It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the U.S Navy too small

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 12:55 AM
link   

In 1930 the Navy had 357 ships in commission, while today it has about 290. Of course, the 1930 figure comprises just 140 or so major warships (battleships, carriers, cruisers, and destroyers) about 80 submarines, for a total of about 220 combatants. The balance included 36 mine warfare vessels, about 30 gunboats, and nearly 70 auxiliaries of various sorts.

And today? Well, there are eleven carriers plus 102 surface combatants, as well as 72 submarines, for a total of “only” 185 combatants. In addition, are 36 amphibious warfare vessels, a category that did not exist in 1930, a dozen of which are 40,000 ton V/STOL carriers, plus 17 mine warfare vessels, 34 logistics support ships, and c. 18 miscellaneous vessels.
So the fleet certainly is smaller than it was in 1930.



Today, the USN enjoys a "17 Navy standard"; that is, the total tonnage of Uncle Sam’s fleet is equal to the combined total tonnage of the next 17 smaller navies. Even combining the two biggest potential naval competitors (the Chinese and the Russians), the USN still outclasses them by over 3:1 in tonnage, and it has substantially more combat power. Of the world’s 34 aviation power projection platforms (i.e., vessels capable of operating combat aircraft), the US owns 24 (71-percent), eight times more than the second leading navy, the decidedly friendly Royal Navy, which has with three V/STOL carriers. In addition, the US surface fleet carries four times as many VLS (vertical missile launchers) cells as the rest of the world navies combined. The US submarine fleet enjoys better force ratios against the next two most numerous underwater fleets than it did against the Soviets during the Cold War.

Moreover, USN numbers are slated to rise, with a dozen “littoral combat ships” to be commissioned within the next six years and a dozen more within three years after that, even as the first “SeaBasing” ships begin to join the fleet. And then there are the ships of the Military Sealift Command, which operates the “Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force,” scores of tugs, supply, ammunition, and other vessels, include the Navy’s two hospital ships, none of which are technically “in commission” as part of the fleet, as well as the nation’s pre-positioning, sealift, and “special purpose” (i.e., oceanographic, spy ships, etc.) vessels.

Today, the USN has greater command of the world's oceans than any fleet has ever possessed.


Article link


I still would like to see it at 325, or whatever it was they said thathey wanted.




posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   
yes, but you have to compensate for a completely different world.

for instance, in 1930, the battleship was the ship that all navies were built around. today, they are obsolete. a few smart missiles can do in 30 minutes what a battleship shelling all day long could maybe come close to doing.

there is alot more technology that make a smaller navy equal to, if not better than, the navy of 1930.

supply ships for instance. we dont need as many refueling ships because the majority of our large ships (carriers, ballistic subs) are nuclear powered, and can do a whole 6 month cruise (and then some) without the need to refuel.

size isnt everything.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I don't think it's too small at all, if anything it's too big.

I think today's threat needs more ground troops than fancy ships.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   
The US Navy is still larger than all the world's navies combined.

The US Navy Reserve Fleet is the world's second largest navy, after the US Navy.

I think we're covered on ships. ^^



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
The US spends huge amounts of money on defence programmes. The US spends far too much money on its military and the US Navy is the biggest component of its armed forces.

This is at the same time as America fails to provide a sufficient welfare state (even basic medical support) for a large percentage of its population. Moreover, military spending accounts for a massive proportion of its federal budget - and indeed is largely responsible for the current budget deficit (which is the highest ever in history).

The huge expenditure on defence is not just crippling America's economy and a massive drain on taxpayers but is also money that could be used elsewhere on other federal programmes, such as Medicare.

And incidently, America - like every country in the world - needs to have a strong military. However, it is highly questionably whether it needs to have the bloated military it does have. In the long term, America just cannot afford to support it.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Twelve carrier groups....TWELVE! And thats not just carriers, thats all the ships that go with them. The USA has more submarines than most nations have ships all together.

And lets not forget most other countries lump coastal ships in their regualr navy, the US has the Coast Guard with is a sizeable force unto itself.

Some stats:
- The US Navy has 280 deployable "Battle Force" ships
- 361,647 active duty personnel
- Over 4000 Aircraft
- 36 Submarines away from port right now
- 7 Carrier groups on deployment as I type this
- 8 Amphibious war shgips on deployment right now
-

Go here to see some real good data:

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
-

Go here to see some real good data:

www.globalsecurity.org...


holy crap! skippy used a real source! lmao...sorry skip, couldnt resist



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
"Too small" ... too small for what?

The US Navy is easily the worlds largest and probably the most advanced.

What existing or plausible future threat would justify an expansion?
Sure the Chinese are building up their fleet - but not to a level that compares with what the US has already. Not even close.

If anything the US Navy is far larger than it really needs to be.
Twelve supercarriers - and no one else has even one.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I have no clue about what you could possibly be thinking or if you are even thinking at all. The US Military is part of the welfare state.
Furthermore if you remove the US Military from the thinking about the welfare state...what is the spending on social programs and the welfare state of which you speak. Do you know what the numbers are ??? I can assure you it is much higher than the military. Social programs are a huge drain on the productive budget of this country. Got the point yet..
People with your kind of thinking overlook this line of thought and hope no one else catches it. What you and people like you want to do is remove most of the military spending and then use it for more unproductive welfare spending and give aways for political clout by politicians.
Furthermore the US military is a type of welfare state unto itself. I know many people in the military who cannot afford to get out and live like us civilians. To get off the military tit and breastfeeding allowances would be a tragedy.
Retirement alone in the military is costing this nation huge amounts. This is a figure that has already been contracted for and pre fitted into the military budgets. Medical...etc etc etc. I know of several women in the military who cannot afford to get out as they are drawing allotments from different men for the several children they have by them. Plus medical..plus housing ..plus seperate rations et al...etc etc etc...got the picture about a welfare state. Do you think these women are going to be able to leave thier children and go off to war if called upon to fulfill thier military obligation??? What on earth are you possibly thinking????
Do you have any clue about the number of women who get pregnant in the US Navy and get shore billets instead of going out to sea to fulfill thier military obligations. Then have abortions to get out of it while remianing ashore??? Lots of men cannot get these shore billets when they have finished their time at sea because they are taken up by women. Talk about a welfare state ...give aways. Notice this is not on the evening news which is looking out for you???
Kedfr..what could you and other people possibly be thinking???? Is your thought process being controlled by something of which you are not aware???
Just thought you needed some additional information to round out your thinking

Thanks, Orangetom



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
IMO opinion the US Navy currently is not too small for anything, however some Pentagon future projections have me worried. They plan on cutting down the Sub numbers and even the surface force numbers.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
its a big mistake to cut down our navy wen the Chinese navy is increasing in size and sophistication. until then we have to move on and continue to make new ships ourselves and not cut down any unless there is a better replacement.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I have no clue about what you could possibly be thinking or if you are even thinking at all. The US Military is part of the welfare state.
Furthermore if you remove the US Military from the thinking about the welfare state...what is the spending on social programs and the welfare state of which you speak. Do you know what the numbers are ??? I can assure you it is much higher than the military. Social programs are a huge drain on the productive budget of this country. Got the point yet..
People with your kind of thinking overlook this line of thought and hope no one else catches it. What you and people like you want to do is remove most of the military spending and then use it for more unproductive welfare spending and give aways for political clout by politicians.
Furthermore the US military is a type of welfare state unto itself. I know many people in the military who cannot afford to get out and live like us civilians. To get off the military tit and breastfeeding allowances would be a tragedy.
Retirement alone in the military is costing this nation huge amounts. This is a figure that has already been contracted for and pre fitted into the military budgets. Medical...etc etc etc. I know of several women in the military who cannot afford to get out as they are drawing allotments from different men for the several children they have by them. Plus medical..plus housing ..plus seperate rations et al...etc etc etc...got the picture about a welfare state. Do you think these women are going to be able to leave thier children and go off to war if called upon to fulfill thier military obligation??? What on earth are you possibly thinking????
Do you have any clue about the number of women who get pregnant in the US Navy and get shore billets instead of going out to sea to fulfill thier military obligations. Then have abortions to get out of it while remianing ashore??? Lots of men cannot get these shore billets when they have finished their time at sea because they are taken up by women. Talk about a welfare state ...give aways. Notice this is not on the evening news which is looking out for you???
Kedfr..what could you and other people possibly be thinking???? Is your thought process being controlled by something of which you are not aware???
Just thought you needed some additional information to round out your thinking

Thanks, Orangetom


Okay while I'm sure that a proportion of the US military budget goes on retirement plans etc. this is a part of ALL government expenditure.

However, lets be honest, hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the US military is not spent on pregnant women while on service (and then getting abortions). It is spent on the hundreds of thousands of active servicemen & women and on the highly advanced planes, ships, tanks etc etc.

America is the richest country in the world and yet choses to spend a vast percentage of its wealth on defense programmes. This is at the expense of other areas of the federal budget. Other countries (ie. France, Britain) can have free medical care and yet they are nowhere near as wealthy as America.

A free medical care system is not 'unproductive' as you suggest. It actually serves to benefit the population - unlike a vast and bloated military which only serves to benefit huge companies with a vested interest in massive defense contracts like Lockheed. Oh and the current US medical system benefits massive medical insurance companies. The current medical system in America punishes poor people if they get sick (which, statistically is more likely than those who are wealthy).

For a nation as rich as the US, it is disgusting that has such a huge discrepancy between rich and poor.

Oh and by the way, my thought process is not 'controlled'.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
The good old US Navy isn't too small, but I don't really want to see it get any smaller. Considering China's navy is growing in size everyday I think we've got a pretty good reason to keep the USN at it's current size.

As for cutting back the military, bad idea. The US military is pretty much the most efficent welfare program in the United States. For one thing, all of your life expenses are covered, thats just logistics covering you right there. And the US military although it doesn't pay as much as it should, does provide a significant amount of money to provide for family.

Considering how many people are in the US military, I'd say it's currently serving a lot of people. Also, can you imagine what it would do to the US economy? The US military buys a lot of stuff from a lot of people. Virtually everybody in the business world I know has been involved with directly or indirectly with the Department of Defense.

Defense contrators aren't the only one's depending on a strong US military. The DOD needs a lot of things, whether it be office supplies for the pentagon, uniforms for the sailors, metal for the ships, computers for the aircraft, or rations for the soldiers on the ground, the US military buys from a large variety of people.

Then compare the state of the other welfare programs, bureacracy effectively chokes them into being near useless. Sad to say it, but the US welfare programs are slow, and barely provide anything of value. The Department of Defense on the other hand has been the US's most effective way of employing the masses for years.

All I'm saying is that the US Navy isn't exactly too small, but cutting it down isn't a good idea either. We've got a very powerful, and rapidly growing rival to the east. And the US Navy is an integral part of one of the largest employers in the US, if not the whole world. Not to mention the economy, it's in shambles already, cutting back the USN is not going to help that.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by kedfrA free medical care system is not 'unproductive' as you suggest. .


your system is worse off and many die from waiting for approval, when americans need it, they get it, they may have a bill but our health care isnt as bad as you think, we spend like 1.8 trillion on health care 15% of our gdp...we would need over 3 trillion to cover every person...., plus the 230 billion from people paying on their own, our system has more money in total and per capita than your country, most of our problem is efficency, fraud, overpopulation, unhealthy living and waste, more money will do nothing, plus military contracts are profittable and provide jobs, especially poor families who work in factories and do civilian jobs at bases, bases also bring money into surrouning communities, our military puts alot of money back into the community.


[edit on 1-11-2005 by namehere]

[edit on 1-11-2005 by namehere]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
well said namehere...took the words right out of my mouth. and dont forget that the military (all branches there of) is the training ground for a lot of american technical job fields. a full fifty percent of air traffic controllers, air traffic equipment technicians, computer systems techs, and aircraft mechanics get their initial training in the military.

if the british and french health care systems are so much better than that of the US, then why do people travel to america for surgery? is it better surgeons, or a better chance of getting the surgery done before they die?

different doesnt mean better, or more efficient. just different. there is no such thing as an efficient health system, and i dare you to prove otherwise.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Wow..Kedfr you really are a work of art...I mean to tell you.

First off..Our Military should be small I agree..we should scale it back to about 1% of what it currently is. I think the rest of the world should carry more of the burden. This way other nations cannot afford such big public works/welfare give aways cause they have to support more of their military. When they get in trouble with the investments they make they can take care of more of it themselves. Dont call us we dont have the military to bail them out like we used to.
Then they will bitch us out for not doing what they have taken for granted. Talk about welfare.

As to hundreds of billions of dollars being spent not on pregnant women ..what are you possibly thinking Kedfr???? Do you have any idea how much it costs to outfit a Navy ship for women???? Is that in your welfare entitlement program or is it a given too..never to be factored in???? Someone has to pay for this.
Do you have any idea how many women ...pregnant or not the military health care system takes care of ..directly or indirectly??? What are you possibly thinking??

Furthermore ..nothing is for free....so called free medical care is not free ..someone eventually has to pay for it. Free is just something the politicians use to seduce a dumb populace...for votes.
While I am not a fan of his..I was quite startled to learn that this..."Crocodile Man" Steve Irwin came to America for surgery. He did not have it down under where such things are on the government dole. Very telling.
Up north in Canada free medical is doing a wonderful job. Those who can come across the border to the US for treatment. It takes to long to get a appointment satisfied. You could be dead by then. Its the same in Europe. Free Medical eventually drives doctors and nurses into other occupations because they cannot make a living in this skill for all the time and continuous training they have to maintain. What can people possibly be thinking. Free is just such a seller to a people on the government program from cradle to the grave. Even their thinking is government issue.

I am not against the military...I just know certain things about it ..from way back in history. As one poster put on here ...the military does contract with many civilian sources for equipment and materials. This is quite true.
This is not so true with the type of welfare give aways of which you speak.
Some of the horror stories coming out of Louisiana are evidence of this .
Also quite right about the technical jobs that come from military trained personel into the civilian market. Commercial aviation has gobbled up a huge lot of them when they got out or retired.

As to a huge discrepancy between the rich and poor...good grief...what on earth are you talking about ...have you ever been to Brazil...????Argentina?? Paraguay..Mexico.
I think you get to much of your reality from movies, television, and news media...also public education. What on earth are you thinking.???? Poor people here in America live much better than most people in this world. If this were not so..why are so many poor people trying so hard to get here.

As I posted on another blog..in media and education ...this rich poor dichotomy is something socialist often use to divide a nation not to unite it.
They use this cheap mantra so often to make people with money feel guilty for not standing by and letting others play through while they are paying for both sides. This is called theft by any name...stealing. And that is the mentality to which it leads. Anything is justifiable if you are poor....The Robin Hood syndrome. It is still stealing by any name. Even if a politician is doing it. I am not impressed Kedfr. Sorry!!

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Okay let me go through all your comments one by one


Originally posted by orangetom1999
First off..Our Military should be small I agree..we should scale it back to about 1% of what it currently is. I think the rest of the world should carry more of the burden. This way other nations cannot afford such big public works/welfare give aways cause they have to support more of their military. When they get in trouble with the investments they make they can take care of more of it themselves. Dont call us we dont have the military to bail them out like we used to.
Then they will bitch us out for not doing what they have taken for granted. Talk about welfare.


This makes absolutely no sense. Bailing out other countries with your military? The last time the US bailed anyone out it was during World War II – and even then it was because they were attacked at Pearl Harbour, not out of any charity.

Since the Second World War, the US has embarked on a number of different military excursions to further its own political/economic interests. Vietnam & Iraq are two such examples.

America did help re-build Europe after WWII through the Marshall Plan but this was not out of the kindness of their hearts. It was a calculated decision to re-invest in Europe because the US was petrified that Communism would spread a devastated Germany, France, Italy etc.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
As to hundreds of billions of dollars being spent not on pregnant women ..what are you possibly thinking Kedfr???? Do you have any idea how much it costs to outfit a Navy ship for women???? Is that in your welfare entitlement program or is it a given too..never to be factored in???? Someone has to pay for this.
Do you have any idea how many women ...pregnant or not the military health care system takes care of ..directly or indirectly??? What are you possibly thinking??


Yes, one does have to pay for maternity care but this is by no means the main part of defence expenditure. In any organisation, wages account for a main part of spending, and when you are feeding, training, clothing people these costs shoot up. If you then add in the astronomical costs of high-tech planes, ships, tanks etc and R&D (not to mention the billions spent on nuclear missiles) then the money spent on pregnant women is a very small part of expenditure.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Furthermore ..nothing is for free....so called free medical care is not free ..someone eventually has to pay for it. Free is just something the politicians use to seduce a dumb populace...for votes.


You are right that nothing is ‘free’. However, by ‘free’ I mean that it is paid for by the state through taxation, not by individuals through insurance/at point of medical care. The biggest users of medical care are statistically the elderly, the infirm and the poor. These are also statistically the least wealthy people in society. A state-run medical system, where you do not pay for individual treatments is the fairest system as it would allow these people full access to medical care if required.

This is where it is ‘free’.

The current American system is extremely unjust. If you do not have medical insurance (and there are plenty of people in the US who do not) then at best you *might* have access to some appalling hospitals. At worse, you get hit by massive bills for thousands of dollars.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
While I am not a fan of his..I was quite startled to learn that this..."Crocodile Man" Steve Irwin came to America for surgery. He did not have it down under where such things are on the government dole. Very telling.


America has a very fine medical system if you can afford it. If you can’t it is awful.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Up north in Canada free medical is doing a wonderful job. Those who can come across the border to the US for treatment. It takes to long to get a appointment satisfied. You could be dead by then. Its the same in Europe. Free Medical eventually drives doctors and nurses into other occupations because they cannot make a living in this skill for all the time and continuous training they have to maintain. What can people possibly be thinking. Free is just such a seller to a people on the government program from cradle to the grave. Even their thinking is government issue.


The cradle to grave analogy was first raised by the Labour party in post-war Britain (I believe it was Aneurin Bevan who coined this phrase). Yes there are problems with state-run National Health Services. For instance, waiting lists for treatment can be long. However, it is still a far far better system than having an insurance-based system. If you want private care in the UK then you go private and you have a system similar to the US. However, you need a safety net for everyone else. The NHS and its equivalent in France & Canada are very fine institutions. They may be struggling to cope with advancing costs of new medical developments but despite all of the many problems they face, they are institutions that work.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
I am not against the military...I just know certain things about it ..from way back in history. As one poster put on here ...the military does contract with many civilian sources for equipment and materials. This is quite true.
This is not so true with the type of welfare give aways of which you speak.
Some of the horror stories coming out of Louisiana are evidence of this .
Also quite right about the technical jobs that come from military trained personel into the civilian market. Commercial aviation has gobbled up a huge lot of them when they got out or retired.


I’m not suggesting that the military does not have a place in government expenditure. However, the cost of the military is a massive burden on US taxpayers and the US economy. Moreover, the money spent on the military could be spent elsewhere, such as on increased expenditure for welfare programmes.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
As to a huge discrepancy between the rich and poor...good grief...what on earth are you talking about ...have you ever been to Brazil...????Argentina?? Paraguay..Mexico.
I think you get to much of your reality from movies, television, and news media...also public education. What on earth are you thinking.???? Poor people here in America live much better than most people in this world. If this were not so..why are so many poor people trying so hard to get here.
As I posted on another blog..in media and education ...this rich poor dichotomy is something socialist often use to divide a nation not to unite it.
They use this cheap mantra so often to make people with money feel guilty for not standing by and letting others play through while they are paying for both sides. This is called theft by any name...stealing. And that is the mentality to which it leads. Anything is justifiable if you are poor....The Robin Hood syndrome. It is still stealing by any name. Even if a politician is doing it. I am not impressed Kedfr. Sorry!!


Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Mexico are not anywhere near as rich as America. Considering its massive wealth, America is shocking in terms of its discrepancy between rich & poor – worse than any other ‘Western’ nation. It is neither ethical to sit back and say ‘I’ll alright Jack’ merely because you have a decent life while your fellow countrymen are struggling to get by, nor is it conducive to a safe and stable country. There are major structural problems in the US at present and many of them are because of the massive divide between classes. Moreover, poorer countries than America do not have the trappings of wealth constantly dangled in front of them as in the US. Laissez-faire economics causes more problems than it solves.

Immigrants do migrate from many other countries around the world to America. In part this is because the standard of life for the poor is seemingly better – you can certainly have access to more consumer goods than elsewhere. However, the American Dream is a myth – most of the time if you are poor then you and your children and your children’s children will stay in the lower classes. You will go to worse schools, take worse jobs, die younger, be sicker and be far far less likely to go to university. These are not just American trends but they are far more accentuated than elsewhere in the world.

And incidentally, it is garbage to say that taxation and the redistribution of wealth is theft. Quite apart from the ethical considerations, it is a means to balance out society so it doesn’t break down. Also, governments have a responsibility to govern over ALL their citizens, not just the wealthy (and big businesses).

Mind you, the current administration believes that the wealthy should be taxed less (tax breaks for millionaires) hence putting more of the tax burden on the less well-off (such as the middle classes). Perhaps we should go back to a feudal system of lords ruling over peasants and taxing them at regular intervals? Or maybe we should just abandon the whole notion of citizenhood and re-instate slavery? The poor don't deserve rights or freedom, anyway.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by kedfr


This makes absolutely no sense. Bailing out other countries with your military? The last time the US bailed anyone out it was during World War II – and even then it was because they were attacked at Pearl Harbour, not out of any charity.


and why exactly was it that we left our boys to die in the philipines by entering the european theater of operations first? maybe because europe was deamed the most pressing problem strategically at the moment? americans wanted an immediate strike back at japan, but we stuck by britian and france and poured all of our war effort into europe as our boys in the pacific were massacred.



Since the Second World War, the US has embarked on a number of different military excursions to further its own political/economic interests. Vietnam & Iraq are two such examples.


and i guess britian is completely innocent of military excursions to further political interests?



America did help re-build Europe after WWII through the Marshall Plan but this was not out of the kindness of their hearts. It was a calculated decision to re-invest in Europe because the US was petrified that Communism would spread a devastated Germany, France, Italy etc.


ok, then what was our reasoning behind rebuilding japan? i'll agree that communism was a part of it, but we have always believed in fixing what we have broken, unlike certain other countries that leave the mess for others to fix later (iraq, india/pakistan, etc).



The current American system is extremely unjust. If you do not have medical insurance (and there are plenty of people in the US who do not) then at best you *might* have access to some appalling hospitals. At worse, you get hit by massive bills for thousands of dollars.


you are showing your ignorance of the american system. yes, it has its failures, as does every system, but no one is denied care simply because they dont have insurance. (again, show me a system that is perfect, and i'll show you one helluva politically staged circus act).



I’m not suggesting that the military does not have a place in government expenditure. However, the cost of the military is a massive burden on US taxpayers and the US economy. Moreover, the money spent on the military could be spent elsewhere, such as on increased expenditure for welfare programmes.


the same thing was said by americans between world wars I and II. we got caught with our pants down because the military had been slashed so badly. we were way behind on modern technology as well, thanks to the pacifist attitudes. time and time again it has been proven that planning for war is the only way to truelly maintain peace.



Perhaps we should go back to a feudal system of lords ruling over peasants and taxing them at regular intervals? Or maybe we should just abandon the whole notion of citizenhood and re-instate slavery? The poor don't deserve rights or freedom, anyway.


your country has a much longer history with this sort of behaviour, maybe yall should lead the way, you know, show us how it works? oh right, you tried that....little thing called the american revolution started you down the path of enlightenment.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John
The US Navy is still larger than all the world's navies combined.

The US Navy Reserve Fleet is the world's second largest navy, after the US Navy.

I think we're covered on ships. ^^


Haha, thats awesome.

Yeah I think you will be ok for ships for a while yet.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
your system is worse off and many die from waiting for approval, when americans need it, they get it,

Woah, stop right.
I have 2 family members who have worked and one is still working for the NHS and I can tell you that people do not die waiting for approval. People injured can wait yeah, but they do not die.



they may have a bill but our health care isnt as bad as you think, we spend like 1.8 trillion on health care 15% of our gdp...we would need over 3 trillion to cover every person...., plus the 230 billion from people paying on their own, our system has more money in total and per capita than your country,

Yeah your system has more money than our country want to know why?
Your system is money hungry and based upon wealth; health.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join