We Americans need to repay the English someday

[Betown]

I have to say that it's nice to know that you guys are with us. It's nice to have the security. Being British I am a patriot. I come from a good family with a military history. Both my grandfathers searved with americans during the war. You guys are great people. I respect you and your millitary. I am proud to call you guys my brothers and sisters!

BT OUT

[Tilt]

Originally posted by LtHans:
Thanks, Brits.  You guys are great.

I'm hoping there is something the United States can do for you guys in the future.  
.

Well gee....... thx  how about Carolina's, Georgia, Virginia's, Delaware, Penn, N.Jersey, NY state, NY, Maine, Maryland, Mass, (did I miss one?)

We will give DC a reservation status (state within state) But you have to go thru customs at Dulles.

 

Tilt

As much as we may like you Yanks we do have our own reasons for doing things.

[Replicant]

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
English paid in full beginning in 1939 to 1945.

I think Britain paid in full for USA's help during WW2.  Afterall we paid them billions of dollars, and after we ran out of money we gave them many strategic islands (worth something eh?) and the all important top secrets.  Be interesting to see what standard of technology USA would be at now if they HADN'T had entered WW2.  They made much out of Britain and captured German material and persons (rocket scientists for instance).

So, I think Britain had already paid up in full..... sigh, always an answer to a nice kind topic.

Regards

Nexx

PS  Britain are developing 2 or 3 new larger carriers in the future to accommodate the JSF.

[Jekyll]

Originally posted by LtHans:
The only other country that publically will help us with troops is France, and their not even in NATO.
[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: LtHans ]

Err.. Australia has already pledged 1,000 Special Forces troops, two Air Refueling aircraft and a couple of frigates.

It's not much.. but then again, our last carrier was decommissioned many years ago after a US frigate had the misfortune of cutting across her bows in a night exercise.

The HMAS Melbourne I think still has the distinction of sinking more friendly ships than enemy.  In 1963 or thereabouts she cut the HMAS 'Voyager' in half in a collision, and in about 1966 did exactly the same thing to the USS 'Frank E. Evans'.

We had to scrap her ... no friendly nations were prepared to play with her anymore  

Of course, we do have a few new submarines, but they appear to be quite possibly the worst naval vessels ever put in the water.  

But hey, if the Taliban ever puts to sea in something less dangerous than a small fishing boat.. we're the guys for the job  

Oh, and BTW, Australia invoked the 'mutual assistance' provisions of the ANZUS treaty, pledging military support to the US, several days before NATO made the same commitment  

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Jekyll ]

[StSanta]

From what I understand the other 16 members of NATO are publicly standing behind the USA, but behind the scenes at NATO headquarters they're each begging the USA to
NOT ask anything of them.

Not true. Germany ahs offered military assistance, as has Denmark. France as well.

The thing is: we gotta know what you chaps want before we can make it available. Do not confuse us waiting to hear from you as lack of support  

[indian]

The way it seems to me is there is a great big whoop bellybutton going on and everyone wants in now. Canada is of course sending ships and troops over and the others mentioned allready.  

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Tac:
rgr moose, the UK held back nazi germany.

Just imagine if the UK had fallen in the first few months of 1940. The US wouldve never entered the war and quite probably have been invaded around

 That is the most ignorant thing I've heard in a while. Who would have invaded US and why?

 Japain was out for raw resources and had no capacity for long-term war even close buy, let alone across the whole ocean. In the optimal for them case - their total victory, they would have had their hands full for generations absorbing their continental aquisitions.

 For Hitler any type of overseas adventure, let alone colonial occupation went contrary to his basic ideology of not mixing germans with other races. In fact Hitler neither desired nor expected to have war with England at all.

 LtHans: Why do you think brits would want more carriers? If they did need more of them, they would have built them to their specks, not ours anyway.

 Replicant: US would be better off in scientific research and socially if government did not end up controllling major share of it as the result of the war. US ended up with more socialism and that is never good.
 Whatever secrets US gained, the lasting harm to private enterprise with is the natural foundation of capitalist system was enormous.

 miko

[Ripsnort]

The UK held back Germany with the raw materials supplied by the US.  It was a bi-partisan task, no single country held back Germany, mulitple countries did.  As then, just as now, the same will be required.

[Saintaw]

Well, I have to agree that I find my government a bit limp about the issue at hand.  

But, we did send out 4/5th of our fabulous navy during the golf(2 Minehunters out of 5 Ships, 1 of em being a training sailboat and 2 others  I'm not sure are capable of high seas, hehe   )

[Hobodog]

The french are helping? Wow the world has changed!

[Animal]

for some reason Ive always like the boeing JSF much more than the LH version.

To me the boeing looks much more cooler, and its design seems more simple, wich is always an advantage.

[LtHans]

LtHans: Why do you think brits would want more carriers? If they did need more of them, they would have built them to their specks, not ours anyway.

That isn't what I have read about the modern Royal Navy.  They don't have the near same budget the USN has and cannot afford a "real" carrier (no insult intended).

The planes that operate off our heavy flattops have alot more capability than jump jets do.  This crisis illistrates that alot.  The US can fly navy planes over Afganistan, and not worry about asking.....scratch that....BRIBE the local dictator into asking if we can use their land for our military.  We don't need it.  We've got floating ones.

The USN can downsize the navy, like cutting back on the nuke subs, but those big carriers are nice to have.  Still, with the way the military budgets for the US were going during the Clinton Years, I think the USN would have started considering smaller ships.

 

Of course, we do have a few new submarines, but they appear to be quite possibly the worst naval vessels ever put in the water.

Really?  The USN was looking at buying/copying the Austrailian Oberon SSK submarines (diesel electric, not nuke).  As I mentioned even the US was starting to cut back on the military alot.  We only built three Seawolf class subs, and one was being converted into a special ops sub.  We need something else.