The most powerful military powers

[myron myron]

The way this thread is going, it perhaps more properly belongs in the Stupid Posts.

It should have been in Stupid Posts by reason of the opening post, which has tellingly been deleted in toto by its author.

[The Colonel]

As for the USS San Antonio class - the technology is the same you stupid fuckwit!!!!

You are such a FOOL!

And I also LOVE this bit:

"Nearly 2 years after commissioning, problems persist with this first in class vessel. On 27 January 2006, a contract worth over $6,000,000 was awarded to Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Co., for the Post-Shakedown Availability of USS San Antonio. Work was expected to be completed by April 2007. On 22 June 2007, Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter sent a letter to Northrop Grumman outlining problems with the ship, from leaks to steerage issues, stating, "Twenty-three months after commissioning of LPD 17, the Navy still does not have a mission-capable ship."

THE UNITED KINGDOM DOES!

The UK has no ship comparable to the USS San Antonio, which is not a destroyer but a first-of-its-kind amphibious assault platform much more complex than a destroyer.

The USS San Antonio is presently in service.

No military in the history of the world compares to the power of the United States military -- not even close.

Britain is, and always will be, comparatively little league.

The San Antonio is NOT mission capable. She commissioned but nothing else.

It has the SAME technology as the new Queen Elizabeth class carriers, Daring class destroyers and Combatant class vessels.

The San Antonio is NOT first-of-its-kind as a LPD or Assault ship.

The UK has the following that do that job:

HMS Bulwark,
HMS Albion,
HMS Ocean (also as helicopter carrier)
RFA Argus,
RFA Lyme Bay,
RFA Largs Bay,
RFA Cardigan Bay,
RFA Mounts Bay,

and also after a planned refit HMS Ark Royal will take upon that role after our new carriers enter service.

You are so ignorant it would be funny if you were not serious.

[myron myron]

Let's cut to the chase:

Are you contending that the Royal Navy presently is, or will be in the foreseeable future, more powerful than the United States Navy?

Are you contending that the British military presently is, or will be in the foreseeable future, more powerful than the United States military?

I trust you can answer those two simple yes/no questions and I await your response.

[The Colonel]

Let's cut to the chase:

Are you contending that the Royal Navy presently is, or will be in the foreseeable future, more powerful than the United States Navy?

Are you contending that the British military presently is, or will be in the foreseeable future, more powerful than the United States military?

I trust you can answer those two simple yes/no questions and I await your response.

That is how you have taken this thread with your slurs.

That was not what this thread was actually for.

[myron myron]

Let's cut to the chase:

Are you contending that the Royal Navy presently is, or will be in the foreseeable future, more powerful than the United States Navy?

Are you contending that the British military presently is, or will be in the foreseeable future, more powerful than the United States military?

I trust you can answer those two simple yes/no questions and I await your response.

That is how you have taken this thread with your slurs.

That was not what this thread was actually for.

The old dodge by non sequitur, eh?

Did you not post the following?

Britannia rules the waves. Always did - always will. Your carriers are nothing but rusty tubs. In our last major exercise the Royal Navy won - without our brand new vessels!

It's not quantity - it's quality. And that is one thing you will never have.

And why did you delete your opening post?

[Rebman]

The way this thread is going, it perhaps more properly belongs in the Stupid Posts.

It should have been in Stupid Posts by reason of the opening post, which has tellingly been deleted in toto by its author.

Deletion of any incriminating posts is one of the Colonel’s trademarks. Another is being abusive to any person who has rumbled his lies and false accusations, and then claiming that the person concerned is really someone else who has previously rumbled what he has been up to. When I first came to this thread and challenged his lies, he claimed that I was an alias of you (among others).

He also has a habit of challenging people to inspect his posting record (presumably to show how ‘honest’ he has been). When I did precisely that recently, I found one thread in particular, in which the Colonel had set out to vilify a particular guest by making certain allegations against her. Examination of the thread revealed that he had posted many hundreds of times (in a thread that should have been of no interest to him). I could find no evidence that any of his allegations were founded, so I asked for his proof. Back came the most pathetic answers (some self contradictory) that would have been laughed out of any court. When I dismissed his answers as being total rubbish, I ceased being you, and instead I became an alias of the woman he had been vilifying. The usual insults started to fly thick and fast, and he spent a couple of hours during the early hours of one morning selectively deleting over a dozen of his posts in the thread (ones dating back several months). When challenged, he claimed that he was just tidying up his past posts and that everyone did it. He still hasn’t come up with any credible evidence for his allegations, but continues to insist that he is right.

Once one is familiar with the Colonel’s modus operandi, it is so easy to spot.

[Bobin]

Let's cut to the chase:
<snip>
I trust you can answer those two simple yes/no questions and I await your response.

That is how you have taken this thread with your slurs.

That was not what this thread was actually for.

As for the USS San Antonio class - the technology is the same you stupid fuckwit!!!!
You really are so thick it is unbelievable.
You are such a FOOL!
Ignorant jackass.
Are you blind or what?
It is official. So, are you are blind, stupid, or just misinformed?
You are a joke.
Since myron was so smug in asserting
It's all there in black and white you dimwit.
You are an inane piece of crap.
Don't worry about him - he's a nutter pure and simple.
Time for your 20th alcoholic drink of the day I think?
So you snort coke in the day and booze all night?
So kindly take your hot air elsewhere.
A word of advice myron, shut your anti-British trap.

I dislike your repeated slurs (which I do not always respond with equal slurs).

[The Colonel]

The way this thread is going, it perhaps more properly belongs in the Stupid Posts.

It should have been in Stupid Posts by reason of the opening post, which has tellingly been deleted in toto by its author.

Deletion of any incriminating posts is one of the Colonel’s trademarks. Another is being abusive to any person who has rumbled his lies and false accusations, and then claiming that the person concerned is really someone else who has previously rumbled what he has been up to. When I first came to this thread and challenged his lies, he claimed that I was an alias of you (among others).

He also has a habit of challenging people to inspect his posting record (presumably to show how ‘honest’ he has been). When I did precisely that recently, I found one thread in particular, in which the Colonel had set out to vilify a particular guest by making certain allegations against her. Examination of the thread revealed that he had posted many hundreds of times (in a thread that should have been of no interest to him). I could find no evidence that any of his allegations were founded, so I asked for his proof. Back came the most pathetic answers (some self contradictory) that would have been laughed out of any court. When I dismissed his answers as being total rubbish, I ceased being you, and instead I became an alias of the woman he had been vilifying. The usual insults started to fly thick and fast, and he spent a couple of hours during the early hours of one morning selectively deleting over a dozen of his posts in the thread (ones dating back several months). When challenged, he claimed that he was just tidying up his past posts and that everyone did it. He still hasn’t come up with any credible evidence for his allegations, but continues to insist that he is right.

Once one is familiar with the Colonel’s modus operandi, it is so easy to spot.

I believe myron may have been the guest in the same thread going under the name "Sodium Penothol". However, I am not accusing. That guest reached the same conclusion as me.

The reasons I think it may have been myron, are because he identified himself as being a lawyer, had evidence of some legal knowledge at least, and they communicate in a similar way.

It may not have been, but whoever it was, was clearly clever and reached the same conclusion as I did.

I invite people to look through my posts because I am an honest individual. Everything is there in black and white - I cannot hide from it and nor do I want to. The fact you may not like what I say is another issue. I stand by my convictions.

Even if a person doesn't like me here, at least they can say I do not compromise on my principles - even if they don't like them.

I have no fixed method in use on this forum, so therefore your analysis is flawed. I have no fixed techniques as such are very dangerous in every day life and to one’s self. One only needs to look at Fred to see that. Real knowledge consists of a scientific method combined with traditional pragmatism. With the latter in use, the scientific method I employ will not and cannot be the same all the time. With Fred, (being the best example) his quasi-scientific method is based on a single fixed technique (religion). His views are dangerous and fanatical. He is the same as a Marxist, yet he fails to see it. He holds his bible in the same way a Marxist holds the Communist Manifesto. He trumps “this is the only way for it is written”. But such is not practical, lacks pragmatism, and cannot adapt. It is this, which leads to war.

It is nonsense to say I use such a method as Fred does.

[myron myron]

Here is the Colonel's opening post, which he has deleted without comment or explanation (fortunately, someone in this thread quoted it in a post):

The most powerful military powers are: (In order).

United States

Army: 7900 Tanks (M1-A1) Navy: 74 Subs, 12 Carriers, 27 Cruisers, 52 Destroyers, 35 Frigates, & 21 Patrol Boats. Air Force: 3533 Combat Aircraft. Atomic Weapons Cap.

United Kingdom

Army: 2500 Tanks (Challenger 1&2 (Best Tank in Nato)) Navy: 20 Subs, 4 Carriers, 26 Destroyers, 25 Frigates & 34 Patrol Boats. Air Force: 1800 Combat Aircraft. Atomic Weapons Cap.

NB: 3 new carriers, 6 new frigates and 5 new submarines are close to entering service by 2015, though almost none (maybe two) will be decommisioned.

NB (2): The UK has (decommissioned, but can be recommissioned) 1 Battleship, 3 Cruisers/Large Destroyers, 5 older vessels, 5 submarines. These are retained for tradition and emergency.

NB (3): The UK has a large fleet auxiliary (27 additional vessels that can be armed) Plus 5 Landing/Assault ships.

China

Army: 7000 Battle Tanks (old russian tanks most do not work or do not have spare parts) Est. 1500 working Navy: 65 subs (most not working), 20 destroyers (most old U.S or Russian most might work), 40 Frigates (Old U.S, Russian, May Work) and 368 Patrol (Small Not Heavily Armed) Air Force: 3000 Combat Aircraft (Old Soviet Aircraft, No spare parts, Out-Of-Date) Atomic Weapons Cap.

Russian Federation

Army: 21,820 Tanks (Most If Not All Do Not work (need spare parts)) Navy: (Most Vessels Do Not work or are too old to run or be effective) 67 Subs, 1 Carrier, 7 Crusiers, 10 Frigates, 108 Patrol Boats (Not Heavily Armed) Air Force: 1500 Combat Aircraft (not many trained pilots, some do not work or need spare parts, most old Soviet Aircraft)

..........................................................................................

This is response to those who said Britain is a regional power. Britain is the second most powerful military power on the planet.

Though the US do outnumber us (which I am sure myron will gloat at), it must be remembered the US has a population of 303 million and Britain 60 million. Which does, largely, account for the difference.

As for why the US needed 50,000 British troops to invade Iraq (myron suggested cannon fodder ) we can all now see that is not true!

Long Live the Queen!

In addition to the tendentious comments purportedly responding to unidentified posts in unidentified threads, the OP plays up British military strength and plays down the military strength of the United States, Russia and China without citing a single factual source for the figures and comments therein.

When the Colonel's posted figures and comments about the British military were challenged, the Colonel responded with logical fallacies including but not limited to "Argument From Authority," "Appeal To . Authority" and "Appeal To False Authority," to wit: the Colonel held himself out as an irrefutable authority, an expert, based solely on his word that he is an expert; and the Colonel refused to provide verifiable sources for his challenged figures and comments, claiming that such sources exist but are not in the public domain yet are accessible to him.

When the Colonel was challenged to provide the factual bases for his specific, negative comments regarding the condition of military equipment and the quality of personnel in the Chinese. Russian and American militaries, the Colonel simply ignored the questions or repeated the aforesaid logical fallacies.

When the Colonel was confronted with sourced data from the British MoD and respective branches of the British military exposing the falsity of his figures and comments, the Colonel obfuscated, resorted to logical fallacies, personally attacked those who exposed his lies, and simply repeated his lies.

Apparently having belatedly realized that his OP has been exposed as a lie, the Colonel deleted the OP in toto without comment or explanation.

This thread illustrates a recurring rationalization the Colonel makes for lying to and about others: (1) he admittedly grants himself carte blanche to lie to and about a "troll"; (2) he defines "troll" as anyone who challenges him or exposes his misstatements and his lies.

[Cambridge]

Here is the Colonel's opening post, which he has deleted without comment or explanation (fortunately, someone in this thread quoted it in a post):

The most powerful military powers are: (In order).

United States

Army: 7900 Tanks (M1-A1) Navy: 74 Subs, 12 Carriers, 27 Cruisers, 52 Destroyers, 35 Frigates, & 21 Patrol Boats. Air Force: 3533 Combat Aircraft. Atomic Weapons Cap.

United Kingdom

Army: 2500 Tanks (Challenger 1&2 (Best Tank in Nato)) Navy: 20 Subs, 4 Carriers, 26 Destroyers, 25 Frigates & 34 Patrol Boats. Air Force: 1800 Combat Aircraft. Atomic Weapons Cap.

NB: 3 new carriers, 6 new frigates and 5 new submarines are close to entering service by 2015, though almost none (maybe two) will be decommisioned.

NB (2): The UK has (decommissioned, but can be recommissioned) 1 Battleship, 3 Cruisers/Large Destroyers, 5 older vessels, 5 submarines. These are retained for tradition and emergency.

NB (3): The UK has a large fleet auxiliary (27 additional vessels that can be armed) Plus 5 Landing/Assault ships.

China

Army: 7000 Battle Tanks (old russian tanks most do not work or do not have spare parts) Est. 1500 working Navy: 65 subs (most not working), 20 destroyers (most old U.S or Russian most might work), 40 Frigates (Old U.S, Russian, May Work) and 368 Patrol (Small Not Heavily Armed) Air Force: 3000 Combat Aircraft (Old Soviet Aircraft, No spare parts, Out-Of-Date) Atomic Weapons Cap.

Russian Federation

Army: 21,820 Tanks (Most If Not All Do Not work (need spare parts)) Navy: (Most Vessels Do Not work or are too old to run or be effective) 67 Subs, 1 Carrier, 7 Crusiers, 10 Frigates, 108 Patrol Boats (Not Heavily Armed) Air Force: 1500 Combat Aircraft (not many trained pilots, some do not work or need spare parts, most old Soviet Aircraft)

..........................................................................................

This is response to those who said Britain is a regional power. Britain is the second most powerful military power on the planet.

Though the US do outnumber us (which I am sure myron will gloat at), it must be remembered the US has a population of 303 million and Britain 60 million. Which does, largely, account for the difference.

As for why the US needed 50,000 British troops to invade Iraq (myron suggested cannon fodder ) we can all now see that is not true!

Long Live the Queen!

In addition to the tendentious comments purportedly responding to unidentified posts in unidentified threads, the OP plays up British military strength and plays down the military strength of the United States, Russia and China without citing a single factual source for the figures and comments therein.

When the Colonel's posted figures and comments about the British military were challenged, the Colonel responded with logical fallacies including but not limited to "Argument From Authority," "Appeal To . Authority" and "Appeal To False Authority," to wit: the Colonel held himself out as an irrefutable authority, an expert, based solely on his word that he is an expert; and the Colonel refused to provide verifiable sources for his challenged figures and comments, claiming that such sources exist but are not in the public domain yet are accessible to him.

When the Colonel was challenged to provide the factual bases for his specific, negative comments regarding the condition of military equipment and the quality of personnel in the Chinese. Russian and American militaries, the Colonel simply ignored the questions or repeated the aforesaid logical fallacies.

When the Colonel was confronted with sourced data from the British MoD and respective branches of the British military exposing the falsity of his figures and comments, the Colonel obfuscated, resorted to logical fallacies, personally attacked those who exposed his lies, and simply repeated his lies.

Apparently having belatedly realized that his OP has been exposed as a lie, the Colonel deleted the OP in toto without comment or explanation.

This thread also illustrates a recurring rationalization the Colonel makes for lying to and about others: (1) he admittedly grants himself carte blanche to lie to and about a "troll"; (2) he defines "troll" as anyone who challenges him or exposes his misstatements and lies.

Myron, you know how given you are to spin, overstatement and half-truths. Can you give us some more specific examples of all of this?

For example:

plays up British military strength and plays down the military strength of the United States

and

the Colonel responded with logical fallacies including but not limited to "Argument From Authority," "Appeal To . Authority" and "Appeal To False Authority," to wit: the Colonel held himself out as an irrefutable authority, an expert, based solely on his word that he is an expert

As an aside, that is a curious criticism coming from you as that is just what you used to do on GM. Anyway, moving on:

the Colonel obfuscated, resorted to logical fallacies, personally attacked those who exposed his lies, and simply repeated his lies

Again, this is strange fruit, coming from you. As to your claim that he was contentious and argumentative, could you also post the remarks from you that prompted his response. In my experience, you tend to start most of these attacks.

having belatedly realized that his OP has been exposed as a lie, the Colonel deleted the OP in toto without comment or explanation

Where do you find this? I can’t find any such admission on his part.

a recurring rationalization the Colonel makes for lying to and about others

Where do you find this? Also, could you bracket his posts allegedly to this effect so we may see the before and after by you or anyone else?

(1) he admittedly grants himself carte blanche to lie to and about a "troll"; (2) he defines "troll" as anyone who challenges him or exposes his misstatements and lies

I have never heard him say that. Could you point out where he says that, please? Also, please bracket his posts allegedly to this effect so we may see the before and after by you or anyone else?

I look forward to your “substantial” response. As an insurance adjuster I am sure that one of your lawyers has told you about evidence. It will clarify your position. That is what I'm asking for.

[myron myron]

Before spewing more of your bullshit, I suggest you read the entire thread rather than just the last two posts.

If you want to know about the Colonel's dishonest tactics, I suggest you read his previous posts -- or at least the ones he hasn't "conveniently" deleted.

And you may want to consider getting your obsequious brown nose out of the Colonel's ass.

[Cambridge]

Before spewing more of your bullshit, I suggest you read the entire thread rather than just the last two posts.

If you want to know about the Colonel's dishonest tactics, I suggest you read his previous posts -- or at least the ones he hasn't "conveniently" deleted.

And you may want to consider getting your obsequious brown nose out of the Colonel's ass.

I don't have to read the thread (although, as you know, I have read it completely). You made the claims and I am awaiting your response with substantion.

As for your gratuitous remarks about me, myron o myron, when will you learn? My question was not about me. See...this is why I want to have you bracket his responses with your before and after remarks...you tend to start these things. I know from experience...and lo, you give us a case in point.

[myron myron]

You clearly have not read the entire thread.

You clearly have not read the Colonel's previous posts in other threads.

Rebman and Bobin clearly have.

I'm not surprised though, being as you are a pathological liar.

[Cambridge]

You clearly have not read the entire thread.

You clearly have not read the Colonel's previous posts in other threads.

Rebman and Bobin clearly have.

I'm not surprised though, being as you are a pathological liar.

Curious you say that. You have been one of those who have been responding to me throughout…as have Rebman and Bobin. Now who is the proven liar?

[myron myron]

You clearly have not read the entire thread.

You clearly have not read the Colonel's previous posts in other threads.

Rebman and Bobin clearly have.

I'm not surprised though, being as you are a pathological liar.

Curious you say that. You have been one of those who have been responding to me throughout…as have Rebman and Bobin. Now who is the proven liar?

It's you . . . and the Colonel, but at least he is an admitted liar whereas you remain in denial.