Maybe the U.S.A. should just tax the rest of the world.

[Lord Jim]

I've seen enough of his posts to recognise when he's acting the cock.

I'm afraid I must rise to take issue with you on that point Sean....

That ain't no "act"....

[Andrew D]

Every prosperous nation in the world owes its prosperity to the magnanimity of the U.S. If we wanted to, we could turn the world economy upside down, shake it until all its money fell out, and sail home with the proceeds. And there wouldn't be a damn thing -- short of nuclear holocaust, in which case, everybody dies; and very few countries could manage it even if they wanted to -- that anyone could do about it.

But we don't. Because we are a kindhearted people -- the most generous people in the world. "The United States gives more to those in crisis than any other country in the world," and Americans are "more apt to donate to a charity, volunteer, or help a stranger than residents of 152 other countries."

So a few ships are going to be decommissioned. So what?

Let's keep things in some perspective:

A single US carrier strike group is, at present, the most powerful military asset in the world. In the case of the US navy, a CSG has the ability to deploy amphibious ready groups (marines/special forces); establish air supremacy in a given theatre of operation; operate in all weather conditions 24 hours a day (save those that pose a threat to the group's immediate security); are designed to be able to project power ashore to deal with a multitude of sophisticated land-based threats, such as missile defence systems; and, above all, can deploy theatre ballistic missiles that possess a range of between 300 to 3,500 kilometres (tactical-intercontinental). That aspect changes if the group is accompanied by a ballistic submarine (SSBN), which has the ability to launch up to 24 Trident II's with a START-limited five MIRV's per missile, each of which can be configured to deliver W88s, which have a maximum yield of 475 kilotonnes – roughly 36 times more powerful per warhead than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

In short, a single CSG could – if fully unleashed – devastate most nations on earth.

And, by the way, the U.S. has eleven of them. No one else even comes close:

The U.S. operates 11 large carriers, all nuclear powered. In terms of size and striking power, no other country has even one comparable ship.
The U.S. Navy has 10 large-deck amphibious ships that can operate as sea bases for helicopters and vertical-takeoff jets. No other navy has more than three, and all of those navies belong to pur allies or friends. Our Navy can carry twice as many aircraft at sea as all the rest of the world combined.
The U.S. has 57 nuclear-powered attack and cruise missile submarines – again, more than the rest of the world combined.
Seventy-nine Aegis-equipped combatants carry roughly 8,000 vertical-launch missile cells. In terms of total missile firepower, the U.S. arguably outmatches the next 20 largest navies.
All told, the displacement of the U.S. battle fleet – a proxy for overall fleet capabilities – exceeds, by one recent estimate, at least the next 13 navies combined, of which 11 are our allies or partners.
And, at 202,000 strong, the Marine Corps is the largest military force of its kind in the world and exceeds the size of most world armies.

Next time someone feels like oh-so-fashionably dissing the U.S., just remember this: Without us, y'all wouldn't be diddly shit.

And we can withhold our magnanimity any time we want. You up for that?

[Andrew D]

Sean, in the longer portion you linked, Andrew specifically said, at the end, "I don't know.". How you can turn that into a statement of "I know I'm right but I'll humor me" is beyond me.

Guin, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'd much rather demean him than address what he actually posts.

Fixed that for you.

[Sean]

Allow me to sum up for you Andrew. I believe that this is what you are trying to express...

[Andrew D]

I've seen enough of his posts to recognise when he's acting the cock.

I'm afraid I must rise to take issue with you on that point Sean.... I've committed myself to pretending that I don't read what he posts. But it's all an act.

Fixed that for you.

[Lord Jim]

Okay, now in that video, I don't see much to disagree with...

[Andrew D]

Allow me to sum up for you Andrew.

Only if you can manage to do so competently.

I have not said that the U.S. ought to grab the rest of the world by the balls and take whatever it wants. I have observed that the U.S. could do so if it wanted to. What a country ought to do and what it could do are, especially in the case of global powers, rather different things.

But we Americans, on the whole, do not want to do any such thing. Unlike, say, European powers, which have a centuries-long history of screwing each other and other people all over the world every chance they've had.

It is common for a ship, when entering a port, to pay a fee (or to be required to hire a local pilot, or by whatever the prescribed means, to shell out some money) in exchange for the services which those who manage the port provide. The U.S. manages the high seas, and it expends a great deal of money doing so -- an expense which inures to the benefit of other nations.

So why shouldn't the U.S. collect some reasonable fee for the services which it provides?

[Sean]

All praise to our benevolent American overlords!

[Gob]

So why shouldn't the U.S. collect some reasonable fee for the services which it provides?

Would this be dependent on the other country requesting or desiring US services?

If you are so enamoured of this idea, what are you going to do about it? When does the campaign start?

[Andrew D]

Is a harbormaster the "benevolent overlord" of the owners, captains, etc., of the ships in the harbor?

Is it really beyond you to address the reasoning -- misguided as it may be -- with which you are confronted? I doubt it. That is, after all, a straightforward process:

"Here is what the person with whom I disagree posted: '[something which he or she actually posted]';

"Here are the reasons why I disagree with it: [some reasons which address the quoted matter]."

You have demonstrated that you are capable of engaging in that process -- capable of engaging in real argument -- so why won't you?

[Sean]

Oh I am perfectly capable of doing that if I have a mind to.
The only thing is, I find myself incapable of seeing your chest thumping in this thread as worthy of serious debate.

You may think it worthy and if so, I hope that you will be have the opportunity to debate it with other like-minded people.

I just find it funny.

[Lord Jim]

I find myself incapable of seeing your chest thumping in this thread as worthy of serious debate.

Well Sean, if it's serious debate you want, I understand there's a very serious and sober minded discussion on the grave threat to personal liberty caused by ordinances that restrict people from running around butt-naked where ever they feel like it, elsewhere on this board....

[Andrew D]

So what inspires you to have a mind to?

After all, my suggestion is far less radical than the legalized piracy that was so crucial to the development of the British Empire ....

[Sean]

So what inspires you to have a mind to?

Fully constructed sentences for one thing...

[Andrew D]

I just borrowed your construction:

Oh I am perfectly capable of doing that if I have a mind to.

By the way, elsewhere on this board, there is a discussion of "an interesting question [which] forces consideration of many aspects of how our society is run -- what are the rules, and why, particularly with regard to personal liberty issues, which extend far beyond the example of public nudity." That discussion would be improved if people unable to grasp the issue would stop attempting to derail the conversation.

[Sean]

Do you mean derail as in 'attempt to introduce to the thread a totally irrelevant discussion from a completely different thread'?

[Andrew D]

Do you mean derail as in 'attempt to introduce to the thread a totally irrelevant discussion from a completely different thread'?

Like this?

Well Sean, if it's serious debate you want, I understand there's a very serious and sober minded discussion on the grave threat to personal liberty caused by ordinances that restrict people from running around butt-naked where ever they feel like it, elsewhere on this board....

[Andrew D]

Or did you mean like this?

Are you going to start the "tax the world" campaign before or after the "walk around nude" campaign?

[Andrew D]

Anyway, adverting to the topic, the purpose of very briefly describing the U.S.A.'s unprecedented naval power is to drive home the point that the U.S.A. has not wielded that power the way it could. When Britannia ruled the waves, it was busying itself with conquest, naked exploitation, and genocide. Does anyone think that the Roman Empire maintained the (relative) safety of the roadways that enabled commerce among the provinces without the provinces' having to pay for it?

The U.S. provides an indispensable service to the rest of the world. Without the U.S. Navy, the global economy could not function. Providing that service costs the U.S. a great deal of money.

I submit that the beneficiaries of that service should help pay for it. What is wrong with that?

[Gob]

Anyway, adverting to the topic, the purpose of very briefly describing the U.S.A.'s unprecedented naval power is to drive home the point that the U.S.A. has not wielded that power the way it could.

You mean that the USA hasn't gone to war with its allies? Thanks for the insight.

I submit that the beneficiaries of that service should help pay for it. What is wrong with that?

Would this be dependent on the other country requesting or desiring US services?

If you are so enamoured of this idea, what are you going to do about it? When does the campaign start?