Another Nail in the Coffin of the Former British Empire

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 8 2007, 11:48 AM) [snapback]372592[/snapback]</div>

With a big brother US military, nobody is/was dumb enough to mess with a [socialized or not] NATO country . . . otherwise the Soviet Union just may have extended that Iron Curtain to the rest of Europe. How so quickly we forgot the Cold War - eagle33199.

Maybe the UK is taking the lead from Canada on sucking off of the security of being friends of the USA and partners in NATO:
Of the 26 NATO member states, almost half spends TWICE as much as Canada does on defense as a percent of GDP.
Only Luxembourg (the headquarters of NATO) spends less.
Iceland doesn't count, since it has no standing military - and, at this rate, Canada may not count either.

"If you're looking to invade someone by sea, try Canada, which has only 9000 Navy personnel guarding the longest national coastline in the world.
Bolivia has 4,500 Navy personnel - which seems like quite a lot for a landlocked country."
http://www.nationmaster.com/facts/Military

How's THIS for a difference for you?:
France had 63,300 Navy personnel.
What is it about Canada that is soooo different from France that Canada should have 1/7th the Navy personnel?
Oh yeah, that's right . . . proximity to the USA. <_< :lol:
It sure isn't nationalized healthcare. They both have it.

According to NationMaster.com the US Navy has 380,600 personnel.
Two US Navy aircraft carriers house more personnel than the entire Canadian Navy. :blink:

 

I love the responses, squid and dbermanmd - "He doesn't agree with us, so everything he's saying is rediculous. point for us!".

The points i was trying to make (some of which were clearly too subtle for you):
1. you ask for something, it's provided to you, and yet you claim a victory because it's a "lone exception"... if you want more than one example, ask for more than one at the beginning.
2. You try to make a point by saying things should be listed in terms of percentage of GDP, i counter that by showing you how ridiculous that is, because the same amount of money buys the same amount of hardware, regardless of what percentage of GDP it is.
3. Shoes have nothing to do with this. If i spend 50 bucks on a hand gun, and you spend 500 bucks on a gold plated hand gun, our military power is the same, everything else is fluff. and yet when applying it to real life, you suddenly realize that the cost of the guns, and planes, and boats, and tanks that are in the hands of the soldiers for the US are pretty much the same cost as those in the hands of the UK, or Russia, or whoever. whatever differences in cost exists equate directly to an increased military value in the item - ie heat guided missiles instead of regular ones.


So let me say this, plain and simply (since you clearly can't understand more subtle statements): If i make $100 million a year, and you make $50 million a year, and i spend $25 million to buy a tank and you spend $25 million to buy a tank, what is the equivalence? in terms of percentage of GDP, yours is higher (50% versus my measly 25%), and yet we have the exact same hardware, the exact same training. Going back to my original statement, all that matters is the total amount spent. everything else is simply someone's way of massaging the numbers to show what they want them to show.


Now please, argue the numbers. the UK spends more each year on their military than all but a few countries - the US, Russia, and China. By any measure then (assuming they're spending the money reasonably), their military is adequately sized to defend them against most countries out there (with the exception of the three mentioned, and probably a few others closer to them).

So, i'll ask yet again - What does the UK need protection from?

Also, please answer my earlier questions:

You are very good at spouting off opinions as though they were facts. You are also very good at selecting one portion of an argument to reply to. what you aren't very good at is replying to an entire argument. You aren't good at answering direct questions posed to you.

You give the impression of someone who looks at all the arguments thrown against their opinion and choosing only to hear those they can argue against. you ignore the rest, and declare yourself the victor of the argument. For once, i'd like you to take the time others here take to adequately respond to ALL aspects of a post, instead of just those you feel you can beat.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jan 8 2007, 03:17 PM) [snapback]372672[/snapback]</div>

Actually, i didn't forget the Cold war... in fact, several of the questions i've posed (and which have gone unanswered by the opposing side) specifically point out NATO, specifically talk about the cold war, and specifically mention this exact situation... but the fact that others are intimidated into inaction against our allies doesn't mean we're actively protecting those allies.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 8 2007, 01:22 PM) [snapback]372678[/snapback]</div>

That is one of the weakest things I've ever read! :blink: :huh:

I walked out of my house with an intimidating shotgun in hand – but stayed in my yard and never raised the weapon. The group of kids who were getting ready to break into my neighbor's house fled.

Since the kids were intimidated into inaction, does that mean I wasn't actively protecting my neighbor? The neighbor would do the same for me. Are we not protecting each other with an intimidating show of force?

Many hostilities around the world were averted, without a shot fired, when a US Navy Aircraft Carrier Battle Group showed up off the coast. A very intimidating or comforting sight depending on who's side you are on.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jan 8 2007, 03:43 PM) [snapback]372690[/snapback]</div>

There's a difference between a show of force and active defense of a foreign nation. I would be willing to bet that any example you can come up with in which we used such a show of force to avert a conflict directly served American interests - it may have indirectly defended an oil pipeline, or an American owned group of factories, etc... but at any rate, you can pretty much be certain that any situation averted by a show of force by America was done so to protect either American property, citizens, or economics.