[NeedKarma]

^
Speaking of hyperbole.

LOL!

[ETWolverine]

Has anything changed in your day-to-day life in the past couple of years? Have you been restricted in doing anything that you did before? What are you afraid of?

Let's see.

The government has determined what toilets we are allowed to use.

The government has determined what lightbulbs we are allowed to use.

The government has determined what we are allowed to fry our foods in.

The government has determined when and where we are allowed to smoke.

The government has determined what types of cars we should buy and how much mileage our cars should be getting.

The government has determined what corporate executives should be paid (even at companies that they didn't give TARP money to).

These are all things that are current law. They aren't proposals, they aren't things that are in the works. They are what is in effect NOW.

So in answer to your question, I'd say yes, there have been quite a few things that have changed over the past few years (many of them in the past few months) that have limited our free choice and restricted what we have done in the past.

What's sad is that you can't recognize it. You just think it's all "hyperbole". Sorry, it is in fact the reality of life in the USA today.

Elliot

[phlanx]

Let's see.

The government has determined what toilets we are allowed to use.

The government has determined what lightbulbs we are allowed to use.

The government has determined what we are allowed to fry our foods in.

The government has determined when and where we are allowed to smoke.

The government has determined what types of cars we should buy and how much mileage our cars should be getting.

The government has determined what corporate executives should be paid (even at companies that they didn't give TARP money to).

These are all things that are current law. They aren't proposals, they aren't things that are in the works. They are what is in effect NOW.

So in answer to your question, I'd say yes, there have been quite a few things that have changed over the past few years (many of them in the past few months) that have limited our free choice and restricted what we have done in the past.

What's sad is that you can't recognize it. You just think it's all "hyperbole". Sorry, it is in fact the reality of life in the USA today.

Elliot

I do and don't see your point of view elliot

I don't know what the states has done on light bulbs, but here in the EU - 100w are banned

Isn't it better to have an 11w energy bulb instead of a 100w that's consumes so much more energy than a perfectly good alternative?

SO whereas personal choice of a 100w is no taken away from you and us, but so what, am I going to sit around at night thinking darn gosh that government for forcing me to choose a low energy, bright light bulb that is saving resources and saving me money?

[ETWolverine]

I do and don't see your point of view elliot

I don't know what the states has done on light bulbs, but here in the EU - 100w are banned

Isn't it better to have an 11w energy bulb instead of a 100w that's consumes so much more energy than a perfectly good alternative?

"Perfectly good" for whom?

The fluorescent lights that I have been forced to use do not give off as much light as the incandescent bulbs I used to have. They take 5-10 minutes to build up to full lighting. And the light is flat and cold.

But the point isn't what is "better" or not. The point is having the ability to choose for ourselves.

SO whereas personal choice of a 100w is no taken away from you and us, but so what, am I going to sit around at night thinking darn gosh that government for forcing me to choose a low energy, bright light bulb that is saving resources and saving me money?

So what you are saying is that if I have the money to spend on the electricity, and I want to use a bulb that I think is a better bulb for my purposes (regardless of the wasted energy), I should not have that right because someone else has determined that the fluorescent bulb is "better".

Who gets to impose that determination on me, and by what legal right?

Again, it isn't about what is more or less wasteful. It is about being able to determine for myself whether I want to be wasteful or not without it being imposed from on high by the government.

My right to choose is, Constitutionally, more important than the government's right to impose it's opinions on me. EVEN IF THE GOVERNMENT'S OPINION IS RIGHT.

That's the point of the whole "limited power of government" argument.

Elliot

[phlanx]

Haha, Elliot, you and I are never going to agree on anything

We both understand and see our point of view on each subject we discuss

And yet I can not get you to accept that individuality has to compromise with scoial responsibility, and I will never agree that the individual person comes first ahead of everyone else on this planet

I will say this though, the world has almost 7bn people in it, we either need to get along in some sort of order, or all go our separate ways

Now tell me, which one do you think is more likely?

[ETWolverine]

haha, Elliot, you and I are never going to agree on anything

We both understand and see our point of view on each subject we discuss

And yet I can not get you to accept that individuality has to compromise with scoial responsibility, and I will never agree that the individual person comes first ahead of everyone else on this planet

Oh, I agree that individuality has to compromise with social responsibility. That is the "social contract". But the Constitution lays out the terms of the social contract, and it states ver specifically where government's powers and responsibilities end, and where individual rights and responsibilities pick up. What you are suggesting is a NEW social contract with new terms and conditions. I say that we already have a social contract with perfectly acceptable terms and conditions... it just needs to be enforced.

I will say this though, the world has almost 7bn people in it, we either need to get along in some sort of order, or all go our separate ways

Now tell me, which one do you think is more likely?

The one that I would PREFER is for all of us to go our own separate ways... coming together only when it is mutually beneficial to do so, without imposing our rules, regulations or cultural biases on each other. THAT is the best way to make sure that every person, community, city, nation, and political group gets its needs met without forcing others to accept what they do not wish to accept.

That is, in fact, how CAPITALISM works. Capitalism is a system of relationships of choice in which all parties involved receive a benefit, and can enter and exit those relationships at will and when it is in their best interests to do so.

IMPOSING such relationships on others is statism. Statism can take on many different forms, but the most common ones are dictatorship, communism/socialism, and feudalism.

In Statism the relationships with others is FORCED. In Capitalism the relationships with others is VOLUNTARY.

In statism, the relationships remain intact whether they are still in everyone's best interests or not. In capitalism, you can exit a relationship any time you feel it is in your best interest to do so.

Your suggestion is the imposition of statism. I prefer capitalism.

I would recommend a book that you might find interesting. It expounds on this concept in much greater detail. It is Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto". You can get it at Amazon or Barnes & Noble or any other bookseller that you might think of.

Elliot

[phlanx]

Cheers for the suggestion Elliot, I will put it on my christmas list

I think you have to look at History of when your constitution was written, and certainly european history

We are at the most peaceful we have been at for a 1000 years plus

This is to say, after WW2, the tatse of war has left most of us europeans, and we only interested in good food and good entertainment (to simply it)

Whether the EU will hold, will get stronger or realise its ideals is unknown

Much of your argument is made here against the EU

I just think that the world is not ready for so many countries to be individual both economically and socialably

I don't mean any disresoect to them, but they have suffered greatly (eastern blocks in particular) and the western europe countries are willing to help them out to regain their independence

I find with interest, that maybe you need statism to help form capitalism, or certainly a part of it

Why would the UK, france and Germany put billons into the coffers of these eastern blocks without the thought they would benefit from the new markets, and as part of the contract they have to sign up to a contract - no different than a business investing

Trust me, I went to romannia a year after their revolution, the main department store in Bucharest only had colgate toothpaste, so when I say these countries were poor it is an understatement

WW1 was caused by two factions not agreeing

WW2 was caused by victors of WW1 presenting germany with 660m bill for the first war (one prime reason)

Since then we as many countries with a lot of history have tried to create a stable political economic climate for all to have

he one that I would PREFER is for all of us to go our own separate ways... coming together only when it is mutually beneficial to do so, without imposing our rules, regulations or cultural biases on each other. THAT is the best way to make sure that every person, community, city, nation, and political group gets its needs met without forcing others to accept what they do not wish to accept.

This is a double ended sword

One, you provide as much freedom of choice as possible - theory is sound, however cultural influence is not exclusive

It is precisely that attitude that has lead to the cultural influence of the US effecting the Egyptian commerce and creating what we all know now as extreme Islam

The muslim world wants to rule by muslim ways, but they still want to trade and make money - The Arab States are great example of how this can work, compromise on both sides to come together to create a stable environment

It is when you have two sides so opposed to reform and regulation to achieve a compromise that tensions mount

When I said work away, what I meant was more often than not war, or do I need to recommend a History book or two for your xmas stockings :)

I have to stay elliot I enjoy your discussions!

[ETWolverine]

Cheers for the suggestion Elliot, I will put it on my christmas list

I think you have to look at History of when your constitution was written, and certainly european history

We are at the most peaceful we have been at for a 1000 years plus

This is to say, after WW2, the tatse of war has left most of us europeans, and we only interested in good food and good entertainment (to simply it)

In just the past several years (since 1990) in Europe, we have seen:

The Slovenian War
War in South Ossetia
The Croatian War of Independence
The War of Transnistria
War in Ahbkazia
War in Bosnia & Herzogovina
Civil War in Tajikistan
The First Chechen War
The Kosovo War
The Insurgency in the Presevo Valley
The Second Chechen War
The Macedonian Conflict
The Invasion of Georgia

Europe's history of avoiding violence since WWII is not as strong as you think it is, and the creation of the EU hasn't improved matters.

Whether the EU will hold, will get stronger or realise its ideals is unknown

Care to make any bets?

Much of your argument is made here against the EU

I just think that the world is not ready for so many countries to be individual both economically and socialably

I don't mean any disresoect to them, but they have suffered greatly (eastern blocks in particular) and the western europe countries are willing to help them out to regain their independence

I find with interest, that maybe you need statism to help form capitalism, or certainly a part of it

Why would the UK, france and Germany put billons into the coffers of these eastern blocks without the thought they would benefit from the new markets, and as part of the contract they have to sign up to a contract - no different than a business investing

Trust me, I went to romannia a year after their revolution, the main department store in Bucharest only had colgate toothpaste, so when I say these countries were poor it is an understatement

I see your point. On the other hand, I also look at India, Pakistan, and various other Asian countries with whom the USA has business dealings all moving from third world to second world status fairly quickly... without us imposing our rules and regulations on them. In fact, India in particular seems to be growing faster economically than any country in Europe, despite the EU's "deals" which impose their regulations on those countries. India is growing because it has been given the ability to choose for itself, culturally, economically and politically, without having to adopt the rules and regulations of other countries or political bodies.

So I look at the examples you put forward, and I look at India, and I see greater success in OUR way of doing these things... where success is measured as the economic growth of the country.

WW1 was caused by two factions not agreeing

... and one side trying to impose their desires on the other.

WW2 was caused by victors of WW1 presenting germany with 660m bill for the first war (one prime reason)

Since then we as many countries with a lot of history have tried to create a stable political economic climate for all to have

So let me get this straight... you want to create a stable environment by imposing the will of the strong onto the weak.

Isn't that what caused WWI? And for that matter WWII as well?

This is a double ended sword

One, you provide as much freedom of choice as possible - theory is sound, however cultural influence is not exclusive

No, but the freedom to choose means that people get to choose which cultural influences they wish to accept.

It is precisely that attitude that has lead to the cultural influence of the US effecting the Egyptian commerce and creating what we all know now as extreme Islam

The muslim world wants to rule by muslim ways, but they still want to trade and make money - The Arab States are great example of how this can work, compromise on both sides to come together to create a stable environment

What do you think would be the result if you tried to impose EU regulations and rules onto the Arab states?

It is when you have two sides so opposed to reform and regulation to achieve a compromise that tensions mount

I disagree. It is when you try to force the various square pegs into round holes that you end up with tensions. It is when you try to force everyone to follow the single set of rules that you end up with trouble and tension.

Want proof?

Take a look at the Muslim population in France... a population that chooses NOT to follow the edicts of the EU. I hear lots of talk about the restless Muslim population of Europe in general, but France in specific. The Muslims are square pegs that do not want to be forced into a round hole in France, and they are becoming more and more negatively active.

By contrast, for all the talk of the USA's war against Islam, we haven't seen the Muslim rioting that goes on in France. Why not? Because in the USA, you don't have to conform to a single set of cultural rules and regulations. Muslims can choose to be whatever they want here. We impose NOTHING on them. They have the right to choose for themselves.

Like it or not, that freedom of choice in terms of cultural, social, and economic relationships... the freedom to enter and exit such relationships at will, the freedom to choose your individual destiny rather than conforming to what "society" demands... that is what is keeping the peace in the USA.

Part of the reason that the Muslims of the Middle East hate us so much is because we grant that freedom, whereas they believe in conformity, and any variation from conformity is, by nature, evil.

You are trying to impose a DIFFERENT set of standards on Muslims living in Europe, and it is causing friction.

It is the need to impose conformity that leads to war.

Freedom FROM enforced or imposed conformity... the freedom to choose... begets peace.

When I said work away, what I meant was more often than not war, or do I need to recommend a History book or two for your xmas stockings :)

I have to stay elliot I enjoy your discussions!

As do I.

Elliot

[phlanx]

Firstly Elliot, get a map - OLD USSR countries are not part of europe

As regards the rest, that is many conflicts spread over a civil war that broke up what was once a beautiful country

SO in fifty years you have had one civil war, and then russia WHICH IS NOT PART OF EUROPE

You NEED A HISTORY LESSON - wars in europe have all but one stopped! First time in nearly 3000 years it has been like that

EU causes war - what the hell!! Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, I don't like the EU for a whole number of reasons, but to have one council able to come together to talk is progress

India - of course it has absolutely nothing to do with a lot of British and Indian British people trading there and have been doing so for a few hundred years - cultural unboased, NOPE, economically and politically unbiased NOPE - need another history lesson. Pakistan - same as india, totally influenced by other countries

India, my american friend, was a country of smaller states, that were brought together by the British Empire imposing their will by force and by trade a few hundred years ago

If it wasn't for us, there would be no india or pakistan, you would have half a dozen separate countries

I suggest you read up on how India was born, and rules and regulations were imposed back yonder and comapre it to how it is today - World of difference, and that is what matters, counrties are offered a choice to join a union like the EU, not imposed!

WW1 - PROVES MY POINT - When there is no compromise, you have war

The eastern blocks have a simple choice

IF YOU WANT CASH AND ASSISTANCE _ YOU NEED TO DO THIS

HOW THE HELL HAVE YOU GOT TO IMPOSING WILL _ THEY HAVE A CHOICE THEY CHOSE IN A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION!

Gordon bennett elliot, as soon as you are out of your New Jersey you are lost

Arab states have no choice but to conform to several of our regulations if they wish to do business in Europe - and vice versa - OR IS THIS CONCEPT STILL LOST ON YOU

Proof of where two sides will not compromise - Israel and Gaza, Spain and Etu, Britain and IRA, Russia and Checha, US and Cuba, China and Taiwan, both sides refused to compromise - tensions rose! Hell, Spain are still bickering on about Gibraltor after they lost it to us

Hahaha - France - oh please, I have several friends or are french muslims, they follow certain parts of the faith and not others, just as most of the muslims in most of europe they are largely third generation immigrants - that stage of integration always causes tensions not to mention what ever else is going on. On top of that the burka is trying to be banned in france - always causes tensions, I understand that tolerance of faith must occur, however compromise on both sides must prevail, if it doesn't tensions will rise :)

I think you need to understand the problem with immigration in europe before you try to use it to defend a point of view

A lot of tensions are from matters unresolved from previous generations - Iraq and Afgahanistan alone are prime examples of what happens when you leave a country alone to do what they want without guidance

Leaving a nation to boil over into hatred for a country they know little about is always going to create a problem

9-11 was the spark that ignited a very long fuse that had been laid for decades by both us and yourselves

As for america is at peace - who are you kidding, one event alone - school kids going on the rampage in their own schools

I am not stating that to put USA down, just an example where freedom of choice of one individual takes away the freddom of choice of another - yep great system buddy!

[ETWolverine]

So you are saying that Russia isn't part of Europe. And neither are the former Soviet Bloc countries.

That's not what the CIA World Factbook says:

Location:
Northern Asia (the area west of the Urals is considered part of Europe), bordering the Arctic Ocean, between Europe and the North Pacific Ocean.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/rs.html

How about Kosovo?

Location:
Southeast Europe, between Serbia and Macedonia

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/kv.html

How about Bosnia & Herzegovina?

Location:
Southeastern Europe, bordering the Adriatic Sea and Croatia

Slovenia?

Location:
Central Europe, eastern Alps bordering the Adriatic Sea, between Austria and Croatia

Chechnya, although technically not its own country, is in the Cuacasus, which is within Europe.

I could keep going.

Seems strange that you want to disown all these European countries because they don't conform to your view of what Europe should look like. The wars that they are fighting don't seem to engender the fraternity that you claim the EU has brought forth, and so you are trying to eliminate them from the map of Europe.

Sorry, but Eastern Europe is still part of Europe.

Now... I did NOT say that the EU is causing wars. What I said was that FORCING CONFORMITY eventually leads to war. And I also said that, conversely, creating choice diminishes war. So please calm down and explain to me where those statements are untrue, especially as I have given examples to show that it IS true.

As for India and Pakistan, I never said that you guys didn't trade there and that you aren't a part of the reason for their current success. I WILL point out, however, since you brought up the issue, that India is showing a great deal more economic success since they STOPPED being a British Colony than they ever did while they WERE under your protection. You tried to force them to be British... you tried to force them to conform... and the result was a bit less successful than they are experiencing today.

Are the Indians and Pakis culturally biased? OF COURSE THEY ARE!! So... we have two ways of handling that. We can try to FORCE them to give up their cultural biases and accept OUR cultural biases instead (which is what you Brits historically tried to do to them), or we can simply say "choose your own path".

We can let them be as culturally biased as they want and STILL DO BUSINESS WITH THEM, choosing when and where to do it, and giving them the same choice. Which is what we have been doing with them for a while now. And the result is that they are LOSING some of their cultural bias.. the parts that don't work for them anymore... and keeping the parts that still work in the modern industrialized world. Let them keep their culture and their biases and their free choice... they are still better off than they were before.

That's the argument I'm making... that free choice eventually leads to SMART choice that benefits them and everyone around them as well. It's a very Smithian, invisible-hand argument.

So again, I'll take free choice over forced conformity any day.

Elliot

[phlanx]

Hahahahahahaha, Your using the CIA as source of telling a european whether Russia is in Europe. It is not - and probably never shall be mate

Geographically, Russia is its own continent

Histrically Russia has sperated itself from Europe

Economically and politically, completely different ideas, if russia applied to join the EU, it would have raise its standards to meet ours :)

All those you countries you mention used to be part of Yugoslavia

Now we could go into what this region of europe has gone through but that would take forever, its was yogoslavia in one name or another for some 60plus years. Once communist rule ended, the freedom of choice that people suddenly had resurfaced a lot of old wounds from previous generations

And what the UN and Nato and Europe allowed to go on there is disgusting, the number of inncocent people slaughtered I don't think will ever been known. So my friend, these wars are based on a ciil war that broke the country apart

So here is a prime example where total freedom of choice that has been thrust onto people created a war

If you let india and pakistan go there own way without influence from outside source, it will create a war that will be so close to nuclear it is untrue! A lot of bad blood occurs, and is still felt today by their people in this country, they will not mix at all

As regards what was successful and what is not successful, - that is a wholly separate argument and I am afraid if you insist on clacifying Russia as part of Europe, we cannot discuss it, as your sources a woefully stupid

After books we have written we still come down to this

You see compromise as forced conformity, I see free choice as a way of obtaining compromise

Eitherway, the two of us are unmovable and as such we will not see eye to eye until we do compromise

Now picture this argument being had by two rulers of a country, and hey presto - war breaks out

Im still trying to understand how the CIA can class Russia in Europe - will look at link

[phlanx]

PS The old states of USSR are still influenced by russia and not europe, this may change over time but for now, russia new an dold is sperate to the EU and eatsern blocks

[paraclete]

hahahahahahaha, Your using the CIA as source of telling a european whether Russia is in Europe. It is not - and probably never shall be mate

Geographically, Russia is its own continent

Steve geographically Europe ends at the Ural Mountains. Where does Russia begin if not in Europe? Does Europe end at the Polish border? At the Belarus border? Are the white Russians in Europe and the Muscovites in Asia? It is usual to define the boundaries of a continent with some defining feature such as a sea or at least a River. If we take India as an example; we refer to a subcontinent defined by the Himalaya range so Siberia is in Asia and Russia in Europe herein ends the geography lesson

Economically and politically, completely different ideas, if russia applied to join the EU, it would have raise its standards to meet ours :

So you want to define continents by economic development, so by your definition Mexico is not in North America. If I applied your standard the Northern Territory and the Kimberly and the Nullarbor would have to excised from Australia. By your definition the Russians who were the first to put a man in space are somehow substandard, that thinking is Cold War and unrealistic but then you Brits always were class conscious and we mustn't let the peasants rise must we? It just wouldn't do to see Russians at Brighton would it?

If you let india and pakistan go there own way without influence from outside source, it will create a war that will be so close to nuclear it is untrue! A lot of bad blood occurs, and is still felt today by their people in this country, they will not mix at all

How strange it is that these people could live without genocidal wars until the British came along and upset the status quo I expect you think they have lost intelligence since you left, but they both developed the atom bomb and haven't whipped themselves or each other out yet. Creating India and Pakistan was the most stupid idea the British had[/QUOTE]

[phlanx]

Look, russia the country and its old states, are not part of the european make up, I concede after reading about the Ural Mouintains - something I was taught at school, bu that was a long time ago

The statements were being made in reference to European Parliament

Russia is not part of that, doubt it will ever be part of that

The old russian states, Georgia etc, who knows what will happen with them, I can't see them forming a union with russia, so they might wish to join the EU

The eastern blocks were traditionally part of europe before WW2 and they have become so again

Clete, you thinking forming India was a bad idea?

So forming creating a colony in Australia Good or Bad?

America Good or Bad

Canada Good or Bad

Several Middle East states Good or Bad

A dozen African states good or bad

The list is endless mate to what we achiveed in th epast as you well know, some of it was good and some of it was bad - You have to read why these comments were made and not try to take them out of context

Besides that - When and how was Pakistan created - find out, and then ask if we played a part or not!

[tomder55]

Histrically Russia has sperated itself from Europe...


Look, russia the country and its old states, are not part of the european make up,.

The old russian states, Georgia etc, who knows what will happen with them, I can't see them forming a union with russia, so they might wish to join the EU

Curiously you think it's a good idea[I think] for them to join the EU ,but , I see a great reluctance to include them in the NATO pact. If they are European nations ,aren't they worth being part of the collective defense ?

I would say that much of the theme of Russian history is it's attempt for recognition as a European nation and it's paranoia resulting from constant invasion from Europe . It is not that they separated themselves as much as they were refused when they asked to become part of Europe . Their expansion into Eastern Europe was partly an attempt to create a buffer. I find it interesting that not only do you reject the reality that Russia is primarily a European country geographically ;but you appear to be rejecting the Eastern European nations once subjugated by Russia ,and rapidly falling under their sphere again; without so much as a whimper from old Europe.
Is there nothing left of the West that Europe finds worth defending ?
Actually I wonder about Europe's ability to defend it's interests. It appears to me that the Royal Navy has been so weakened that they would have difficulty defending the Falkland Islands again.

[phlanx]

Eastern Europe is now part of the EU

I find it interesting the way Americans view Russia, Europeans don't see russia as part of its iterest, the eastern blocks - of which I don't think people understand what I mean by that but is a recognised term within europe, are running at full speed away from the russians

I think people need to understand what Russia did to these countries after WW2 - Poland for example has many generations of people born from rape!

As regards the royal navy comment, I think you need to understand how we have won the battles we have won - mostly against all odds!

Again, I think that once a subject is removed outside of america the facts become muddled

I talk to you guys as I am intrigued to understand for myself what america is about and not what the media tell me

And Tom, if Russia wanted to be part of Europe (with the expcetion of Peter) they did a real poor job showing it at times, and where did you get the idea I thought it was a good idea for them to join the EU??

I think you need to understand what the EU is about and what it is doing to help countries rise to a standard, these are the counrties that Russia destroyed

[tomder55]

if Russia wanted to be part of Europe (with the expcetion of Peter) they did a real poor job showing it at times,

In their own way ; with the growing partnership between Angie Merkel and Vladdy Putin;they are showing that they still wish to be part of Europe. [This is admittedly partly due to our President's incompetent personal relationships with various European heads of state ]

I agree that the Ruskies absolutely raped and pillaged the Eastern bloc;and that was inexcusable . I was just giving their side of the story .

And Tom, if Russia wanted to be part of Europe (with the expcetion of Peter) they did a real poor job showing it at times, and where did you get the idea I thought it was a good idea for them to join the EU??

I guess I did not make it clear. I was speaking of Eastern Europe and not Russia. I know that you guys don't want anything to do with economic union with Russia .What I said was that you were willing to allow the Eastern bloc into the EU ;but I see a reluctance to commit to their defense. But then again I don't see much of a commitment to your own defense either .

As regards the royal navy comment, I think you need to understand how we have won the battles we have won - mostly against all odds!

Nonsense!! Britain was a great nation because it dominated the seas.
When Britain first, at Heaven's command Arose from out the azure main; This was the charter of the land, And guardian angels sang this strain: "Rule, Britannia! rule the waves: "Britons never will be slaves."

I think I am very correct about the Royal Navy. I do believe that Adm. Nelson is turning over in his grave because it is a shell of it's former self.
Did you read the 2007 “Royal Navy Utility Today Compared with 20 Years Ago” report authored by Rear-Admiral Alan Massey ?
Navy would struggle to fight a war - report - Telegraph

"The current material state of the fleet is not good; the Royal Navy would be challenged to mount a medium-scale operation in accordance with current policy against a technologically capable adversary."

The fleet has been reduced in size from 136 ships in 1987 to just 75 . The number of destroyers and frigates in service has fallen from 54 to 25, and submarines from 38 to just 13. The total number of Navy personnel has been reduced by nearly 30,000, from 65,500 to 38,800. The report says that it is an “under-resourced” fleet comprised of “operationally defective ships”.

[phlanx]

Tom, there is no other side of the story when it comes to rape - I have first hand knowledge from the people who they did rape, having been to Poland, Rommania, Hungary and Bulgaria

Russia has massive amounts of Gas and Oil reserves, so of course a country is going to get in close with them, the whole of the EU has, as they have want we want, so don't get confused by normal trade and buddy lists

Tom, you need to realise that the eastern block doesn't not include the former soviet states of Georgia etc, they are separate to anything else. Now that that the eatsern block is or about to become part of the EU, their defence is covered by all of us

The greatest attribute to the british armed forces is fighting when the odds are against us, or haven't you figured that out yet?

Royal Navy were able to dominate because it beat the Spanish, and french navys amongst others against the odds mate, and Rule Britannia was born out of success against the odds

One of the great things we do is make friends, lets face it, if Flaklands were invaded again, we would surely get a lift of your guys :)

I am not denying that the armed forces have seen a decline in resources in the past 20 years or so, this was mainly started by the unions nearly bankrupting us in the late 70s, poor investment in networks of rail and road have needed fresh investment to prevent them from collapse. On top of that with the cold war ending in the 90s, investment wasn't needed to the level that it was - there are many more reasons, of which comes to down to money

Look, after WW2 we have been struggling to get back to where we were, and at times we have fallen behind, but the one thing still remains, we can call on friends when we need them!

[phlanx]

PS If Nelson was alive today he would probably be chucked out of the Navy for being too wreckless with peoples lives - He was a Hero in his day, but that day allowed for mass casualities, you really think public opinon would allow him to get away with what he did back yonder?

[tomder55]

PS If Nelson was alive today he would probably be chucked out of the Navy for being too wreckless with peoples lives - He was a Hero in his day, but that day allowed for mass casualities, you really think public opinon would allow him to get away with what he did back yonder?

Good point. I have made that same observation here. If fought today ;The people of the United States would've been calling for our withdrawal from WWII after many of the battles fought.