Okay. Forget the tax. Straight-up tribute instead.

[Lord Jim]

The Mad Emperor is no longer satisfied with wimpy halfway measures like merely withdrawal of protection" from threats...

Nay nay....

He wants the US to become the greatest threat:

They decline to pay, and their ships end up at the bottom of the ocean.

[Gob]

Well we have no need to worry that anyone as so obviously off his trolley as Andrew will ever be in a position to enact such war mongering, do we?

Do we?

[Andrew D]

Sorry, keld feldspar; I got lost in the twats.

Oh we all know that, he's decided to be an arse to get at Jim, I don't know how he thinks that would work.

Actually, I would appreciate responses which address what I posted.

Do you have any?

I did, guess it got lost.

Here it is again:

I don't deny that the US puts it's people in harms way in such a manner that it not only benefits US it also benefits others.

However going back to grade school one of the premises for the American Revolution was "no taxation without representation" I don't know if I'm ready to let Gob call the shots...

although puerile in present company...

I agree that there should be representation. The representation should be in the relevant fields. When the countries whose existence depends on the US's protecting their international shipping pony up and pay the costs for the service which they benefit from, they should have the representation which their having paid the costs will have entitled them to.

As things are now, however, the US pays almost all of the costs, and the pipsqueak nations pay almost nothing.

Time for a change.

[Gob]

Off you go the Andrew, off to make your change!

[Andrew D]

Well we have no need to worry that anyone as so obviously off his trolley as Andrew will ever be in a position to enact such war mongering, do we?

Do we?

See Britain.

Remember Britain?

The Empire that slaughtered millions simply to keep it currency afloat?

Laugh all you want.

The truth of the matter is that we could do what your beloved ancestors did.

But we do not. Because we are the most benign superpower the world has ever seen.

A fucking lot better than any of our predecessors.

We know it.

You know it.

Keep on counting on the only thing that lets you survive -- our magnanimity.

Keep on counting on it.

Good luck with that.

[Gob]

[Andrew D]

We've been nicer to you than anyone else ever has.

Hey, at least we didn't make your "country" into a dumping ground for our rejects.

We are the best superpower you can imagine. Any other superpower would have fucked you every which way from Tuesday.

Remember Britain?

You know, Britain? The power that constituted you not as a country but as a penal colony?

Would you rather go back to that? We might be able to arrange it. Let us know ....

[Lord Jim]

we are the most benign superpower the world has ever seen.

I have a funny feeling that this policy:

They decline to pay, and their ships end up at the bottom of the ocean.

Might have a tendency to undermine that just a tad....

[Gob]

ROTFLMCO!!

[Jarlaxle]

So...

Is Andrew OFF the drugs he should be on? Or is he ON the drugs he shouldn't be on?

[rubato]

Andrew Do you notrealize that "tribute" was nothing but formalized extortion?

It is impossible that he is not aware of that. Although the word "formalized" is mere decoration.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Argumentatively, the fact is that the United States has been in a position of total global military dominance since the end of WWII (now that we have proven that the Soviets were a paper tiger all along). And even though we have been in that position and by the standards used by, well, Britain in the prior 100 years could have pofited by it rather handsomely, we have not.

An example of forbearance and tolerance which no other country in the history of civilization (or even of organized barbarism) has ever done.

I don't expect any of you half-human bog-trotters from Britain to admit it but you really do owe us. We have done for you what you have never done for anyone else, ever, in the entire history of your race.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

Of course he has a "feeling". It's such a comfortable alternative to thinking.

[Rick]

Might be best not to count one's chickens fore they hatch

SASEBO NAVAL BASE, Japan -- For the second time in seven months, mechanical or maintenance issues have prevented the USS Essex from meeting a commitment at sea, Navy officials said Wednesday.

The 21-year-old flagship of the forward deployed Expeditionary Strike Group 7 was scheduled to depart several days ago for Cobra Gold 2012, an annual exercise with Thailand. The mission was scrapped due to an equipment failure.

“It is true, the Essex will not be making Cobra Gold,” Task Force 76 spokesman Lt. Richard Drake said. “The cause is wear and tear.”

The Essex, known as the Iron Gator, is scheduled to undergo a hull swap with its sister ship USS Bonhomme Richard next month.

The scrapped mission is the latest in a series of problems for Navy ships. More than one-fifth of Navy ships fell short of combat readiness in the past two years, and fewer than half of the service’s deployed combat aircraft are ready for their missions at any given time, according to congressional testimony.

With an ascendant China on the high seas and deep Defense Department budget cuts over the next decade, the Navy is facing “glaring deficiencies that are nothing short of alarming,” U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., chairman of the House Readiness Subcommittee said in July.

Vice Adm. William Burke, deputy chief of naval operations for fleet readiness and logistics, told the committee that the Navy has “a limited supply of forces.”

“When you have these additional deployments, you sometimes impact the maintenance, or you impact the training, which will impact the maintenance,” he said. “So what we have is one event cascading into another, so we don’t get either of them quite right.”

About the time leaders were testifying before Congress, the Essex was limping back into port due to maintenance issues shortly after departing for biannual exercise Talisman Sabre 2011 with the Australians, Navy officials said at the time. It was able to participate in the exercises as a remote command element.

Navy officials said there are many reasons a ship like the Essex might have issues.

Forward-deployed ships in the region experience higher operational tempo and advanced wear and tear as they have a lot more to do than their stateside brethren, often missing scheduled maintenance, Navy officials said.

Lt. Anthony Falvo, 7th Fleet spokesman, said the Essex may have been impacted by missing maintenance.

“Pacific Fleet ships adhere to rigorous maintenance standards and maintenance periodicities per the Joint Fleet Maintenance Manual and other Navy directives,” Falvo wrote in an email to Stripes. “On any given day we have roughly 40% of our ships underway and we are meeting the requirements of the combatant commanders.”

Drake would not specify what piece of equipment failed on the Essex, but said it was not the engine. He added that the ship could get underway if it had to, but it is better to fix the piece of equipment now.

“It will be back up and running in time for its next commitment,” Drake said.

The Essex has been in the area for 11 years, Drake said, and provided humanitarian relief to Indonesian victims of the devastating tsunami in 2005, survivors of the Leyte mudslide in the Philippines a year later and victims of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami in March of last year.

“The Essex is no spring chicken,” Drake said.

[Rick]

Looky here

With the Iraq War officially over and the Army downsizing in the face of defense budget pressure, more troops will be making the transition back to civilian life -- a potentially challenging prospect given the state of the economy.

But for those who want to stay in uniform, there may be a new option emerging -- just not an American one. Australia has put out the "Help Wanted" sign for foreign national veterans.

"We are looking for serving or ex-serving foreign military personnel, who can directly transfer their job and life skills to whichever Service they join, with limited training and preparation," the Australian Defence Force has announced on its website.

Jobs to be filled include special forces types, intelligence officers and submariners, according to the announcement, but the separate recruitment pages for each service branch show that the Aussies will consider veterans with a broad range of military experience.

As the U.S. tightens its defense belt slightly over the next year, the Army and Marine Corps will cut end strength by thousands of men and women. The Army expects to lose about 7,400 Soldiers by October, to reach an end strength of 562,000.

The Corps eventually plans shrinking its manpower by about 16,000 to reach a total Marine force of 186,800. The Navy already has brought down its numbers by more than 50,000 since reaching a wartime strength of 383,000 during the build-up for the Iraq invasion. It expects to ship another 3,000 Sailors off to civilian life by next fall.

Only the Air Force expects to add people next year, but just a few hundred; and its end strength of about 333,000 for 2012 will still be about 40,000 Airmen lighter than it was in 2004.

According to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. and Australia each recognize dual citizenship. Serving in the military of one is not listed as a cause for losing citizenship in the other. The Australian defense site also notes that security clearances acquired while in the U.S. military are transferable to the Australian military.

"Australia is a great country and staunch ally, and aside from a common language, we share the same values and beliefs," said Joe Davis, a spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "As our military begins to downsize, it could be a great opportunity for those who want to continue serving."

Among veterans who saw a story on the Aussie recruiting announcement posted to the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America site on Tuesday, a number said they would consider making the move Down Under, and some indicated enthusiasm for the idea.

Ricardo Mireles of Texas, a retired Navy man, posted that if he were just out of the Navy, he'd "be there in a heartbeat, no doubt!"

"Why not?" posted Laci DeLisle, whose Facebook page shows her in an Army uniform, hugging family members at an airport. "People here are trying to stay in when they don't need us anymore. I'd be down for it. Probably get better accommodations than the U.S. Army provides, but that really wouldn't take much."

But other posters were adamant they would never wear another country's uniform.

"Can't ever imagine putting my life on the line for another country," posted Larry Josefowski, an Iraq War veteran and Army reservist in Delaware, "even for Australia."

[Andrew D]

He wants the US to become the greatest threat ....

No.

The greatest threat is right-wingism. It may not want to kill a lot of people (or it may; it's difficult to tease the truth out of the fog of lies), but it wants to enslave most of us.

Why is it that the Republican leadership -- which is completely out of touch with the Republican membership -- has one economic fetish: feudalism?

Because America's triumvirate of evil -- McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor -- serve their masters.

Be a free person. Or be a Republican. The choice is yours, not mine.

[liberty]

We have done for you what you have never done for anyone else, ever, in the entire history of your race.

yrs,
rubato

I love my country but the truth is the truth and credit should be given where it is deserved:

http://histclo.com/act/work/slave/ast/ast-atle.html

The United States banned the importation of slaves (1808). There was, however, only minimal enforcement by the U.S. Navy. It was the Royal Navy that eventually ended the slave trade. The slave trade had been a lynch pin in thr triangular trade that has been a key element of the British economy and helped bring great wealth to Britain. It had in part helped to finance the growth of the Royal Navy. The expansion of the British merchant fleet under the protection of the Royal Navy resulted in Britain dominating the slave trade by the 18th century. British ships beginning about 1650 are believed to have transported as many as 4 million Africans to the New World and slavery. The British Parliament during the Napoleonic Wars banned the slave trade (1807). This was a decession made on moral grounds after a long campaign in Britain against slavery at considerable cost at a time of War. After Trafalgur (1805) the powerful British Royal Navy could intercept suspected slave ships under belligerent rights. After the cesation of hostilities this became more complicated. The only internationally recognized reason for boarding foreign ships was suspected piracy. Thus Britain had to persue a major diplomatic effort to convince other countries to sign anti-slavery treaties which permitted the Royal Navy to board their vessels if suspected of transporting slaves. Nearly 30 countries eventually signed these treaties. The anti-slavery effort required a substantial effort on the part of the Royal Navy. The major effort was carried out by the West Coast of Africa Station which the Admiralty referred to as the ‘preventive squadron’. The Royal Navy from this station for 50 years conducted operations to intercept slavers. At the peak of these operartions abour 25 ships and 2,000 officers and men were deployed. There were about 1,000 Kroomen, African sailors, operating West African Station. The Royal Navy deployed smaller, shallow draft vessels so that slavers could be persued in shallow waters. Britain also targeted African leaders who engaged in the slave trade. A British forced in one operation deposed the King of Lagos (1851). The climate and exposure to filthy diseased laden slave ships made the West African station dangerous. The officers and men were rewarded with Prize money for both freeing slaves and capturing the ships. The Royal Navy's task in East Africa and the Indian Ocean was even more difficult. This was in part because of the support for slavery among Islamic powers (both Arabian and Persian). The slave trade persisted into the 1860s, in part because of the continued existence of slavery in the United states. Eventhough thecslave trade was outlawed in America, the American Navy was not used to aggresively inters=dict the slave trade. This did not change until President Lincoln signed the Right of Search Treaty in 1862, a year before the Emancipation Proclamation. Spain abolished slavery in Cuba (1886). Brazil abolished slavery (1888).

[Lord Jim]

LOL

I'm obviously not going to bother to respond to this, but I thought I would quote it, since it's such a beautiful example of him employing his diversion strategy:

He wants the US to become the greatest threat ....

No.

The greatest threat is right-wingism. It may not want to kill a lot of people (or it may; it's difficult to tease the truth out of the fog of lies), but it wants to enslave most of us.

Why is it that the Republican leadership -- which is completely out of touch with the Republican membership -- has one economic fetish: feudalism?

Because America's triumvirate of evil -- McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor -- serve their masters.

Be a free person. Or be a Republican. The choice is yours, not mine.

Anyone care to take a stab at why that would suddenly appear out of the blue in a thread that is supposedly about the US's right to sink the ships of any country that won't pay protection money?

Talk about "right-wingism"....

Curtis LeMay, on his most testosterone driven day, would never have come up with that hare brained proposal....

(Since I've been reading his posts, he's obviously testing the waters to see if he can get me to jump down a diversionary rat hole with him....Not happening Troll Boy)

[Lord Jim]

"Australia is a great country and staunch ally, and aside from a common language, we share the same values and beliefs," said Joe Davis, a spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Okay, I have to take issue with that...

"Common language"

[Rick]

My thought also, that and now they have Gob to disemvowel them...