| Author | Message | ||
     Buellistic |
This is the mentality you are dealing with the IRANIAN FREEDOM PROTESTERS, IS my enemy(U.S.A.) is my friend until we win against the AYATOLLAH(s), then we will go back to killing each other and RE-hating the U.S.A. !!! | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
According to the link you provided, neither one is ready at this point. I do apologise. I had no idea there was a great urgency for a carrier or two at this moment in time. But if it's an argument you want to win about America being Britain's protector you should have said. I'd have pointed out what an ill equipped fighting force Britain's military is these days. But had I have done so I'd have been somewhat misleading my American cousins of Britain's military might as one of the worlds top military powers. See, it's not about how many carriers one has. It's about how you use what you've got and who the people are that are using it. In this respect Britain has more than enough to repel any invading force coming from the east. And let's face it, if America tried to take Britain they'd struggle without a European ally to leapfrog that 3000 mile ocean. See, it's a two way street - or ocean  Seems quite accurate to state that GB doesn't have an active carrier. To a pedant trying to win a silly argument, this would be an important point I'm sure. Going by the artists rendering, they are building a pretty small carrier to boot, even if it is the biggest they've done to date. Kind of sums up what was said about leaning on the might of the US. Pretty small? If you want to willy wave America got the Brit's, oh let's see, by all of two hundred feet. But those extra 30000 tons. What a lard arse! Queen Elizabeth class 70000 tons 920 ft United States Navy supercarriers 100000 tons 1106 ft But until the Brit's have a carrier all at sea, you're right. Britain will have to lean on the might of the U.S., should Britain require the use of a carrier, which hopefully Britain won't. I too have an artists rendering of Britain's Queen Elizabeth Class carrier. She's a beaut alright!   Rocket in England | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387230/queen -and-country-ian-tuttle?splash= Seems like someone agrees the EU is a fail. Think it's a trend? | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
It sure does seem at a distance that you do not trust the forces that very imperfectly represent freedom and western civilization while being awesomely credulous and defensive about the forces bent on it's destruction and replacement with an unelected aristocracy and forced submission to an intolerant and murderous man made religion. I don't believe I've given credit to anyone as such. At least not in the sense I have taken a side, which seems to be a common myth in this topic. I do convey a message provocation exists from the (so called) peacekeepers whilst the ones said to be the aggressors appear to be doing their best to hold the peace. Rocket in England | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Rocket, ever heard of the Falkland's War? GB couldn't have won that war without Harriers and how did those planes get to that island?... by aircraft carrier ! To add insult to injury your Royal Air Force no longer flies the Harrier. You currently have three F-35 STOVL's with no carrier to transport until 2020 !!!! | ||
| Sifo |
To a pedant trying to win a silly argument, this would be an important point I'm sure. Seemed important enough for you to take on the argument, and in doing so, you made false statements. I simply corrected the falsehoods. Yes, it is a small carrier. Useful for nothing but small aircraft. Also in capable of handling takeoffs and landings simultaneously. One might call it quaint. It's how we did things roughly 100 years ago. Oh, sorry. That's ancient history! Carry on... | ||
| Aesquire |
Ferris, I'd say that was message provocation.  (Message edited by aesquire on September 07, 2014) | ||
| Aesquire |
do convey a message provocation exists from the (so called) peacekeepers whilst the ones said to be the aggressors appear to be doing their best to hold the peace. That's delightfully ambiguous. ( another term is weasel word ) Just so we're clear. "You will pay a price for sending more unmarked troops into another country to conquer it." vs. "we have nukes and no one should get in our way." Neither is a quote.... both capture the gist of official statements. Not editorials by people being critical, officials in different governments. | ||
| Aesquire |
Time was, Rachman writes, America accounted for roughly half of NATO’s military spending; now it accounts for about 75 percent. Only four of NATO’s 28 members (America, Britain, Estonia, and penurious Greece) fulfill their obligation to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense, and Britain may soon fall below that threshold as its army shrinks to about 80,000, its smallest size since after Waterloo (1815). As Putin casts a cold eye on his enemies, he might reasonably infer from their atrophied military muscles that they have palsied wills. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387274/natos -moment-truth-george-will | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Factor out support personnel from that 80,000 and you're left with about 25,000 combat troops | ||
| Aesquire |
Opinions.... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387030/balti cs-edge-andrew-stuttaford According to the (anti-Putin) Russian commentator Andrey Piontkovsky, Putin is well aware that many NATO countries would be reluctant to be drawn into conflict by Article V. And even if they did come to Estonia’s aid, “Putin [could] respond with a very limited nuclear strike and destroy for example two European capitals. Not London and not Paris, of course.” Were that to happen, Piontkovsky believes, Putin would calculate that “all progressive and even all reactionary American society” would shout “‘We do not want to die for f***ing Narva, Mr. President!’” Far-fetched? Probably. Putin is a gambler, but he’s not reckless. That said, it is worth noting, as did Anne Applebaum in a recent article for the Washington Post, that “Vladimir Zhirinovsky — the Russian member of parliament and court jester who sometimes says things that those in power cannot — argued on television that Russia should use nuclear weapons to bomb Poland and the Baltic countries . . . and show the West who really holds power in Europe.” Zhirinovsky is not, thankfully, in a position to shape policy, but he is occasionally used by those in the Kremlin to float ideas that they would like to see in circulation. As (notes Applebaum) Putin has put it, he “gets the party going.” That this sort of talk is even out there will, as Putin knows, encourage a good number of NATO members to define Article V as narrowly as they can. Psychological pressure has always been a part of warfare, but it has an even larger role to play in Russia’s notion of a “New Generation” war. Within that, writes Berzins, “the main battle-space is the mind. . . . The main objective is to reduce the necessity for deploying hard military power to the minimum necessary, making the opponent’s military and civil[ian] population support the attacker to the detriment of their own government and country,” a strategy (essentially what once might have been called subversion, but taken to a whole new level) peculiarly suited to some of the more fragile countries that emerged from the wreckage of the Soviet Union. In this respect, Berzins’s account of the early months of the Russian onslaught in Ukraine makes depressing reading: “In just three weeks, and without a shot being fired, the morale of the Ukrainian military was broken [in the Crimea] and all of their 190 bases had surrendered.” But Ukraine, I was repeatedly told during a visit to the Latvian capital, Riga, in June, was a failed state. Latvia is not. Nor is Estonia. Both have made remarkable strides since winning back their freedom from the USSR. They are members of the EU as well as NATO. Their economies have grown fast (if not smoothly), delivering a standard of living far better than that of their Russian neighbor. That is not the case in Ukraine. At their core, Latvia and Estonia have a powerful sense of national identity. Memories of their independent inter-war republics and the nearly half a century of brutal Soviet occupation that followed still sear. In 1940 they were annexed by Moscow without a fight. That would not happen again. Worth a read... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387006/only- deterrence-can-prevent-war-victor-davis-hanson I usually agree with Hanson... I often disagree with Krauthammer. Seems a bit old fashioned to me... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373327/how-s top-putin-charles-krauthammer Speaking of old fashioned... sometimes I DO agree with Krauthammer. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/383024/truth -about-gaza-charles-krauthammer | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Rocket, ever heard of the Falkland's War? GB couldn't have won that war without Harriers and how did those planes get to that island?... by aircraft carrier ! Yeah 34 YEARS AGO We have people sitting in what looks like a truck container not 30 miles from where I live. They can watch a monitor which shows real time events happening thousands of miles away. This equipment can be used as part of a system to kill a single person. I've yet to see a carrier needed to launch a drone. To add insult to injury your Royal Air Force no longer flies the Harrier. You currently have three F-35 STOVL's with no carrier to transport until 2020 !!!! You're such a drama queen. You suppose to know the needs of the entire British military more than they do themselves? You're wasted on BadWeB fella. You should give the British ministry of defence a call with such a talent. Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Yes, it is a small carrier. Useful for nothing but small aircraft. Also in capable of handling takeoffs and landings simultaneously. Another BadWeBer with services the British ministry of defense should have consulted. I can't imagine why the British government is building two of these small carriers if they can't launch their current in service planes, Eurofighter I imagine then, from them. Please enlighten me with your superior knowledge in such matters. I'll pass it on to the ministry first thing in the morning. I'm sure it's just a (small) oversight on their part Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
That's delightfully ambiguous. ( another term is weasel word ) Just so we're clear. No it's alright. I understand ambiguous, though my statement was not meant to be in the slightest. Not even delightfully so. Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Factor out support personnel from that 80,000 and you're left with about 25,000 combat troops Which supports NATO being more about U.S. policy and U.S. warmongering, as I've pointed out constantly throughout this topic. NATO is America. A point not lost on Putin. More so since Putin's offer to work with NATO constantly fell on deaf ears since the Ukraine crisis kicked off in Kiev. Rocket in England | ||
| Buellistic |
What about the U.N. which is 47% mooslamb !!! | ||
| Sifo |
Another BadWeBer with services the British ministry of defense should have consulted. I can't imagine why the British government is building two of these small carriers if they can't launch their current in service planes, Eurofighter I imagine then, from them. Please enlighten me with your superior knowledge in such matters. I'll pass it on to the ministry first thing in the morning. I'm sure it's just a (small) oversight on their part ; ) You seem to not understand the problem. It's not about launching current aircraft. It's that they can't do landings while planes are taking off. It's simple matter of the layout of the flight deck. Modern carriers are designed with separate take off and landing areas that do not intersect so that you can recover air craft while putting more into the air for uninterrupted operations. A simple runway down the length of the deck as GB has done means you can't take off while recovering aircraft. That really puts a damper on things when you have planes that are on fumes and you need to get another group into the air. Of course this is necessary when you don't use a modern catapult launcher on the flight deck. The entire length is required to get the bird up to air speed. Even so, they use a ramp to help them get into the air. But at least in a few years you will probably be able to brag that GB does indeed have an operational carrier. Meanwhile you make it clear that you don't know much about this stuff. NATO is America. No. The US is but a single country in NATO. All the rest get equal say in what NATO does. It's not as bad of a deal for the US as the UN, but it's far from the US calling the shots. We are the muscle and major funding of both groups though. I'm sure the US could get along just fine without either. GB? Probably not so much. | ||
| Hootowl |
We would get along quite poorly without GB. They are a solid ally, despite the O returning the bust of Churchill and sending the Queen recordings of the voice of god (in his mind). The rest of us are really sorry about that, by the way. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
You seem to not understand the problem. No actually, it is you who doesn't understand there isn't a problem. The British government appears not to share your sentiment also. So whilst you bang on about the pro's and con's of aircraft carrier design the British government doesn't seem to require a carrier. I doubt but for public opinion and vote grabbing it's likely Cameron would not have changed his mind and Britain would have continued to do without a carrier. Meanwhile you make it clear that you don't know much about this stuff. Pardon me for not. Should I? I mean, is it important to humankind people know the workings of a modern day aircraft carrier? Rocket in England | ||
| Sifo |
Great to hear that an island nation no longer has the need for a strong naval force. Clearly there must be no more threats to your nation. That really is great news. BTW, the US carrier groups are often the first responders for many nations when natural disasters hit. It's a shame that other nations can't match the good done by these carrier groups. Should you know more about carriers? Not really. Not unless you want someone else to value your opinion about them. No worries though. Your level of knowledge is just fine. | ||
| Aesquire |
What's weird to me is the Brits INVENTED the angled deck carrier. The rationalization for the Royal Navy's decisions are not known to me. Hopefully they can use Eurofighters off their new ships. I have my doubts that the F-35 will reach any kind of mass production, and am not sure it should. Carriers give you the ability to project power. A mobile airbase, and much of the planet is near an ocean. Drones are not a replacement. A few years back an Airforce General said the next generation of drones will have autonomous targeting systems... Where in the history of literature or movies has building the unstoppable killing machine a good idea? | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Great to hear that an island nation no longer has the need for a strong naval force. Clearly there must be no more threats to your nation. That really is great news. Pardon me for my ignorance but is not an aircraft carrier about a nation's ability to use its military aircraft in far away places? But here's a thing. Britain does not require a carrier these days (except for public demand and vote grabs as I said previously). As has been the case for several years now, Britain deploys its air force to far away places by flying to where a base can be established. Of course, America can't do this from home, she being her own island nation stuck thousands of miles away sandwiched between two oceans. America needs those big carriers whereas Britain does not. America's largest carrier by far being the UK mainland where the U.S. air force has a strong and long lasting presence. BTW, the US carrier groups are often the first responders for many nations when natural disasters hit. It's a shame that other nations can't match the good done by these carrier groups. Irrelevant nonsense....but Britain does use its Type 45 Destroyers in this role Should you know more about carriers? Not really. Not unless you want someone else to value your opinion about them. No worries though. Your level of knowledge is just fine. What I do know is Britain is changing the way it conducts defence and attack to suit the requirements of 21st century demands. This did not include an aircraft carrier until recently, but it does include the Type 26 Global Combat Ship. They will become the workhorse of the Fleet, undertaking the Royal Navy's three core roles - warfighting, maritime security and international engagement - on the world stage. So you see, Britain, the island nation, has the ability to conduct military operations by air land and sea without too much worry of being invaded by 21st century marauders. You might find this well know to the British story, of interest seeing as you brought up the Falklands war. It relates to aircraft carriers in the sense why America needs them and Britain doesn't. You know, since Britain has a strong military presence in the Falklands region since the war there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck Rocket in England | ||
| Sifo |
This is great Rocket. You've transitioned from "GB certainly does have an aircraft carrier", to "well we will have one soon and it will be awesome", to "well it may not be the best, but it will be there", to "we don't need no stinkin' aircraft carrier". All based, not on what is best for GB, but based simply on facts that have been presented about GB's imaginary carrier. That seems to sum up this entire thread. You are as spineless as any politician. That last post was quite a long one for you especially considering your having said this on the subject... "To a pedant trying to win a silly argument, this would be an important point I'm sure." Great word BTW, pedant. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
This is great Rocket. You've transitioned from "GB certainly does have an aircraft carrier", to "well we will have one soon and it will be awesome", to "well it may not be the best, but it will be there", to "we don't need no stinkin' aircraft carrier". All based, not on what is best for GB, but based simply on facts that have been presented about GB's imaginary carrier. That seems to sum up this entire thread. You are as spineless as any politician. Why the need to lie about what I said? I posted a link to Britain building two carriers. I went on to point out these carriers were a mere two hundred feet shorter than America's supercarriers. I agreed with you, if Britain needs a carrier before her own are in service, Britain would likely rely on America's assistance. I also pointed out (twice) Britain has changed its mind about not requiring a carrier, but this is more likely about public opinion and vote grabs (next year's election year ) As for the facts presented about Britain's imaginary carrier, and how it sums up my contribution in this topic. First you need to brush up on your grammatical skills. Second, you need to read back a post or three to make sure you actually know not only what you're talking about, but also what you're saying. Not that correcting yourself will make any difference to the shit you post. Might I suggest you take your emotions out of the discussion and try to contribute as if it's not about what kind of world you'd like or prefer. Rocket in England | ||
| Sifo |
So when Ferris said GB doesn't even have an aircraft carrier, you were wrong in correcting him? Glad we have that straight. Also the layout of the flight deck of the carrier that GB doesn't have yet, is basically what was designed close to 100 years ago. A design that has been greatly improved upon, allowing for simultaneous launch and recovery of aircraft. Also, lacking a catapult limits the size of aircraft that can be handled. Bottom line, it's not about the size of the carrier, it's about it's capabilities. Bottom line, the carrier that GB doesn't have doesn't have anything near the capabilities of modern carriers. Those are facts, not emotions. It's your stance on this that has changed with every new fact. That's because you took an emotional stance to Ferris pointing out the fact that GB doesn't even have a carrier. I'm glad we have it all straightened out now. No carrier for you! | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
I can't imagine why the British government is building two of these small carriers if they can't launch their current in service planes, Eurofighter The Eurofighter is not aircraft carrier capable. In regards to the Falklands, your hero, Putin, is on the side of Argentina. | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm sure Rocket is much better suited to determine military policy than Obama. In fact.... How similar are the views here? Obama wants to preside over the reduction of US power to third world status. ( which is WHY the notion that the Ukraine is an Obama Imperialism action is silly ... although it could be legacy code. It's not like Barry reads or attends his briefings, we knew that the First year. ) Obama is ignorant of military technology, history, traditions, and honor. ( not his bag. He does adulation for himself, so that's why he fund raises. Preaching to the crowd, a picked bunch of groupies, no dissent, and worshipful cheering ) Obama is anti-England in specific, and anti-colonialist. Read his bio. He had a very unrealistic view of his bigamist drunkard absent Father. A Great Freedom Fighter Family against the Evil Brits. ( not true, but that was his intensely propagandist upbringing. Mommy was a crazy lady ) And Like Rocket, Obama seems to be a believer in the Lies of the Oppressors. Of course, Obama, unlike Rocket, is in a position to destroy the planet when his ego gets bruised. I don't think Rocket is a classic narcissist. Obama looks to be getting close to the "kill them all to preserve my self image" part of his story. He's certainly not shy about killing people, and thinks he's really good at it. He said so. He's really better than anyone at anything.... He said so. http://psychcentral.com/disorders/narcissistic-per sonality-disorder-symptoms/ So please quit picking on the Brits. By the time Obama is done they may have aircraft carriers and we...none. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-st rategic-bombers-near-canada-practice-cruise-missil e-strikes-on-us/ Didn't threatening people with nuclear fire used to be a N. Korean exclusive? A considerably lower level of "class" in international relations these days. "F*** the EU" "But Eastern European countries will place themselves under the threat of total annihilation" ( just to show the world who's boss ) http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/anne-appleb aum-war-in-europe-is-not-a-hysterical-idea/2014/08 /29/815f29d4-2f93-11e4-bb9b-997ae96fad33_story.htm l | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
So when Ferris said GB doesn't even have an aircraft carrier, you were wrong in correcting him? Glad we have that straight. Yes I was wrong as I'd missed Ferris said "active", but the points I've presented about Britain's carriers are relevant to this part of the discussion. That's because you took an emotional stance to Ferris pointing out the fact that GB doesn't even have a carrier. I'm glad we have it all straightened out now. No carrier for you! Lol. No you've got it arse about face again. See, I don't believe Britain needs a carrier. My emotional side would say Britain does, but fact is, Britain has little need (not use) for one. So you'd be wrong to believe I took an emotional stance. The proof of this might be in the points you make about how inadequate (according to you) the new carriers will be. Perhaps they're building shit carriers just to secure votes knowing they'll never need to take off and land at the same time in a combat role ever at all Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
The Eurofighter is not aircraft carrier capable. Which if true would support Britain having little need for carriers. In regards to the Falklands, your hero, Putin, is on the side of Argentina. I shouldn't worry too much. It's not like Russia would (as if they would ever want to) have an easy task of attacking the Falklands against the might of the British military. Rocket in England |
