Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honestly I'm not sure about that. The UK would have to project force there and it's questionable how well the UK could do that now.
The US shared intelligence information with the UK during that war to aid them. The Soviets did the same thing with Argentina. The UK won the war on there own but the US did aid them behind the scenes.
They need the aircraft carriers first.
An American laying claim to the 'victory' in the Falklands war, how very surprising! Of course we in Europe do realise that its only thanks to the Americans 'riding in and saving our a**es' that the Nazis were defeated, we do realise that it was actually the Americans that won the battle at Waterloo, we do of course know that it was the Americans that defeated the French at the battle at Trafalgar and the 300 brave defendants at the Battle of Thermopylae were in fact American and not Greek at all, it is only of course thanks to 'American intelligence' that the Crusades were (initially) successful in the 'Holy land'.
As for the UK 'projecting force' there now perhaps we could just nuke the b*stards? :-)
Re:
"I'm not particularly fond of China, but I'd rather have someone keep the US itself on the straight and narrow everywhere in the world.
Thanks but no thanks. If China's largely symbolic power projection rivalry in the Asia Pacific region is tying down US naval assets that could be employed for mischief elsewhere, then good for them"
U.S. 'mischief? Hey I think everybody with 'powah' has their dogs in the race today. One thing I'd say is how far one dog holder wants to win the race. I have the feeling the fellow in the Kremlin is the one to be worried about rather than the U.S. I'd only point to his nuke dogs barking more stridently now. He plays a very dangerous game now. Maybe desperate men do desperate things?
Honestly I'm not sure about that. The UK would have to project force there and it's questionable how well the UK could do that now.
The US shared intelligence information with the UK during that war to aid them. The Soviets did the same thing with Argentina. The UK won the war on there own but the US did aid them behind the scenes.
They need the aircraft carriers first.
There is a difference between simply aiding and doing the bulk of the work. For the most part, the UK was acting on its own to defend the Falkland Islands from Argentina, and clearly it is capable of exerting its own force around the world without direct US involvement, and it's obvious that the US is unwilling to carry out invasions without the backing of its allies as well, whether it is capable of acting on its own or not. It's easier for an alliance of powers to defeat a common enemy, but the UK and France can act on their own should the need arise. They have shown that to be true, and you shouldn't underestimate their abilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984
A "great power" shouldn't be in that situation.
It shouldn't, but that's down to the current government deciding to rubbish our old aircraft carriers before the new ones were finished being built. It was a stupid decision, but the way you're posting indicates that the UK will never have aircraft carriers again, or be in a position to whoop Argentina should the need arise, and that is clearly not true. As things currently stand, there are only three countries capable of exerting power far beyond their own borders, and they're the US, UK and France.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
No, the UK doesn't have aircraft carriers right now. They would have to lease one, if the US military is not allowed to be used in this scenario, most likely the Principe of Asturias which is in the Spanish Navy reserve. Or ask kindly France or Italy to give a hand. Italy could lend Cavour as debt-payment.
Or if you want to do it the easy way, just fire a couple of missiles on Buenos Aires, and say that the next time they will be armed with nuclear warheads. I think that'll do the trick.
Hey, come on... Intelligence sharing. Real cheap. THAT'S WHAT AN ALLIANCE IS ALL ABOUT! If your friend moves, and you help him, would you shove it in his face that "ha ha, you got logistical support from me"? Or worse, would you demand payment?
At the moment, we are currently sharing one with France, until the current ones are completed. As I said, the UK and France cooperate very closely in military terms. We have two under construction, and they will be the largest in Europe. 2017 is the expected completion date.
Soon, my pretties.
They will be decked with the F-35, mostly financed by the US but with a little help from its allies in Europe and Australia.
Last edited by dunno what to put here; 04-17-2015 at 07:11 AM..
Re:
"I'm not particularly fond of China, but I'd rather have someone keep the US itself on the straight and narrow everywhere in the world.
Thanks but no thanks. If China's largely symbolic power projection rivalry in the Asia Pacific region is tying down US naval assets that could be employed for mischief elsewhere, then good for them"
U.S. 'mischief? Hey I think everybody with 'powah' has their dogs in the race today. One thing I'd say is how far one dog holder wants to win the race. I have the feeling the fellow in the Kremlin is the one to be worried about rather than the U.S. I'd only point to his nuke dogs barking more stridently now. He plays a very dangerous game now. Maybe desperate men do desperate things?
There was a recent Reuters-Ipsos poll which showed that 18% of people regard Obama to be the greatest threat to the USA compared to 20% for boogieman du jour Putin.
A revelation for me that, even after thousands of broadcast hours of anti-Putin propaganda, a good proportion of the CNN drones are still more worried about the self-destructive policies of the C in C of the free world, while Putin tops the Time 100 reader's poll for world's most influential person:
Y'all think the US is bad, so I hope you enjoy being dominated by the China/Russia combo.
Did you learn such cr*p from CNN in the past 20 years?
When did China do anything aggressive to invade other countries or meddle with other nations' business? You don't have to like a country, and I agree with you China is not a very likeable country, but much of its problem is internal, and your fear mongering prediction at least has to be based on certain historical facts.
I agree Russia had always been an aggressive power in constant ambition to extend its territory. Germany and Japan caused much of the world's trouble as well. Britain and France did enough damage all over the world, which left the huge mess of much of today's problems. The US has involved in enough unjustified wars to invade others or overthrow other countries' governments at its own will, no need to elaborate.
Give me one example where the Chinese did anything similar (outright military invasion, territory annexation, overthrowing other governments through conspiracy) in the past 500 years.
Next time you read the news, do me a favour to use some brain and do your own analysis based on facts, instead of letting all the prejudice of CNN etc. decide how you should think. Apparently in their logic, if China increases its military spending, it is always associated with "projecting power", "regional ambition", stuff like that, and when the US incurs far more military spending on a per capita basis, no such words are mentioned as obviously it is to serve no purpose other than keeping peace.
(Some might even be clued up enough to recognize that the Ukraine crisis is the result of US, not Russian, aggression).
in such crisis, the US always shows far more interest in helping to create more chaos and conflict to destabilize or weaken its imaginary enemy than protecting the freedom of the weak countries.
A piece of eternal truth is, the US has never cared about freedom and democracy of any other country in the world, let it be Ukraine, or Middle East or Africa/Asia. All its wars and meddling 100% serve its own interest and its political agenda. There is nothing wrong with that philosophy, but the "I am holier than you" speeches it does all the time is really laughable and pathetic.
At the moment, we are currently sharing one with France, until the current ones are completed. As I said, the UK and France cooperate very closely in military terms. We have two under construction, and they will be the largest in Europe. 2017 is the expected completion date.
Oh you share the Charles de Gaulle with France? Ok, then it's no problem. Too bad that the French scrapped their programs for two new fleet carriers before the escalation of the Ukraine crisis. Maybe they will reinstate at least one of them now.
And BTW, Russia is doing really a real good job convincing that there is still the possibility of conventional warfare in Europe, which will fuel the defence industry in coming years. Recently Germany stated that it will bring back 100 front line main battle tanks into its inventory, and after endless cuts, even Sweden said it will raise its defence budget and rearm Gotland. Also the Nordic countries just a week ago agreed upon a practical alliance, sharing intelligence and in the future harmonise purchases (even further), and even buy equipment together (for example Sweden wants Finland to fund a couple of submarines for mutual use).
Last edited by Rozenn; 04-17-2015 at 10:43 AM..
Reason: Language
An American laying claim to the 'victory' in the Falklands war, how very surprising! Of course we in Europe do realise that its only thanks to the Americans 'riding in and saving our a**es' that the Nazis were defeated, we do realise that it was actually the Americans that won the battle at Waterloo, we do of course know that it was the Americans that defeated the French at the battle at Trafalgar and the 300 brave defendants at the Battle of Thermopylae were in fact American and not Greek at all, it is only of course thanks to 'American intelligence' that the Crusades were (initially) successful in the 'Holy land'.
As for the UK 'projecting force' there now perhaps we could just nuke the b*stards? :-)
I didn't lay claim to the US winning the Falklands War. I stated the US did support the UK during the conflict.
Even if we go by your premise that criticizing the U.S. amounts to supporting China, it's a weak retort to claim that Washington's abuses are somehow less morally reprehensible than the genocide committed against Falun Gong.
Trying to claim what Wallstreet and/or Washington is currently doing as being just as bad as genocide is beyond stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTDominion
Both express contempt for innocent civilian lives, both are motivated by greed. The only difference is that Washington's abuses are more widespread, more comprehensive and are whitewashed rather than blacked out.
For all the supposed abuses you claim you haven't listed anything that is comparable to genocide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTDominion
Yet, that is pretty much what your argument amounts to, as you confirm in the very same paragraph. You somehow believe that the rest of the free world is stuck in a false choice fallacy: "better the devil you know than the devil you don't".
My point is if your going to play the evil empire card in regards to the US you can't just sweep under the rug all the ****** up things China and Russia regularly do.
Trying to claim what Wallstreet and/or Washington is currently doing as being just as bad as genocide is beyond stupid.
For all the supposed abuses you claim you haven't listed anything that is comparable to genocide.
My point is if your going to play the evil empire card in regards to the US you can't just sweep under the rug all the ****** up things China and Russia regularly do.
I don't think you fully appreciate how devastating financial instruments can be as weapons of war.
They have the potency to cause unprecedented carnage and untold suffering, either through deliberately harmful acts or through disregard of others via the pursuit of greed. Just because the person committing the act wears an expensive suit, goes to work in a limo and isn't holding an AK47/machete doesn't mean that it's qualified above any other form of aberration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
