>>the US and Israel.
>
> I especially liked the US policy of placing terrorists so that they'd
> blow up British soldiers.
>
> Or don't Irish Catholic terrorists count?

Those terrorists were created by the British police state.
But of course, like everyone around the world, it's
the fault of the US. Either by action or inaction, doesn't
matter, it's our fault no matter what.

>
>>It's getting old, Europe needs to start stop blaming others
>>and start stepping up their military budgets.
>
> We don't blame anyone much.

Europe doesn't do anything much except produce
Kings and dictators that have created the horrors
of the last century. Then sit back and let others
clean up their messes.

>
>>And what are the Euros doing about it? Buying oil elsewhere
>>is about it, since that doesn't really cost them a dime.
>>I don't see the EU moving aircraft and ships into the
>>area preparing for war.
>
> Well no.
>
> What are you suggesting exactly?

That Europe start taking a more aggressive stance
on spreading democracy, and start spending their
fair share on defense.

>
> If you'd like to invade Iran then go ahead.

Typical European attitude, sit back and help the
tyrants build the bomb, then expect the US
to take care of the problem.

>
> I imagine you'll get the usual European states to send their young men
> to die alongside yours.
>
> The problem is that it won't work.
>
>>And don't get me started on the asshole Russians, someone
>>needs to give them a swift kick in the ass and make them
>>start behaving like a civilized nation.
>
> Ah, now that's been tried by several people, including Napoleon and
> Hitler.

Dictatorships aren't civilized, but are systems which are
doomed to disaster, your European history is
chock full of dictators and the massive wars and
horrors they cause.

>
> As a general rule that ends in tears as well..

Ended pretty well in Europe and Japan when
we left behind democracies.

.
>
> All the while the US
>>allows China to rig their currency so we send massive
>>trade deficits over there, sending our national wealth
>>overseas to help the poor Chinese lift themselves out
>>of poverty.
>>
>>If the Chinese people had a backbone they'd
>>toss the communists out long ago and the US wouldn't
>>have to keep sacrificing it's wealth, it's troops and
>>national reputation.
>
> OK, convince them.
>
> Same thing for the Russians, how
>>much of US wealth went to outspending the communists
>>until they went broke over the last 50 years.
>
> That really was a choice the US made on their own.

Right, Europe wasn't threatened by the Soviets, do you
have your head in the sand all the time?

>
> Everyone else had worked out that they weren't actually a serious
> treat as long as they were not provoked years ago.

Stalin would have kept on rolling right through Germany
all the way to the channel if not for US troops and US nukes.

>
>>People need to understand that democracy and freedom
>>can't wait for the US to establish, they need to get some
>>courage and do what is needed. We're giving many of
>>these Middle East nations a chance for democracy, but
>>they have to make it work, and Europe needs to do
>>more then point fingers.
>
> I think you'll probably find that the British and Italians were well
> in front of you in Libya and the French are well in front of you in
> Syria

You don't read history much?

Libya was under Italian rule during Mussolini, and then
the British, French and Russians bickered over Libya leaving
behind a mess and a rogue state for the last 40 years.
Nice job Europe.

And Syria was a French and British colony, another European
mess that ended up with Assad. Nice job again Europe.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are British and Russian messes
they left behind for the US to deal with, as usual.

Not to mention the infamous European apathy during the
ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. Another German and Russian
mess we had to clean up.

>
>>Whew....that felt good~
>
> You're an idiot son.

And you're a typical European <g>
(pardon my language)

s

[peter skelton]

"jonathan" wrote in message
news:dOydncux6_k74mrS...@giganews.com...

>And why aren't you speaking German or Russian today
and living under a fascist or communist government?
Be honest now, if the US had been as xenophobic
and weak during WW2 as Europe is today, you
would be.

OFCS, the US between the wars makes modern Europe look decidedly
militaristic.

[jonathan]

"tutall" <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40655123-a617-462d...@lq16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

..................


My feelings exactly. I'm tired of seeing $700 billion dollar
defense budgets, and seeing the US in a nearly constant
state of war for some 20 years now.

We have troops in 150 countries, so many military bases
around the world no one seems to know exactly
how many there are.


Military mystery: How many bases does the US have, anyway?
By Gloria Shur Bilchik
Published: January 24, 2011Posted in: International, War

"Going straight to the source [of course, of course] doesn't
help, either.According to the Department of Defense's 2010
Base Structure Report, as of 2009, the US military maintained
662 foreign sites in 38 countries around the world. But that
number represents a reduction from numbers reported by
DOD just a few years ago.

Military spokespersons regularly add to the confusion.
Turse notes that:

Speaking before the senate appropriations committee's
sub-committee on military construction, veterans and related
agencies early last year, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
Dorothy Robyn referenced the Pentagon's "507 permanent
installations". The Pentagon's 2010 Base Structure Report,
on the other hand, lists 4,999 total sites in the US, its
territories, and overseas.

Worse yet are the apparently deliberate omissions from
the tally. "Scan the Department of Defense's 2010 Base
Structure Report for sites in Afghanistan," writes Turse.
"Go ahead, read through all 206 pages. You won't
find a mention of them, not a citation, not a single reference,
not an inkling that the United States has even one base
in Afghanistan, let alone more than 400."

Incredibly, the same blackout applies to Iraq, where published
reports in mainstream media outlets put the number of bases
in the 80s. So, even the official US military tally underreports
our presence by nearly 500 bases. And that's before you add in
other blacked-out sites in places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Also conveniently "forgotten" in the base count are facilities
run by other countries on behalf of the US, sites operated
covertly by the CIA, and de facto "bases" that float on
America's fleet of aircraft carriers, says Turse.

http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2011/01/24/military-mystery-how-many-bases-does-the-us-have-anyway/The US is doing their share, time for Europe to pony up.And having the world be so dependent upon one nationis just plain irresponsible.Jonathans

[jonathan]

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:jt7v78$5m4$1...@dont-email.me...

Between wars, let's see, since 1939 that would be the period
between WW2 and Korea, maybe 3 years. The Cold War
cost plenty up to 1991, when Desert Storm was already
under way. Since then it's been non-stop spending and fighting
in the Middle East, Bosnia and so on. Twenty years of nearly
constant wars with one still in progress, and a couple more
on the horizon.

What periods would you be referring to?



>

[Paul J. Adam]

On 07/07/2012 01:15, jonathan wrote:
> Be honest now, if the US had been as xenophobic
> and weak during WW2 as Europe is today, you
> would be.

In 1939, even Venezuela had a larger and better-equipped army than the US.

We'd been rearming and then fighting for years, while the US was still
piously hoping that "someone else" would take care of Hitler, Stalin and
Hirohito for them.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

tutall wrote:

> On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>To cover the US committments in the Middle East, Europe,
>>the Pacific and Atlatic thats not very many
>>
>
>
> Then the US needs to rethink those committments, or start raising a
> tax on the nations who's interests coincide with ours.

I say tax Jewish Israel first.
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

One what?
;-)

[scott s.]

"jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:oLqdnbRe7_UEHmrS...@giganews.com:

>
>
> We have troops in 150 countries, so many military bases
> around the world no one seems to know exactly
> how many there are.
>

Sure, but when you write "troops" understand for the most part you're
talking about intel and communications types. If you look at actual
US Army conbat troops it looks like this:

Europe
a corps HQ, 3 infantry combat brigades, a combat aviation brigade, a cav
regiment and an air & missile defense command. Two of the infantry
brigades are deactivating.

In addition there are "about" a brigade worth of national guard
troops assigned to NATO KFOR on rotational assignment.

Pacific
an Army HQ, division HQ, one cambat aviation brigade one infantry
brigade, a fires brigade and an air defense artillery brigade in
Korea, in addition an ADA batallion in Okinawa.

So it isn't that much IMHO. Note that the US isn't "defending
the world", rather it has determined the best way to defend the US is
to avoid having other nations build up large militaries, since history
has shown when they do it results in massive wars which inevitably
draw in the US.

scott s.
.

[Moramarth]

On Jul 7, 11:34 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then we still had to come and save your asses....
...or the French would be speaking Russian!

[Keith W]

1918 to 1939

A period during which the US Army was smaller than
that of Belgium and it was equipped with WW1
equipment. When they wanted to practise armoured
warfare they had to use trucks with dummy guns
as they had no tanks

In 1939 when the German Air Force had the Me-109
and the RAF the Spitfire and Hurricane the USAAC
was reliant on the Boeing P-26 and Seversky P-35.

Keith

[Keith W]

jonathan wrote:
> "tutall" <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:40655123-a617-462d...@lq16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> To cover the US committments in the Middle East, Europe,
>> the Pacific and Atlatic thats not very many
>>
>
> Then the US needs to rethink those committments, or start raising a
> tax on the nations who's interests coincide with ours.
>
> This policeman for the world thing has gotten old. Need a new
> paradigm.
>
>
> ..................
>
>
> My feelings exactly. I'm tired of seeing $700 billion dollar
> defense budgets, and seeing the US in a nearly constant
> state of war for some 20 years now.
>

Than perhaps they should stop interfering in nations
who's policies they disagree with. Many of the current
problems in the Middle East can be traced back to
the coup mounted by the CIA against an elected left
wing Iranian leader during the 1950's.


Keith

[Bill]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:27:49 -0700 (PDT), tutall <tut...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

How about 'fighting in their backyard so they don't start fighting in
yours'

Or do you honestly think that if the US returns to isolationism the
people who you've managed to upset will leave you alone?

[Bill]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 20:15:06 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:rvqev7d3p7i9gv1vg...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:37:02 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>

>>
>> The people of Europe prefer free healthcare and decent welfare systems
>> to guns.
>
>
>Which is a luxury they can afford since they don't have
>to defend themselves.

Who from?

I don't know if you noticed but the Soviet Union took early retirement
on the grounds of ill health over a decade ago and any Muslim nut
cases can be directly a tribute to US foreign policy.

>
>
>>
>> That's a free choice both parties can enter into.
>>
>> We all live in free societies and elect governments that decide what
>> to spend the money on.
>
>
>And why aren't you speaking German or Russian today
>and living under a fascist or communist government?

Because we beat the Germans (and while your help in saving the world
is appreciated we would have won without you) and Communism wasn't
ever a threat in Western Europe.

>Be honest now, if the US had been as xenophobic
>and weak during WW2 as Europe is today, you

>would be..

Read a book child.

>> As a rule we back you up, even when we're pretty certain it'll all
>> end in tears, like in Afghanistan...
>
>
>But then you go and point fingers at Afghanistan and say
>it's our fault. Thanks for proving my point.

I was pointing fingers and saying Afghanistan would end in tears when
GW announced the war.

especially liked the long lived European policy of placating
>>>terrorists so they would leave Europe alone and come after
>>>the US and Israel.
>>
>> I especially liked the US policy of placing terrorists so that they'd
>> blow up British soldiers.
>>
>> Or don't Irish Catholic terrorists count?
>
>
>Those terrorists were created by the British police state.

Which 'police state' would that be my child?

Then one that allowed free and fair elections?

Now I fully un derstand that you don't approve of free and fair
elections that don't produce the result desired in the White House,
but that's your problem and not ours.

Or are you claiming that our system is corrupt?

>But of course, like everyone around the world, it's
>the fault of the US. Either by action or inaction, doesn't
>matter, it's our fault no matter what.

Oh grow up.

>>>It's getting old, Europe needs to start stop blaming others
>>>and start stepping up their military budgets.
>>
>> We don't blame anyone much.
>
>
>Europe doesn't do anything much except produce
>Kings and dictators that have created the horrors
>of the last century. Then sit back and let others
>clean up their messes.

In the past 100 years we haven't actually created any new kings and
the dictators have been limited.

>
>>>And what are the Euros doing about it? Buying oil elsewhere
>>>is about it, since that doesn't really cost them a dime.
>>>I don't see the EU moving aircraft and ships into the
>>>area preparing for war.
>>
>> Well no.
>>
>> What are you suggesting exactly?
>
>
>That Europe start taking a more aggressive stance
>on spreading democracy, and start spending their
>fair share on defense.

We spread it to Sierra Leone when the US was scared of Africa
following their sound thrashing by a gang of kids in T-shirts in
Mogadishu.

>> If you'd like to invade Iran then go ahead.
>
>
>Typical European attitude, sit back and help the
>tyrants build the bomb, then expect the US
>to take care of the problem.

Nice snip child.

So you're dishonest as well as an idiot.

>>>And don't get me started on the asshole Russians, someone
>>>needs to give them a swift kick in the ass and make them
>>>start behaving like a civilized nation.
>>
>> Ah, now that's been tried by several people, including Napoleon and
>> Hitler.
>
>
>Dictatorships aren't civilized, but are systems which are
>doomed to disaster, your European history is
>chock full of dictators and the massive wars and
>horrors they cause.

That's a statement that can only possibly be described as 'insane'.

>> As a general rule that ends in tears as well..
>
>
>Ended pretty well in Europe and Japan when
>we left behind democracies.

Off you go and invade Russia then.

Just don't expect to find anything to come home top.

>> Same thing for the Russians, how
>>>much of US wealth went to outspending the communists
>>>until they went broke over the last 50 years.
>>
>> That really was a choice the US made on their own.
>
>
>Right, Europe wasn't threatened by the Soviets, do you
>have your head in the sand all the time?

As far as anyone can now work out the USSR never intended invading
Western Europe.

Their own political theory said we'd fall to pieces without an
invasion.

>> Everyone else had worked out that they weren't actually a serious
>> treat as long as they were not provoked years ago.
>
>
>Stalin would have kept on rolling right through Germany
>all the way to the channel if not for US troops and US nukes.

Now for that remarkable statement I'd like some proof.

As far as I can find out just about the only person advocating a
conflict between the US and USSR in 1945 was George Patton and a few
Nazis trying to keep out of jail.

>
>
>>
>>>People need to understand that democracy and freedom
>>>can't wait for the US to establish, they need to get some
>>>courage and do what is needed. We're giving many of
>>>these Middle East nations a chance for democracy, but
>>>they have to make it work, and Europe needs to do
>>>more then point fingers.
>>
>> I think you'll probably find that the British and Italians were well
>> in front of you in Libya and the French are well in front of you in
>> Syria
>
>
>You don't read history much?

I'm afraid I do.

>Libya was under Italian rule during Mussolini, and then
>the British, French and Russians bickered over Libya leaving
>behind a mess and a rogue state for the last 40 years.
>Nice job Europe.

So what?

>And Syria was a French and British colony, another European
>mess that ended up with Assad. Nice job again Europe.

No, it was French

>Afghanistan and Pakistan are British and Russian messes
>they left behind for the US to deal with, as usual.

The British were out of there almost 80 years ago.

And if we're talking about old messes you can add Mexico to the pile.

[Bill]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 20:55:33 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I think this is a 14 year old child in a Midwestern basement...

[peter skelton]

"jonathan" wrote in message
news:G7-dnRLpBPi5FGrS...@giganews.com...

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:jt7v78$5m4$1...@dont-email.me...
> "jonathan" wrote in message
> news:dOydncux6_k74mrS...@giganews.com...
>
>
>>And why aren't you speaking German or Russian today
> and living under a fascist or communist government?
> Be honest now, if the US had been as xenophobic
> and weak during WW2 as Europe is today, you
> would be.
>
>
> OFCS, the US between the wars makes modern Europe look decidedly
> militaristic.


>Between wars, let's see, since 1939 that would be the period

Why since 1939? THe message I replied to referred to speaking German or
Russian, ie result of WWII.

You've been caught saying something really ignorant, you need stronger
hand-wavium to get out of it.



>

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:rhjgv798runtpra58...@4ax.com...

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Than perhaps they should stop interfering in nations
>who's policies they disagree with. Many of the current
>problems in the Middle East can be traced back to
>the coup mounted by the CIA against an elected left
>wing Iranian leader during the 1950's.
>

>Utter poppycock!

Which is how Fred describes facts he does not like.

>Many (I would say 'most') of the current problems in the Middle East
can be traced back to the usual suspect; the heavy-handed
mismanagement of the Colonial Powers, primarily the British Empire.

And traced past that to other things, history goes back a very long way and
whatever went before is causative on what followed.

Certainly, things the Powers did in the 19c caused trouble in the 20th, but
a good patchwork in such situations lasts fifty years or so, many of the
things done in the 19th measure up reasonably well. The things done under
Pax America are of about the same quality, if one leaves out the errors of a
single incompetent president.

[Bill]

British administration in most of the Middle East was by a reasonably
gentle hand when compared to Hong Kong or India.

It was only in Palestine where they ruled directly and as a preemptory
and arrogant imperial power, in Egypt and the Gulf the there was
always a local administration.

And yet in the whole of the Middle East only in Palestine has
democracy thrived.

I suppose you could do a similar comparison between India and China.

The heavy hand of direct imperial rule may well have been a blessing
in disguise...

<There, that's my reputation as a political radical destroyed...>

[jonathan]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZBVJr.505422$ra1.1...@fx05.am4...

> jonathan wrote:
>> "peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>> news:jt7v78$5m4$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> "jonathan" wrote in message
>>> news:dOydncux6_k74mrS...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> And why aren't you speaking German or Russian today
>>> and living under a fascist or communist government?
>>> Be honest now, if the US had been as xenophobic
>>> and weak during WW2 as Europe is today, you
>>> would be.
>>>
>>>
>>> OFCS, the US between the wars makes modern Europe look decidedly
>>> militaristic.
>>
>>
>> Between wars, let's see, since 1939 that would be the period
>> between WW2 and Korea, maybe 3 years. The Cold War
>> cost plenty up to 1991, when Desert Storm was already
>> under way. Since then it's been non-stop spending and fighting
>> in the Middle East, Bosnia and so on. Twenty years of nearly
>> constant wars with one still in progress, and a couple more
>> on the horizon.
>>
>> What periods would you be referring to?
>
> 1918 to 1939

Well the thirties was the Great Depression and
the Dust Bowl years. We didn't have an economy
let alone a military. So it wasn't by choice.

>
> A period during which the US Army was smaller than
> that of Belgium and it was equipped with WW1

> equipment. When they wanted to practice armoured

> warfare they had to use trucks with dummy guns
> as they had no tanks
>
> In 1939 when the German Air Force had the Me-109
> and the RAF the Spitfire and Hurricane the USAAC
> was reliant on the Boeing P-26 and Seversky P-35.

Correct, but my point is it's time for Europe to step up
to the plate when needed, as the US did in '39.
It's ...their turn now., our turn has lasted for
70 years now. It's not responsible for the world
to be so dependent on one nation for keeping
the world economic life-lines open.

What if the US suddenly turned inward for political
or economic reasons? What then? Could Europe
deal with a nuclear armed Iran, an emboldened China
and N Korea?

The world needs more democracy, which would
reduce the need for large militaries, or more balance
among the existing democracies. I prefer the spread
of democracy as the long term solution. But having
Europe passive about it, and Russia and China
actively trying to stop the spread of democracy
it's left to the US to be the world's policeman.

Just today Clinton lambasted Russia and China
for supporting Assad and loudly called on Europe
and others to make those two countries pay a ...price.

And all I hear from Europe is the usual silence.

It's getting old.

>
> Keith
>
>
>

[jonathan]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1edgv7ddu8nuig05c...@4ax.com...

You're the one offering childish insults instead of debating
the topic at hand.

[jonathan]

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message

news:jt9h2i$sfb$1...@dont-email.me...

> "jonathan" wrote in message
> news:G7-dnRLpBPi5FGrS...@giganews.com...
>
>
> "peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:jt7v78$5m4$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "jonathan" wrote in message
>> news:dOydncux6_k74mrS...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>>And why aren't you speaking German or Russian today
>> and living under a fascist or communist government?
>> Be honest now, if the US had been as xenophobic
>> and weak during WW2 as Europe is today, you
>> would be.
>>
>>
>> OFCS, the US between the wars makes modern Europe look decidedly
>> militaristic.
>
>
>>Between wars, let's see, since 1939 that would be the period
>
> Why since 1939?

The debate was about the recent lack of European military
spending. The US has been spending heartily for 70 years.
My point is that it's Europe's ...turn to step up to the plate.

> THe message I replied to referred to speaking German or Russian, ie result
> of WWII.

Right, had the US NOT stepped up back then, when it
was ....our turn, Europe would be speaking German or
Russian today. But now it's...Europe's turn. Is that so hard
to comprehend???

>
> You've been caught saying something really ignorant, you need stronger
> hand-wavium to get out of it.

Nonsense, you're dodging the issue by trying to muddy
the waters going back almost a century, which is a
typical response when you can't win a debate on
the merits.



>
>
>
>>
>
>
>

[Keith W]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Than perhaps they should stop interfering in nations
>> who's policies they disagree with. Many of the current
>> problems in the Middle East can be traced back to
>> the coup mounted by the CIA against an elected left
>> wing Iranian leader during the 1950's.
>>
>

> Utter poppycock!

>
> Many (I would say 'most') of the current problems in the Middle East
> can be traced back to the usual suspect; the heavy-handed
> mismanagement of the Colonial Powers, primarily the British Empire.

Iranians remember the CIA coup very well, it was a long term
disaster. The Shah was regarded as an American puppet and
his destruction of any secular opposition handed power to
the Mullahs as the only organized resistance left.

Keith

[Keith W]

There was a depression in Europe too

>
>>
>> A period during which the US Army was smaller than
>> that of Belgium and it was equipped with WW1
>> equipment. When they wanted to practice armoured
>> warfare they had to use trucks with dummy guns
>> as they had no tanks
>>
>> In 1939 when the German Air Force had the Me-109
>> and the RAF the Spitfire and Hurricane the USAAC
>> was reliant on the Boeing P-26 and Seversky P-35.
>
>
> Correct, but my point is it's time for Europe to step up
> to the plate when needed, as the US did in '39.

Trouble is they didn't. It took the Japanese attack
and German declaration of war in 1941 to drag them
kicking and screaming into the war.

> It's ...their turn now., our turn has lasted for
> 70 years now. It's not responsible for the world
> to be so dependent on one nation for keeping
> the world economic life-lines open.
>
> What if the US suddenly turned inward for political
> or economic reasons? What then? Could Europe
> deal with a nuclear armed Iran, an emboldened China
> and N Korea?
>

Well yes.

> The world needs more democracy, which would
> reduce the need for large militaries, or more balance
> among the existing democracies. I prefer the spread
> of democracy as the long term solution. But having
> Europe passive about it, and Russia and China
> actively trying to stop the spread of democracy
> it's left to the US to be the world's policeman.
>

So you need that large navy then. If you want to
play the game you need to pay the entrance fee.

> Just today Clinton lambasted Russia and China
> for supporting Assad and loudly called on Europe
> and others to make those two countries pay a ...price.
>
> And all I hear from Europe is the usual silence.
>
> It's getting old.
>

Read again what I was saying about US interference.
It carries a price tag.

Keith

[Paul J. Adam]

On 07/07/2012 11:30, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Paul J. Adam" <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> On 07/07/2012 00:00, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> I especially liked the US policy of placing terrorists so that they'd
>>> blow up British soldiers.
>>>
>>> Or don't Irish Catholic terrorists count?
>>

>> Freedom fighters, Bill, heroic freedom fighters, battling against the
>> tyranny of an elected democracy, one murdered civilian at a time. (Going
>> after soldiers turned out to be too difficult and dangerous by the 1980s)
>>
>
> And the English contingent has to troll the usual stinking lies.

Which lies would that be, Fred?

PIRA were terrorists: that's a fact.

The UK is a parliamentary democracy: that's a fact.

PIRA and its offshoots switched to primarily targeting civilians in the
1980s, because military targets often shot back and the cowardly
scumbags felt that was *deeply* unfair. That's a fact also.

So what, exactly, are you arguing about?

[peter skelton]

"jonathan" wrote in message
news:wIqdnQ_JhPrR9mXS...@giganews.com...

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:jt9h2i$sfb$1...@dont-email.me...
> "jonathan" wrote in message
> news:G7-dnRLpBPi5FGrS...@giganews.com...
>
>
> "peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:jt7v78$5m4$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "jonathan" wrote in message
>> news:dOydncux6_k74mrS...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>>And why aren't you speaking German or Russian today
>> and living under a fascist or communist government?
>> Be honest now, if the US had been as xenophobic
>> and weak during WW2 as Europe is today, you
>> would be.
>>
>>
>> OFCS, the US between the wars makes modern Europe look decidedly
>> militaristic.
>
>
>>Between wars, let's see, since 1939 that would be the period
>
> Why since 1939?


>The debate was about the recent lack of European military
spending. The US has been spending heartily for 70 years.
My point is that it's Europe's ...turn to step up to the plate.

No, you don't get to change the subject

> THe message I replied to referred to speaking German or Russian, ie result
> of WWII.


>Right, had the US NOT stepped up back then, when it
was ....our turn, Europe would be speaking German or
Russian today. But now it's...Europe's turn. Is that so hard
to comprehend???

The US didn't step up then, it impoverished the British, (having financed
the Germans) then hung around on the side-lines until dragged in two and a
quarter years late.

There's not a thing wrong with American behaviour, they had their interests
and did nothing dishonourable, but this utter nonsense about being owed
disgusts me.

>
> You've been caught saying something really ignorant, you need stronger
> hand-wavium to get out of it.


>Nonsense, you're dodging the issue by trying to muddy
the waters going back almost a century, which is a
typical response when you can't win a debate on
the merits.

What a load of crap. I answered a statement directly on what it said.
Incidentally, why is it OK for you to go back to 1941, but not for me to?

Go read a few books.

[tutall]

Nice strawman. Of course all strawmen are the creation of weak
arguments, so that's like saying "nice pile of shit".

But, that is a bit of chicken or egg question now isn't it? And
awfully simplistically binary too. Or do you really think that when
including a time factor that it's that simplistic?

The US can certainly pull back more from it's current forward
aggressive posture. When the USA outspends the next 20 countries
combined, something it out of whack.

[tutall]

On Jul 6, 5:15 pm, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Bill" <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> Not to mention the infamous European apathy during the
> ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. Another German and Russian
> mess we had to clean up.
>

I wholly or partially disagree with most of your posturing on this
topic here Jon, but the Balkan mess and their collective inaction was
shameful. A few have acknowleged that.

>
> > You're an idiot son.
>
> And you're a typical European <g>
> (pardon my language)
>

Bill's not typical European, he's one of the typical usenet types. The
one that is never wrong and loves an argument.

[Bill]

On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 12:49:58 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> 1918 to 1939
>
>
>Well the thirties was the Great Depression and
>the Dust Bowl years. We didn't have an economy
>let alone a military. So it wasn't by choice.

The British didn't have any money either, or did you think the
depression only hit the USA?

But the British rearmed.

>Correct, but my point is it's time for Europe to step up
>to the plate when needed, as the US did in '39.

The British would have been delight6ed for the US to 'step up to the
plate' as you so vividly put it in 1939.

That they didn't actually do anything for a couple of years but sat
back and made a profit isn't something to boast about...

>What if the US suddenly turned inward for political
>or economic reasons? What then? Could Europe
>deal with a nuclear armed Iran, an emboldened China
>and N Korea?

Well yes.


You see, Iran doesn't hate us.

China hasn't won a war in a millennia

North Korea isn't actually a problem to anyone but South Korea...

So nobody cares.

Of course there'd be a lot of hand wringing but nobody in Europe
actually cares about the people of Asia as long as they don't cost us
any blood and treasure.

[Bill]

On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 12:54:00 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>
wrote:

'Debate'!

You're pissing me son.

[Bill]

On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 15:20:24 -0700 (PDT), tutall <tut...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Actually I do admit mistakes, and have done so here several times.

Where have I been wrong in this thread?

[peter skelton]

"Bill" wrote in message news:m7ghv7d7rr809gjpk...@4ax.com...

Your true brickhead accuses you of doing what he's up to himself. There's no
point in arguing when that comes up.

[Kerryn Offord]

And that would be the American spending....

[La N.]

"Paul J. Adam" <paul....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jt7s8f$nod$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 07/07/2012 00:00, Bill wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:37:02 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>

>> wrote:
>>> I especially liked the long lived European policy of placating

>>> terrorists so they would leave Europe alone and come after
>>> the US and Israel.
>>

>> I especially liked the US policy of placing terrorists so that they'd
>> blow up British soldiers.
>>
>> Or don't Irish Catholic terrorists count?
>
> Freedom fighters, Bill, heroic freedom fighters, battling against the
> tyranny of an elected democracy, one murdered civilian at a time. (Going
> after soldiers turned out to be too difficult and dangerous by the 1980s)
>

Apropo of this, I have an Irish-American friend who just posted a photo on
his FB of the fellow about whom he remembered thus on the anniversary of his
death:
"IRA Volunteer Joe McDonnell. Died for Ireland at 5:15am on Wednesday 8th
July 1981 after 61 days of agonising hunger strike"

Was Joe McD a good guy or bad?

- nilita

[jonathan]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:p3ghv75l6fof8frvt...@4ax.com...

What I find interesting is that at the start of this thread
everyone seemed quite clear the US Navy needs to
be so large, larger in fact. All the commitments and
threats and so on.

But when I say the EU should share a larger burden it's
all of a sudden, :"what threats", everything's fine, who needs
a large navy~

So which is it?


Jonathan


s

[jonathan]

"tutall" <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11f2e9cb-9609-439c...@t1g2000pbl.googlegroups.com...

.........................


So you don't think the EU should increase their military
contribution to world security? Or push harder for the
spread of democracy? That's the only points I'm trying
to make. I firmly believe the spread of democracy is
the path to peace and prosperity, and ending the massive
military costs. Why anyone would take issue with that
is beyond me.



Jonathan

s

[Kerryn Offord]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_McDonnell_%28hunger_striker%29
It depends on who's side you were on when he and his mates were shooting...

[La N.]

"Kerryn Offord" <ka...@uclive.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:jtb6a2$85p$1...@dont-email.me...

Thanks for that. Those were busy years in my life; I vaguely recall all this
IRA business, hunger strikes, etc.

- nilita

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Bill wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:27:49 -0700 (PDT), tutall <tut...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>To cover the US committments in the Middle East, Europe,
>>>the Pacific and Atlatic thats not very many
>>>
>>
>>Then the US needs to rethink those committments, or start raising a
>>tax on the nations who's interests coincide with ours.
>>
>>This policeman for the world thing has gotten old. Need a new
>>paradigm.
>>
>
>
> How about 'fighting in their backyard so they don't start fighting in
> yours'
>
> Or do you honestly think that if the US returns to isolationism the
> people who you've managed to upset will leave you alone?

Is that it, isolationism or war?...son, your brain is defective.
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

> With you? Not a thing. Go home to Hazel or find some other way to
> amuse yourself other than your usual lying spin-trolls.
>

Who's Hazel?

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

La N. wrote:

> "Paul J. Adam" <paul....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jt7s8f$nod$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>On 07/07/2012 00:00, Bill wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:37:02 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I especially liked the long lived European policy of placating
>>>>terrorists so they would leave Europe alone and come after
>>>>the US and Israel.
>>>
>>>I especially liked the US policy of placing terrorists so that they'd
>>>blow up British soldiers.
>>>
>>>Or don't Irish Catholic terrorists count?
>>
>>Freedom fighters, Bill, heroic freedom fighters, battling against the
>>tyranny of an elected democracy, one murdered civilian at a time. (Going
>>after soldiers turned out to be too difficult and dangerous by the 1980s)
>>
>
>
> Apropo of this, I have an Irish-American friend

Hey everybody look...nilita has a facebook "friend"

he he he...airhead nilita reminds me of the girl in high school so
desperate for friends.
;-)

[Bill]

He died so that McGuiness and Adams could eat big dinners...

[peter skelton]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." wrote in message
news:qL6dnbtSV8Bm5mTS...@supernews.com...

Mr. Adam is a charter member of the International Association of Men Married
to Women Much Better than they Deserve. (Other members once active here
include, famously, the real Dr. Vince, married to one Dr. Ruth.) There is a
vague possibility that Fred is jealous.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What I find interesting is that at the start of this thread
>>everyone seemed quite clear the US Navy needs to
>>be so large, larger in fact. All the commitments and
>>threats and so on.
>>
>>But when I say the EU should share a larger burden it's
>>all of a sudden, :"what threats", everything's fine, who needs
>>a large navy~
>>
>>So which is it?
>>
>
>

> Apples and aardvarks, anyone?
>
> What I find interesting is that one group of people says one thing,
> another group says an unrelated thing, and suddently to Jonathan it's
> "which is it"?

Pay attention, son, jonathan made a valid point.
;-)

[Fred J. McCoward]

> Fred J. McCall boasted:
>>
>> I'm no coward, anybody can verify I use my real name.
>
> Please post your address so we can verify.

Fwed's tag "you are what you do when it counts", but he is afraid to
post his address, so if it ever really counted he would be running.

Fwed can *talk* big on usenet...but he is *only* a talker.
;-)

[Rockinghorse Winner]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
jonathan <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
> and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
> than both combined? The Chinese sub fleet appears
> to be the only real threat to us, but from what
> I read they mostly sit in port and rarely patrol.
>
> With the post 9/11 spending binge, and the rapid
> advance of technology, as far as I can see, the US
> military has never been more overwhelming
> than right now. Even at the height of WW2, the
> US military still had serious competition.
> Not so today.
>
> Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
> East, and democracy in China someday soon, will
> allow a significant downsizing of the US military.

Not if Democracy means anything like 'Germany 1933.'

Terry
--
"For I would ride with you upon the wind, |/
Run on the top of the dishevelled tide, |/ Gentoo Linux
And dance upon the mountains like a flame." |/
-Yeats |/

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Rockinghorse Winner wrote:

> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> jonathan <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
>>and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
>>than both combined? The Chinese sub fleet appears
>>to be the only real threat to us, but from what
>>I read they mostly sit in port and rarely patrol.
>>
>>With the post 9/11 spending binge, and the rapid
>>advance of technology, as far as I can see, the US
>>military has never been more overwhelming
>>than right now. Even at the height of WW2, the
>>US military still had serious competition.
>>Not so today.
>>
>>Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
>>East, and democracy in China someday soon, will
>>allow a significant downsizing of the US military.
>
>
> Not if Democracy means anything like 'Germany 1933.'
>
> Terry

Right you are.

China has democratic elections from local to national parliament.

It's 1-party is not perfect like our 2-party U.S. democracy, but it is democracy.
;-)

[jonathan]

"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:slrnjvj7hj.t62....@badass.edu...

>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
> jonathan <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
>> East, and democracy in China someday soon, will
>> allow a significant downsizing of the US military.
>
> Not if Democracy means anything like 'Germany 1933.'

Let's hope the Arab Spring doesn't just replace
one dictator with another. But so far it appears
the people want a real democracy, not just
a coup. With the rise of The Internet, anyone
can see how things work around the world.

The difference between a dictatorship and
a stable democracy are night and day when
it comes to social justice and freedom.

[peter skelton]

"jonathan" wrote in message
news:2tWdnfu666t1O2TS...@giganews.com...

"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:slrnjvj7hj.t62....@badass.edu...
>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
> jonathan <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
>> East, and democracy in China someday soon, will
>> allow a significant downsizing of the US military.
>
> Not if Democracy means anything like 'Germany 1933.'


>Let's hope the Arab Spring doesn't just replace
one dictator with another. But so far it appears
the people want a real democracy, not just
a coup. With the rise of The Internet, anyone
can see how things work around the world.

The motivation behind the Arab Spring was financial, economic problems and
jobs. Interest in democracy flows from a belief that democracy will solve
those problems which is patent nonsense - look at Greece, Italy, Spain, and
Ireland.

>The difference between a dictatorship and
a stable democracy are night and day when
it comes to social justice and freedom.

Also nonsense, democracy allows the majority to be very evil to minorities.
Social justice and freedom flow from things like a constitution which
functions to curb democracy and independent judiciary to enforce it. (THere
are lots of other essentials but you need to learn about those two first.)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Democracies, no matter how structured, can be bought (or otherwise taken over).

Democracies are not infallible...their inherent weakness is...democracy.
;-)

[tutall]

On Jul 7, 4:07 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 15:20:24 -0700 (PDT), tutall <tut...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:

> >> And you're a typical European <g>
> >> (pardon my language)
>
> >Bill's not typical European, he's one of the typical usenet types. The
> >one that is never wrong and loves an argument.
>

> Actually I do admit mistakes,  and have done so here several times.

Other than punctuation I meant.

[jonathan]

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message

news:jtc9td$cgd$1...@dont-email.me...

> "jonathan" wrote in message
> news:2tWdnfu666t1O2TS...@giganews.com...
>
>
> "Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnjvj7hj.t62....@badass.edu...
>>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>> jonathan <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
>>> East, and democracy in China someday soon, will
>>> allow a significant downsizing of the US military.
>>
>> Not if Democracy means anything like 'Germany 1933.'
>
>
>>Let's hope the Arab Spring doesn't just replace
> one dictator with another. But so far it appears
> the people want a real democracy, not just
> a coup. With the rise of The Internet, anyone
> can see how things work around the world.
>
> The motivation behind the Arab Spring was financial, economic problems and
> jobs. Interest in democracy flows from a belief that democracy will solve
> those problems which is patent nonsense - look at Greece, Italy, Spain,
> and Ireland.

It's important to get at the core reasons for those problems.
The great stock market crash ruined those economies, and
the crash was the result of too little government regulation
and oversight of the US financial markets. Too little regulation
is another way of saying too much power in the hands of
a few, in this case Wall Street. Too much power in too few
hands is another word for.....Dictatorship!

Democracy is the solution, a well-designed and regulated
democracy. When power is too concentrated, whether
with an economic monopoly, a religious or military
dictatorship....disaster is sure to follow.

Your examples only prove my point. More and better
democracy, not less is the answer.

Maybe you should compare those countries to
dictatorships, and see how they stack up when
it comes to freedom and prosperity. Care to
compare Greece with Egypt, Spain with Iran,
Italy with China and Ireland with Yemen?

If you look at GDP per capita, except for the oil rich
nations, the difference between democracy and dicatorships
are night and day, no comparison at all when it comes
to human suffering. The numbers don't lie.

For instance Greece is $13,400 per capita Yemen is $740
Spain $16,500, China $3,600
Italy 20,800, Iran $5000
Ireland 18,600, Egypt $2850

GDP per capita
http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/gdp_per_capita_0.htm

Jonathan

s

[Bill]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 08:20:43 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
<dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:

>China has democratic elections from local to national parliament.
>
>It's 1-party is not perfect like our 2-party U.S. democracy, but it is democracy.
>;-)

What's deeply worrying is that you really do believe that.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Son, your ignorance doesn't worry me at all.
;-)

[Rockinghorse Winner]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
jonathan <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnjvj7hj.t62....@badass.edu...
>>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>> jonathan <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
>>> East, and democracy in China someday soon, will
>>> allow a significant downsizing of the US military.
>>
>> Not if Democracy means anything like 'Germany 1933.'
>
>
> Let's hope the Arab Spring doesn't just replace
> one dictator with another. But so far it appears
> the people want a real democracy, not just
> a coup. With the rise of The Internet, anyone
> can see how things work around the world.
>
> The difference between a dictatorship and
> a stable democracy are night and day when
> it comes to social justice and freedom.
>

The problem in the ME is not just the leaders. The populace there can as
easily turn on the weak of that society as a bitch on a newborn pup....

It was secular leaders like Mubarak, Hussein and Assad that kept this dragon
confined (through brutality). Now that the dragon is free, who is going to
grab it's tail?

Terry
--
"Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls |/
drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own |/ Gentoo Linux
despair, against our will, comes wisdom through |/
the awful grace of God." -Aeschylus |/

[peter skelton]

"jonathan" wrote in message
news:UIKdnfQty9wxU2TS...@giganews.com...

Don't be bloody silly, those economies crashed because too little tax was
paid for the level of service delivered. That is not a problem of the few,
it is a problem of the many.


<you really should have read my text below before typing the inanities I
snipped here>

[Andrew Swallow]

On 07/07/2012 00:27, Paul J. Adam wrote:
> On 07/07/2012 00:00, Bill wrote:

>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:37:02 -0400, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com>

>> wrote:
>>> I especially liked the long lived European policy of placating
>>> terrorists so they would leave Europe alone and come after
>>> the US and Israel.
>>

>> I especially liked the US policy of placing terrorists so that they'd
>> blow up British soldiers.
>>
>> Or don't Irish Catholic terrorists count?
>
> Freedom fighters, Bill, heroic freedom fighters, battling against the
> tyranny of an elected democracy, one murdered civilian at a time. (Going
> after soldiers turned out to be too difficult and dangerous by the 1980s)
>

> Mind you, the Protestant terrorists managed to be as bad or worse. Talk
> about "a plague on both your houses"...
>
>>> And don't get me started on the asshole Russians, someone
>>> needs to give them a swift kick in the ass and make them
>>> start behaving like a civilized nation.
>>
>> Ah, now that's been tried by several people, including Napoleon and
>> Hitler.
>
> And us in the 1850s and again in 1919.
>>
>> As a general rule that ends in tears as well...
>
> Ah, but our experience is ancient and historical and no longer relevant,
> so should be ignored. The US have a splendid master plan for success
> that they've copied from "South Park".
>
> 1. Start kicking the Russians.
> 2. ...er...not sure about this part
> 3. VICTORY!!!!!!
>
> It's the same plan they used for the quick, clean, tidy conquest of Iraq
> and the painless, straightforward pacification of Afghanistan that we've
> enjoyed watching - or in some cases participating in - over the last
> decade. How can any rational being expect any problems at all?
>
> <Cue the 'Crelm Toothpaste / American Defence' animation from Monty Python>
>
>
Just remember that fighting the Russians and invading them are two
different things.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

On 07/07/2012 01:17, peter skelton wrote:
> "jonathan" wrote in message

> news:dOydncux6_k74mrS...@giganews.com...
>
>
>> And why aren't you speaking German or Russian today
> and living under a fascist or communist government?
> Be honest now, if the US had been as xenophobic
> and weak during WW2 as Europe is today, you
> would be.
>
>
> OFCS, the US between the wars makes modern Europe look decidedly
> militaristic.

Even Superman got involved in preventing WW2 spreading to the USA.

Andrew Swallow

[mike]

On Jul 7, 7:05 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
> In 1939 when the German Air Force had the Me-109
> and the RAF the Spitfire and Hurricane the USAAC
> was reliant on the Boeing P-26 and Seversky P-35.

Eh?

P-36 slip your mind?

French pilots seemed to like the Hawks against the Bf-109

**
mike
**

[Keith W]

mike wrote:
> On Jul 7, 7:05 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> In 1939 when the German Air Force had the Me-109
>> and the RAF the Spitfire and Hurricane the USAAC
>> was reliant on the Boeing P-26 and Seversky P-35.
>
> Eh?
>
> P-36 slip your mind?

Nope , it was just entering service and their were major early
technical issues such as skin buckling and structural problems.

This meant that while 3 Pursuit groups were supposed to
receive the aircraft in 1938 only one did so and that was
down to 6 serviceable aircraft for much of the time.

Another group got the P-35 while the third finally requipped
with the type during 1939. The only combat use of the P-36
by the USAAF happened during the attack on Pearl Harbor.

>
> French pilots seemed to like the Hawks against the Bf-109
>

Indeed and they had rather more of them than the USAAC
Only 216 P-36's were delivered to the USAAF while the
French received 291.

Note that the last French combat use of the Hawk was to fight F-4F's
of the USN during Operation Torch.

Keith

[Dean Markley]

Having a fake Ph.D. does not enhance your intelligence in making such outlandish claims.

[mike]

On Jul 9, 2:45 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
> Nope , it was just entering service and their were major early
> technical issues such as skin buckling and structural problems.
>

But the teething troubles were out of the way, and did seem
comparable to other 1939 fighters

from a quicky cut-n-paste
__
Considerable interest in the Hawk had been aroused in Britain as a
result of a test flight carried out with an Armee de l'Air Hawk by an
RAF pilot in France. The Hawk 75A possessed remarkably good controls
and the ailerons were fairly light at high speeds in contrast with the
early Spitfire that had ailerons which were almost immobile at speeds
over 300 mph. At the end of 1939, the Royal Aircraft Establishment
arranged for a loan of a Curtiss Hawk from France (the 88th production
Hawk 75A-2) for comparative trials against a Spitfire I. In many
respects, the Hawk turned out to be superior to the Spitfire. The RAF
found that the Hawk did indeed have exceptional handling
characteristics and beautifully harmonized controls. In a diving
attack at 400 mph, the Hawk was far superior to the Spitfire I owing
to its lighter ailerons. In a dogfight at 250 mph, the Hawk was again
superior, because its elevator control was not over-sensitive and all-
round view was better. However, the Spitfire could break off combat at
will because of its much higher speed. When the Spitfire dived on the
Hawk, the Curtiss could avoid its opponent by banking and turning
rapidly. The Spitfire could not follow the Hawk around and would
overshoot the target. The Hawk 75A displayed appreciably superior take-
off and climb characteristics. The swing on takeoff was smaller and
more easily corrected than on the Spitfire, and during the climb the
Hawk's controls were more effective. However, the Hawk tended to be
rather slow in picking up speed in a dive. Based on these trials, the
British government briefly toyed with the idea of ordering the Hawk
for the RAF. For whatever reason, these plans were never carried out.
__

while nobody had much good to say about the P-35 or P-26 in 1939

**
mike
**

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Son, I regret that you are so jealous of my many academic honors, degrees, and appointments.
;-)

[Kerryn Offord]

How can anybody can be jealous of something that doesn't exist?

[peter skelton]

"Kerryn Offord" wrote in message news:jtfhf8$d0n$1...@dont-email.me...

Maybe he thinks you're out of toilet paper.

[Moramarth]

On Jul 9, 8:26 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@jameford.edu>
wrote:

>
> Son, I regret that you are so jealous of my many academic honors, degrees, and appointments.

The only appointments you've had were with a shrink, and it's about
time you had some more...
>

[Dean Markley]

On Monday, July 9, 2012 3:26:13 PM UTC-4, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
> Dean Markley wrote:
>
> &gt; On Sunday, July 8, 2012 11:20:43 AM UTC-4, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
> &gt;
> &gt;&gt;Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt;* It may have been the liquor talking, but
> &gt;&gt;&gt;jonathan &lt;mat...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> &gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;In quickly reviewing the size of the US Navy vs China
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;and Russia, do we really need to be 10 times larger
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;than both combined? The Chinese sub fleet appears
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;to be the only real threat to us, but from what
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I read they mostly sit in port and rarely patrol.
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;With the post 9/11 spending binge, and the rapid
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;advance of technology, as far as I can see, the US
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;military has never been more overwhelming
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;than right now. Even at the height of WW2, the
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;US military still had serious competition.
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Not so today.
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Hopefully the spread of democracy in the Middle
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;East, and democracy in China someday soon, will
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;allow a significant downsizing of the US military.
> &gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt;Not if Democracy means anything like &#39;Germany 1933.&#39;
> &gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt;Terry
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;Right you are.
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;China has democratic elections from local to national parliament.
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;It&#39;s 1-party is not perfect like our 2-party U.S. democracy, but it is democracy.
> &gt;&gt;;-)
> &gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; Having a fake Ph.D. does not enhance your intelligence in making such outlandish claims.

>
> Son, I regret that you are so jealous of my many academic honors, degrees, and appointments.
> ;-)

Why don't you list them for us along with your address. Nothing that you don't ask others to do.