Evidently this message board still has a long long way to go in its mission.
Roger Irrelevant would’ve been proud of this one.
:wanders off, shaking head in bisbelief:
They arrest people within their jurisdiction. The US has no jurisdiction in going into a sovreign nation on a hunch that the nation in question is planning something. If there’s evidence of a threat… take it to the world and show there’s cause for action.
I believe Bush called it “coalition building”.
The word is “sovereign”, actually.
“Taking it to the world” can be difficult if exposing the information can be counterproductive or dangerous. There are times when the information has to be acted on without getting, say, UN support. If it’s acting against a clear threat to the US, then the US can do what they need to.
The problem is that nobody has to actually believe what they’re saying, and the rest of the sovereign nations that are the focus of “coalition building” can go tell the U.S. to bugger off when it comes time to set up that war. Which, oddly enough, is pretty much what they’re doing on the whole “let’s invade Iraq because Bush’s daddy painted himself into a corner during the Gulf War” thing. They keep trying, but few are biting.
(Un)fortunately, as you can no doubt see on the news, a mucy more important (and difficult) issue has appeared. Welcome to the real war on terriorism, folks, and the dawning realization of the Bush administration that if they prosecute this thing, they’re going to have to solve the same problems Israel never could.
When I speak Of the U.S. and the England being the two most powerful nations. It is of there military I am speaking, the U.S. has 15 Carrier groups England has 6, it took two of the US Carriers less then a month to crush the Talaban. They have the political power to direct the world and the military to enforce the rules. As for the comment about the Queen mother and the bombing, I was just trying to point out the instability that the nations where in. That and I was unhappy to hear about the Queen mum I had a lot of respect for her and her actions during W.W.II.
Like it or not the US has a place in the world and history has shown us not to sit back and “stay out of it.” If we had not been for the US most of the world may be under Nazi control, or maybe we all would be forced to bow toward Mecca Five times a day. It is Americas responsibility to fight for its citizens and for its interests, as much as it is to fight for the people of the world even if the very people we fight for don’t respect the blood we have given so that they can believe and live as they wish.
You are misinformed. The police can arrest for ‘conspiracy’ to commit <certain acts> because the conspiracy is itself a crime. But only for certain acts
But “conspiracy to threaten American interests” is NOT a crime. Particularly when the conspiracy is taking place in a foreign country.
For instance the OPEC cartel is a conspiracy to set oil prices. It would be illegal if the OPEC members were American citizens, but since they aren’t, it isn’t.
Popular misconception. US industrial might and armed forces were a vital part of the ALLIES victory. Think about trying to defeat Nazis without the USSR (Hint: wouldn’t have happened).
My point: we needed the ALLIES just as we need allies today.
What? Call me ill-informed but that has never been the issue of this conflict.
You could call the US the most benevolent of world powers, until you get into global economy. There we are vicious bastards, but that’s the name of the game so we can’t be faulted too much. I think parts of the world will start to dislike the US much less once they realize we are running just as scared as anyone else in the new evolving world economy.
Just my opinion…
Heh I never thought of it this way
I know I’ve been scared recently about where things are going with the cost of living skyrocketing in the US while wages are staying static or falling. I pay 1350 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment in Manhattan, even at the most money I ever made in my life that’s more than half my salary each month and that’s a cheap two bedroom apartment for Manhattan.
I thought the trade tariffs were rather stupid things to impose, but I never really looked at it from a perspective of fear so much as “We’re the US we’ll do whatever the fuck we want”, not that this makes them less stupid, it just makes them less obnoxious. I have a lot of friends up in British Columbia that are very frightened about all this softwood tarriff bullshit. It even came more to home when I was talking about the “Canada the 51st State” jokes and my friend pointed out to me that they are especially not funny right now when the US is imposing tariffs that are ruining their economy.
I suppose it’s really hard to look at it from a global perspective when locally you see your own standard of living slipping away. I just hope we will be able to weather the four years with Bush and then someone new will be elected and then maybe cooler heads will prevail.
Erek
6 carrier groups? Not for many years. I think we have two minicarriers, they don’t have a full flight deck and can only launch aircraft with some V/STOL capability and helicopters. I’d have to check on the details, but I think they’re HMS Illustrious and Invincible. Maybe Ark Royal, but that may have been decommissioned. Oh, and these are UK forces…for now anyway;)
Illustrious, Ark Royal and Invincible are all currently in service:
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/148.html
The Ark recently completed a re-fit. I think that the intention is to have two of the three available at any time.
HMS Ocean- massed helicopters and assault forces is also available.
Tiny Navy.
No real consequence.
Couldn’t re-take the Falklands now:rolleyes:
I suspect that Russia and the Ukraine have better naval forces, not to mention China.
Heh, how the mighty have fallen. From the world’s most powerful navy to a navy of little consequence.
Erek
As has been said before, the U.S. is damned if we do, damned if we don’t. If we go into Israel and try to negotiate a peace (peace? there? right), the Arab nations will hate the U.S. for backing Israel, regardless of the outcome of any settlement; and millions of others will hate the U.S. for being a “policeman.”
If we don’t go into Israel, the world will hate the U.S. for not going in and doing something, because it’s the duty of the most powerful nation in the world to try and stop this madness. And the Arab nations will hate us because we didn’t stop the Israelis.
We can’t win. I’m about ready to just let the Israeli army pound them into dust, if it was only about Palestinians. However, they’ve got to worry about Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, and everyone else over there.
Snicks
Thought you might have noticed before now.
Still, I suppose it’s only been a hundred years of decline, so we can’t expect it to be common knowledge yet…
Shhhh. We’ll try and keep it a secret for another hundred years…
Thanks for the Information on the size of the UK navy, I have been looking for sites to update my information 
About U.S.S.R well IM not willing to say that the US could not have won a war with the Axis. I will give credit where credit is due, Russia lost a lot of men and supplies fighting Germany, and were a very big addition to the war against Hitler.
Off to work
Nos
I agree, Nos. I also think the US was pivotal in turning the tide of the Hundred Years’ War and the Heiji War, and was almost solely responsible for the conquest of Gaul.
I don’t think the Brits are overly concerned. With the exception of maybe Canada (and then more by virtue of its proximity to the US) Great Britain and the US are practically tied at the hip. Picking a fight with GB is on par of picking a fight with the US. Worse, probably, because the rest of Europe probably view GB more fondly than the US (at the very least they are neighbors) and would be more likely to throw in with the Brits as well. In short, bad news for anyone dumb enough to attack Great Britain.
I agree with the statement about the Arab nations, but I don’t think the first part of your sentence holds water.
Its America’s DUTY? Who decided that?
US, or its government or military.
Well, I think that we do have the right to enforce our beliefs onto others. And if you try to stop me from expressing that belief, you’d be enforcing your own beliefs on me, which according to you is immoral. Right?
I think reports of the Royal Navy’s collapse are slightly exaggerated. Don’t forget there is still a formidable fleet, including nuclear submarines armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles. The Ministry of Defence has identified the Navy as one of the most important factors for the future, pointing specifically to the need to be able to continue to project forces into “Crisis zones”.
It does make sense, there’s little chance of Britain itself being threatened these days.
The following links give details on the new “Super Carriers” planned for entering service in 2012…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1402000/1402679.stm
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1971.html
This link seems to outline RN plans in general…
http://www.ets-news.com/naval3.html
When running a story about the new carriers I seem to remember “The Sun” newspaper claiming it would promote the RN to the second strongest in the world (behind the US). We should remember, however, that this is from the same newspaper that brought us the “Gotcha!” headline after the sinking of the Belgrano in the Falklands war.
Still, I couldn’t find anything suggesting the RN has lost any power/status since the Falklands.