Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 2820 Location: southern utah, usa
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject:
Quote:
And the best tank in the world today is the American M1-A1 Abrams.
Realizing that opinions are like a s s h o l e s--everybody has one--my personal opinion is that the Israeli Merkava Mark IV is the best tank in the world. Having had some training at Ft. Knox's Motor Officer School, I believe I am qualified to judge the potential maintenance shortcomings of the Abrams to be more than those of the Merkava.
And the best tank in the world today is the American M1-A1 Abrams.
Realizing that opinions are like a s s h o l e s--everybody has one--my personal opinion is that the Israeli Merkava Mark IV is the best tank in the world. Having had some training at Ft. Knox's Motor Officer School, I believe I am qualified to judge the potential maintenance shortcomings of the Abrams to be more than those of the Merkava.
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: Re: The most powerful military powers
Fred75 wrote:
The Colonel wrote:
Fred75 wrote:
The Colonel wrote:
As for why the US needed 50,000 British troops to invade Iraq (myron suggested cannon fodder ) we can all now see that is not true!
It's because you owe us for saving your ass, big time, in the 40's!
And then of course... theres..."I will fight for my unit, my regiment, and my ALLIES"!!!!
For a Colonel... your crap!
We have fought for our allies - Iraq? Afghanistan?
We came to your aid in your hour of need.
In WWI and WWII, America was several years too late.
Late???
Really???
Where's the "HEIL HITLER" after your posts then?
That signature is reserved for you Fred.
Yes, you were late.
WWI started: 1914. USA joined: 1917. Why? Lusitania sunk with Americans on board by Germany
WWII started: 1939. USA joined: 1941 (nearly 1942). Why? Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor after Churchill warned Roosevelt of the attack. Germany then declared war in support of Japan.
You also refused to join the League of Nations in the 1920's. You wanted no part of world affairs. You wouldn't support economic sanctions against Germany, Italy or Japan pre-war.
I am not anti-American, but I will stand up for the truth.
I do however, dislike American extremism. Some Americans are just as fascist as the Muslims you fight.
In other words, to rid the world of extremism (as Bush wants) you also have to do so within your own country.
I have NEVER said "death to America" or "I hate America". Others here have and haven't been challenged.
I am challenging the claims that are being made about the USA and the lies and bigotry about the UK by a certain poster here.
Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 13393 Location: United States of America
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:21 pm Post subject:
Thank you United Kingdom, Australia and Poland. I would not insult any friend of America. I'm grateful they had the balls to support us and stand with us.
Thank you United Kingdom, Australia and Poland. I would not insult any friend of America. I'm grateful they had the balls to support us and stand with us.
Thank you Zia.
Maybe myron should learn what side the second most powerful nation is on.
You are the one who is showing bigotry towards the UK myron, not the other way around.
Your supercarrier argument is correct...however Kitty Hawk, Enterprise, Carl Vinson and Dwight. D. Eisenhower are almost ready for decomission. (Kitty Hawk has a matter of weeks left). I acknowledge there are SOME replacements planned but these are not enough to cover the amount the carrier fleet has decreased already.
Nevertheless, the UK is developing three - very large - stealth carriers.
See above for a guide, though I have to say a fair bit of that information is inaccurate to what I know. For example, it mentions peace time aircraft rather than full capacity, and mentions only two of the three that have been ordered.
The United States government conducted a study and decided on a policy of maintaining 10 nuclear-powered supercarrier battle groups deployed at all times. No nuclear-powered supercarrier will be decomissioned until a new nuclear-powered supercarrier is commissioned.
Can you cite a single reputable source that ranks the UK military second in the world? Of course not.
It is a fact that the UK does not have the capability to exert military power globally.
Russia has first strike nuclear capability over the UK, i.e., Russia can destroy the UK with a nuclear strike and Russia can survive. Russia has ICBMs and long-range strategic bombers. And Russia has produced new jet fighters more advanced than anything Britian has.
China can overwhelm the UK with sheer numbers.
And of course all the factors analyzed in GlobalFirepower's rankings are relevant to military strength.
No country with Britain's population, GDP and military budget can be a global superpower in the 21st century.
There is a good reason why you have not cited any reputable sources for your claims: they are bullshit.
And as I've stated numerous times: I love the Brits, but you are an exception because you are an admitted liar, an admitted bigot, and an embarrassment to your country and its officer corps.
You are the one who is showing bigotry towards the UK myron, not the other way around.
Your supercarrier argument is correct...however Kitty Hawk, Enterprise, Carl Vinson and Dwight. D. Eisenhower are almost ready for decomission. (Kitty Hawk has a matter of weeks left). I acknowledge there are SOME replacements planned but these are not enough to cover the amount the carrier fleet has decreased already.
Nevertheless, the UK is developing three - very large - stealth carriers.
See above for a guide, though I have to say a fair bit of that information is inaccurate to what I know. For example, it mentions peace time aircraft rather than full capacity, and mentions only two of the three that have been ordered.
The United States government conducted a study and decided on a policy of maintaining 10 nuclear-powered supercarrier battle groups deployed at all times. No nuclear-powered supercarrier will be decomissioned until a new nuclear-powered supercarrier is commissioned.
Can you cite a single reputable source that ranks the UK military second in the world? Of course not.
It is a fact that the UK does not have the capability to exert military power globally.
Russia has first strike nuclear capability over the UK, i.e., Russia can destroy the UK with a nuclear strike and Russia can survive. Russia has ICBMs and long-range strategic bombers. And Russia has produced new jet fighters more advanced than anything Britian has.
China can overwhelm the UK with sheer numbers.
And of course all the factors analyzed in GlobalFirepower's rankings are relevant to military strength.
No country with Britain's population, GDP and military budget can be a global superpower in the 21st century.
There is a good reason why you have not cited any reputable sources for your claims: they are bullshit.
And as I've stated numerous times: I love the Brits, but you are an exception because you are an admitted liar, an admitted bigot, and an embarrassment to your country and its officer corps.
Yup.
If the Argentinians had more planes and Exocet missiles the RN would have been collecting barnacles on the ocean floor now!
You are the one who is showing bigotry towards the UK myron, not the other way around.
Your supercarrier argument is correct...however Kitty Hawk, Enterprise, Carl Vinson and Dwight. D. Eisenhower are almost ready for decomission. (Kitty Hawk has a matter of weeks left). I acknowledge there are SOME replacements planned but these are not enough to cover the amount the carrier fleet has decreased already.
Nevertheless, the UK is developing three - very large - stealth carriers.
See above for a guide, though I have to say a fair bit of that information is inaccurate to what I know. For example, it mentions peace time aircraft rather than full capacity, and mentions only two of the three that have been ordered.
The United States government conducted a study and decided on a policy of maintaining 10 nuclear-powered supercarrier battle groups deployed at all times. No nuclear-powered supercarrier will be decomissioned until a new nuclear-powered supercarrier is commissioned.
Maybe not, but still, many of them are very old. Kitty Hawk has weeks left.
Can you cite a single reputable source that ranks the UK military second in the world? Of course not.
Probably not, it's not exactly something easy when the information is not widely in the public domain. The information you have been reading is misleading and inaccurate. As a HMI I know of the strength of the military and you severely underestimate it!
It is a fact that the UK does not have the capability to exert military power globally.
Russia has first strike nuclear capability over the UK, i.e., Russia can destroy the UK with a nuclear strike and Russia can survive. Russia has ICBMs and long-range strategic bombers. And Russia has produced new jet fighters more advanced than anything Britian has.
You see, this is where you are so misled. Britain, has a large stock of missiles, which we made ourselves (something you deny). We have the ability to destroy any nation with our missiles. Think about it, how many does it take to do enough damage? In reality, under 10. If you knew anything, you'd realise that no nation can survive many nuclear strikes.
Britain has ICBM's, what is wrong with you? We also have long range bombers, the developmental bombers are unbelievable. Russia has few modern fighters and they are NOTHING compared to the new Eurofighter and Lightning II. Once again, you are wrong.
China can overwhelm the UK with sheer numbers.
True, but it could the US as well if you want to think on those terms.
And of course all the factors analyzed in GlobalFirepower's rankings are relevant to military strength.
It was a VERY poor analysis.
No country with Britain's population, GDP and military budget can be a global superpower in the 21st century.
That is where you are wrong. We don't aim to be a superpower as such, we do try and aim for peace before war after all! Dare I suggest the US aims for war then peace?! We are, like it or not, the second most powerful nation on the planet.
There is a good reason why you have not cited any reputable sources for your claims: they are bullshit.
And as I've stated numerous times: I love the Brits, but you are an exception because you are an admitted liar, an admitted bigot, and an embarrassment to your country and its officer corps.
Change the record. So much of what you have cited is absolute rubbish. You do not love the Brits. If you did, you'd acknowledge our actual power. You should also be grateful we are on your side. I've met many Americans, military and civilian, and I have to say the military officers were horrendous. One American commander, who I was with at the time in Bosnia, nearly killed hundreds of allied soliders and UN officials by calling an air strike to the wrong place.
When you've gone and fought myron, you'll have a valid opinion.
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
) we can all now see that is 
