FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > China
China
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Chinese Government, Biggest threat to World safety ? Opinions " Wrong. Biggest threat to "world safety" is the pandemic......currently. | |||
"Chinese Government, Biggest threat to World safety ? Opinions " Not sure about world safety; biggest threat to the planet's wildlife! | |||
| |||
"Chinese Government, Biggest threat to World safety ? Opinions " I thought it was vaccines with microchips designed to ensure the "world government" can control the supply of toilet paper... or something? | |||
| |||
| |||
"I bow to your great knowledge and understanding of the current situation " What insight leads you to believe that China is a particular threat? | |||
| |||
"Think you either must have your head buried in the sand,or slightly naive to what Chinese Government has been doing.I suggest you buy a newspaper " What are you talking about? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Strange how in the last number of decades all the new viruses have come from China. " Like MERS from Saudi Arabia? | |||
| |||
"They are building their transport fleet. Investing in their navy to challenge world navies. Their GDP this year is the only one that is going to show growth. That in itself is a warning." Why? | |||
"They are building their transport fleet. Investing in their navy to challenge world navies. Their GDP this year is the only one that is going to show growth. That in itself is a warning. Why?" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? | |||
"Strange how in the last number of decades all the new viruses have come from China. Like MERS from Saudi Arabia?" Shows ignorance. SARS. H5N1. H7N7. Covid 19. China is the World hot spot. | |||
"They are building their transport fleet. Investing in their navy to challenge world navies. Their GDP this year is the only one that is going to show growth. That in itself is a warning. Why? Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ?" Do other nations not have similar vessels? Or any other offensive armament for that matter. Not saying China is a particularly positive influence on the world stage, but the hypocrisy is rife. | |||
"They are building their transport fleet. Investing in their navy to challenge world navies. Their GDP this year is the only one that is going to show growth. That in itself is a warning. Why? Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ?" Which country has the biggest military spend in the world? | |||
"Strange how in the last number of decades all the new viruses have come from China. Like MERS from Saudi Arabia? Shows ignorance. SARS. H5N1. H7N7. Covid 19. China is the World hot spot." If all new viruses come from China, then MERS doesn't exist. If we extend that to all recent threats, Ebola comes from the Congo. Or are you changing your argument then calling me ignorant because I showed you were incorrect? | |||
"I suppose if you're Chinese, you'd say the USA, is the world's biggest threat. After all they voted trump in for four years! "Have you seen the guy they voted in as his replacement? If that’s the best the USA has god help us all, The last five presidents have all been conmen, crazy times | |||
"I suppose if you're Chinese, you'd say the USA, is the world's biggest threat. After all they voted trump in for four years!
Have you seen the guy they voted in as his replacement? If that’s the best the USA has god help us all, The last five presidents have all been conmen, crazy times "Out of the fire and into the frying pan | |||
"They are building their transport fleet. Investing in their navy to challenge world navies. Their GDP this year is the only one that is going to show growth. That in itself is a warning. Why? Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Which country has the biggest military spend in the world?" We do and I said multiple times it needs to be cut and spent on American people don't you think? But at what costs. If the world wants Chinese expansion and global projection we can just back off and care for ourselves. | |||
"Strange how in the last number of decades all the new viruses have come from China. Like MERS from Saudi Arabia? Shows ignorance. SARS. H5N1. H7N7. Covid 19. China is the World hot spot. If all new viruses come from China, then MERS doesn't exist. If we extend that to all recent threats, Ebola comes from the Congo. Or are you changing your argument then calling me ignorant because I showed you were incorrect?" Most, not all, I worded that wrong. So you don't blame China for this outbreak. | |||
"Strange how in the last number of decades all the new viruses have come from China. Like MERS from Saudi Arabia? Shows ignorance. SARS. H5N1. H7N7. Covid 19. China is the World hot spot. If all new viruses come from China, then MERS doesn't exist. If we extend that to all recent threats, Ebola comes from the Congo. Or are you changing your argument then calling me ignorant because I showed you were incorrect? Most, not all, I worded that wrong. So you don't blame China for this outbreak." Well the willingness to admit you were wrong is refreshing. As to blaming China? Nope. There's no good reason to. Absolutely none. Plenty of stupid, unsubstantiated reasons, but no good ones. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? " Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?  | |||
"They are building their transport fleet. Investing in their navy to challenge world navies. Their GDP this year is the only one that is going to show growth. That in itself is a warning." Their growth in GDP is probably down to the massive amount of product being purchased off of Amazon and the like during lockdown with most of it being manufactured in China. Unfortunately we all fund their growth daily to some extent. | |||
"Strange how in the last number of decades all the new viruses have come from China. Like MERS from Saudi Arabia? Shows ignorance. SARS. H5N1. H7N7. Covid 19. China is the World hot spot. If all new viruses come from China, then MERS doesn't exist. If we extend that to all recent threats, Ebola comes from the Congo. Or are you changing your argument then calling me ignorant because I showed you were incorrect? Most, not all, I worded that wrong. So you don't blame China for this outbreak. Well the willingness to admit you were wrong is refreshing. As to blaming China? Nope. There's no good reason to. Absolutely none. Plenty of stupid, unsubstantiated reasons, but no good ones. " Refreshing, like I post up Bullshit unlike this whole part of the forum's called Virus. And not blaming China, wow just wow. This Virus section of the forum should be removed, it's full of unless you agree with the MSM they your a Granny killer. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..? "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized. | |||
"Strange how in the last number of decades all the new viruses have come from China. Like MERS from Saudi Arabia? Shows ignorance. SARS. H5N1. H7N7. Covid 19. China is the World hot spot. If all new viruses come from China, then MERS doesn't exist. If we extend that to all recent threats, Ebola comes from the Congo. Or are you changing your argument then calling me ignorant because I showed you were incorrect? Most, not all, I worded that wrong. So you don't blame China for this outbreak. Well the willingness to admit you were wrong is refreshing. As to blaming China? Nope. There's no good reason to. Absolutely none. Plenty of stupid, unsubstantiated reasons, but no good ones. Refreshing, like I post up Bullshit unlike this whole part of the forum's called Virus. And not blaming China, wow just wow. This Virus section of the forum should be removed, it's full of unless you agree with the MSM they your a Granny killer." Yikes...  | |||
"Chinese Government, Biggest threat to World safety ? Opinions " What's your opinion OP | |||
"Think you either must have your head buried in the sand,or slightly naive to what Chinese Government has been doing.I suggest you buy a newspaper " Any links to this worlds greatest threat? | |||
"Strange how in the last number of decades all the new viruses have come from China. Like MERS from Saudi Arabia? Shows ignorance. SARS. H5N1. H7N7. Covid 19. China is the World hot spot. If all new viruses come from China, then MERS doesn't exist. If we extend that to all recent threats, Ebola comes from the Congo. Or are you changing your argument then calling me ignorant because I showed you were incorrect? Most, not all, I worded that wrong. So you don't blame China for this outbreak." I think they could have handled the beginning better. But anyone can screw up. I don't think they caused it in any way shape or form. Accidents happen. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized."The main reason for current day Aircraft Carriers is to project hard power across the globe as part of a combined naval fleet. | |||
"Chinese Government, Biggest threat to World safety ? Opinions Not sure about world safety; biggest threat to the planet's wildlife!" Exactly our thinking on the matter. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
The main reason for current day Aircraft Carriers is to project hard power across the globe as part of a combined naval fleet. "Correct a air power projection not a invasion force. A deterrence. | |||
| |||
| |||
"China is taking cargo ships and converting them for Troop transports. Major difference " Someone has read their Eric L Harry book  | |||
"China is taking cargo ships and converting them for Troop transports. Major difference Someone has read their Eric L Harry book "No we both x military it's not hard to figure out their intentions. | |||
"https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/06/19/did-covid-19-come-from-a-lab-was-it-deliberate-bioterrorism-a-biodefense-expert-explores-the-clues/amp/#aoh=16070957371591&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s Just food for thought take it anyway you want." Yup food for thought... with his conclusion being that there is no evidence of it being either man made or spread deliberately. | |||
"https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/06/19/did-covid-19-come-from-a-lab-was-it-deliberate-bioterrorism-a-biodefense-expert-explores-the-clues/amp/#aoh=16070957371591&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s Just food for thought take it anyway you want. Yup food for thought... with his conclusion being that there is no evidence of it being either man made or spread deliberately." China needs to be more transparent and let other scientists help find the origins. | |||
| |||
"https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/06/19/did-covid-19-come-from-a-lab-was-it-deliberate-bioterrorism-a-biodefense-expert-explores-the-clues/amp/#aoh=16070957371591&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s Just food for thought take it anyway you want. Yup food for thought... with his conclusion being that there is no evidence of it being either man made or spread deliberately. China needs to be more transparent and let other scientists help find the origins." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03165-9 Pertinent quote: "The search starts in Wuhan An international team of epidemiologists, virologists and researchers with expertise in public health, animal health and food safety will lead the WHO’s COVID-19 investigation. The agency has not released their names. The team held its first virtual meeting, including researchers in China, on 30 October, and is reviewing the preliminary evidence and developing study protocols, says the WHO." So it's already happening... of course it isn't the easiest and relations are strained given the outgoing cuntmamder in chief's (and the idiots who take their cues from people who know nothing) repeated insistence on calling it a Chinese virus thereby attempting to project blame on a nation for something natural. | |||
"They are building their transport fleet. Investing in their navy to challenge world navies. Their GDP this year is the only one that is going to show growth. That in itself is a warning. Why? Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ?" The USA has zillions of dollar's in military muscle, currently floating in the south China Sea. I don't see any Chinese build up around America tho. | |||
"They are building their transport fleet. Investing in their navy to challenge world navies. Their GDP this year is the only one that is going to show growth. That in itself is a warning. Why? Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? The USA has zillions of dollar's in military muscle, currently floating in the south China Sea. I don't see any Chinese build up around America tho. "Because china wants taiwan back. | |||
"They are building their transport fleet. Investing in their navy to challenge world navies. Their GDP this year is the only one that is going to show growth. That in itself is a warning. Why? Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? The USA has zillions of dollar's in military muscle, currently floating in the south China Sea. I don't see any Chinese build up around America tho.
Because china wants taiwan back."Uk gave them Hong Kong back so why can't they threaten to take taiwan. | |||
| |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen " Yup hence why the US will not go into full lockdown. Best way to destroy a country other then war is to bleed their economies. | |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen Yup hence why the US will not go into full lockdown. Best way to destroy a country other then war is to bleed their economies." Absolutely least someone understands that , going to be horrible for a lot of people after this Covid but most people are in denial | |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen Yup hence why the US will not go into full lockdown. Best way to destroy a country other then war is to bleed their economies. Absolutely least someone understands that , going to be horrible for a lot of people after this Covid but most people are in denial " It's just a militaristic point of view. Some people can disagree and take it with a grain of salt. It's what I would do if I wanted to gain dominance. | |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen Yup hence why the US will not go into full lockdown. Best way to destroy a country other then war is to bleed their economies. Absolutely least someone understands that , going to be horrible for a lot of people after this Covid but most people are in denial " Denial? Nobody's denied anything, or are you meaning "long covid", that sounds nasty for some folk. | |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen Yup hence why the US will not go into full lockdown. Best way to destroy a country other then war is to bleed their economies. Absolutely least someone understands that , going to be horrible for a lot of people after this Covid but most people are in denial Denial? Nobody's denied anything, or are you meaning "long covid", that sounds nasty for some folk. " He is meaning economy wise. | |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen Yup hence why the US will not go into full lockdown. Best way to destroy a country other then war is to bleed their economies. Absolutely least someone understands that , going to be horrible for a lot of people after this Covid but most people are in denial Denial? Nobody's denied anything, or are you meaning "long covid", that sounds nasty for some folk. " obviously not reading what was said ?? | |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen Yup hence why the US will not go into full lockdown. Best way to destroy a country other then war is to bleed their economies. Absolutely least someone understands that , going to be horrible for a lot of people after this Covid but most people are in denial Denial? Nobody's denied anything, or are you meaning "long covid", that sounds nasty for some folk. He is meaning economy wise." He's meaning "going to be horrible for a lot of people". | |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen Yup hence why the US will not go into full lockdown. Best way to destroy a country other then war is to bleed their economies. Absolutely least someone understands that , going to be horrible for a lot of people after this Covid but most people are in denial Denial? Nobody's denied anything, or are you meaning "long covid", that sounds nasty for some folk. He is meaning economy wise. He's meaning "going to be horrible for a lot of people". " Recession or a depression economically. | |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen Yup hence why the US will not go into full lockdown. Best way to destroy a country other then war is to bleed their economies. Absolutely least someone understands that , going to be horrible for a lot of people after this Covid but most people are in denial Denial? Nobody's denied anything, or are you meaning "long covid", that sounds nasty for some folk. He is meaning economy wise. He's meaning "going to be horrible for a lot of people". Recession or a depression economically." But the economy is going up! Take a look! | |||
| |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen Yup hence why the US will not go into full lockdown. Best way to destroy a country other then war is to bleed their economies. Absolutely least someone understands that , going to be horrible for a lot of people after this Covid but most people are in denial Denial? Nobody's denied anything, or are you meaning "long covid", that sounds nasty for some folk. He is meaning economy wise. He's meaning "going to be horrible for a lot of people". Recession or a depression economically." Depends if you hear about other people losing there Job Recession , if you lose yours Depression | |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen Yup hence why the US will not go into full lockdown. Best way to destroy a country other then war is to bleed their economies. Absolutely least someone understands that , going to be horrible for a lot of people after this Covid but most people are in denial Denial? Nobody's denied anything, or are you meaning "long covid", that sounds nasty for some folk. He is meaning economy wise. He's meaning "going to be horrible for a lot of people". Recession or a depression economically. Depends if you hear about other people losing there Job Recession , if you lose yours Depression " Only thing that depresses me, are the anti maskers, anti lockdowners, and anti vaxxers. Oh, and misinformation spreaders | |||
| |||
"You must have money ??" Nope. No job, no benefits. Happiness is in the heart | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"You must have money ?? Nope. No job, no benefits. Happiness is in the heart " LOL | |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen " Actually China owns most of the US pre covid debt anyway. One of the reasons behind a lot Trump's activities that most seem to no know or ignore. | |||
"You must have money ?? Nope. No job, no benefits. Happiness is in the heart " It is a state of mind that most in the west don't understand at all. Agree. Some of the happiest people I've had the privilege of meeting are the poorest in what the west seems of value. | |||
"You must have money ?? Nope. No job, no benefits. Happiness is in the heart It is a state of mind that most in the west don't understand at all. Agree. Some of the happiest people I've had the privilege of meeting are the poorest in what the west seems of value." Deems* | |||
"You must have money ?? Nope. No job, no benefits. Happiness is in the heart It is a state of mind that most in the west don't understand at all. Agree. Some of the happiest people I've had the privilege of meeting are the poorest in what the west seems of value." Then you are going to be very very happy | |||
"Chinese Government, Biggest threat to World safety ? Opinions " Realistically, climate change is the biggest long-term risk to world safety. | |||
"You must have money ?? Nope. No job, no benefits. Happiness is in the heart " Really sorry. This wasn't exactly true, but I'm known for being Mr Happy | |||
"Chinese Government, Biggest threat to World safety ? Opinions Realistically, climate change is the biggest long-term risk to world safety. " Yep | |||
| |||
"Chinese Government, Biggest threat to World safety ? Opinions Realistically, climate change is the biggest long-term risk to world safety. Yep" Disagree overpopulation is the biggest problem | |||
"Strange how in the last number of decades all the new viruses have come from China. Like MERS from Saudi Arabia? Shows ignorance. SARS. H5N1. H7N7. Covid 19. China is the World hot spot. If all new viruses come from China, then MERS doesn't exist. If we extend that to all recent threats, Ebola comes from the Congo. Or are you changing your argument then calling me ignorant because I showed you were incorrect? Most, not all, I worded that wrong. So you don't blame China for this outbreak. I think they could have handled the beginning better. But anyone can screw up. I don't think they caused it in any way shape or form. Accidents happen." Sorry but 'screw up' is not what the Chinese government did. If their dictator of a leader was faced with the same situation tomorrow he would do exactly the same, deny and make anyone who said anything different disappear. | |||
| |||
"Strange how in the last number of decades all the new viruses have come from China. Like MERS from Saudi Arabia? Shows ignorance. SARS. H5N1. H7N7. Covid 19. China is the World hot spot. If all new viruses come from China, then MERS doesn't exist. If we extend that to all recent threats, Ebola comes from the Congo. Or are you changing your argument then calling me ignorant because I showed you were incorrect? Most, not all, I worded that wrong. So you don't blame China for this outbreak. I think they could have handled the beginning better. But anyone can screw up. I don't think they caused it in any way shape or form. Accidents happen. Sorry but 'screw up' is not what the Chinese government did. If their dictator of a leader was faced with the same situation tomorrow he would do exactly the same, deny and make anyone who said anything different disappear. "  | |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen Yup hence why the US will not go into full lockdown. Best way to destroy a country other then war is to bleed their economies. Absolutely least someone understands that , going to be horrible for a lot of people after this Covid but most people are in denial Denial? Nobody's denied anything, or are you meaning "long covid", that sounds nasty for some folk. He is meaning economy wise. He's meaning "going to be horrible for a lot of people". Recession or a depression economically. Depends if you hear about other people losing there Job Recession , if you lose yours Depression Only thing that depresses me, are the anti maskers, anti lockdowners, and anti vaxxers. Oh, and misinformation spreaders "Anti maskers.... Could be exempt and you wouldn't know or entitled to know Anti lockdown.... Possibly more concerned about the effects of life on the loss of jobs, income, economy Ant vaxxers.... It's their choice initially. Some could have medical or mental health reasons (don't say they're mad for not submitting to they're position) Misinformation..... Personally, I think both sides are guilty of spreading misinformation However, I've not seen or heard of any threats from the anti vaxxers towards the pro vaxxers but plenty the other way. | |||
"You must have money ?? Nope. No job, no benefits. Happiness is in the heart Really sorry. This wasn't exactly true, but I'm known for being Mr Happy "Ah, so some misinformation yet you said that things that depress you. If you're going to put a complaint of misinformation towards others, please ensure you don't put your own misinformation on. Just saying | |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen Yup hence why the US will not go into full lockdown. Best way to destroy a country other then war is to bleed their economies. Absolutely least someone understands that , going to be horrible for a lot of people after this Covid but most people are in denial Denial? Nobody's denied anything, or are you meaning "long covid", that sounds nasty for some folk. He is meaning economy wise. He's meaning "going to be horrible for a lot of people". Recession or a depression economically. Depends if you hear about other people losing there Job Recession , if you lose yours Depression Only thing that depresses me, are the anti maskers, anti lockdowners, and anti vaxxers. Oh, and misinformation spreaders
Anti maskers.... Could be exempt and you wouldn't know or entitled to know
Anti lockdown.... Possibly more concerned about the effects of life on the loss of jobs, income, economy
Ant vaxxers.... It's their choice initially. Some could have medical or mental health reasons (don't say they're mad for not submitting to they're position)
Misinformation..... Personally, I think both sides are guilty of spreading misinformation
However, I've not seen or heard of any threats from the anti vaxxers towards the pro vaxxers but plenty the other way. " | |||
"Strange how in the last number of decades all the new viruses have come from China. Like MERS from Saudi Arabia? Shows ignorance. SARS. H5N1. H7N7. Covid 19. China is the World hot spot. If all new viruses come from China, then MERS doesn't exist. If we extend that to all recent threats, Ebola comes from the Congo. Or are you changing your argument then calling me ignorant because I showed you were incorrect? Most, not all, I worded that wrong. So you don't blame China for this outbreak. I think they could have handled the beginning better. But anyone can screw up. I don't think they caused it in any way shape or form. Accidents happen. Sorry but 'screw up' is not what the Chinese government did. If their dictator of a leader was faced with the same situation tomorrow he would do exactly the same, deny and make anyone who said anything different disappear. " Ok, if it turns you on. | |||
"Chinese Government, Biggest threat to World safety ? Opinions " Not in our top 100 worries at the mo | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.""....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..." -------------------------- Who told you that ? That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion. In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier. "They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.""...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..." ------------------------- The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority. The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers."US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores"Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago? Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers. Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores
Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago?
Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers.
Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers."Hence air superiority. Establish that SO ground troops are free to commence assault. It is not a Troop transport. Heavy lift capabilities bring troops artillery tanks ect.... To shores. NOT carriers | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores
Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago?
Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers.
Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers.
Hence air superiority. Establish that SO ground troops are free to commence assault. It is not a Troop transport. Heavy lift capabilities bring troops artillery tanks ect.... To shores. NOT carriers "You seem to be backtracking and clutching at straws now. I did not mention anything about troop transport or heavy lifting, so I don't see what relevance your last post has to do with the point I am making. You claim that "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions." And I am saying that statement is not true. In the case of the US, their aircraft carriers are not just transport vehicles, they are also attack vehicles. I've also pointed out to you that in some US invasions ( especially in the Middle East) the invasions actually started from their aircraft carriers. The aircraft carriers are equipped with cruise missiles and other artillery which are used in the first wave of attack BEFORE the air force gets involved, and weeks BEFORE any ground or amphibious troops are involved. In the case of the US, aircraft carriers are an invasion tool. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores
Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago?
Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers.
Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers.
Hence air superiority. Establish that SO ground troops are free to commence assault. It is not a Troop transport. Heavy lift capabilities bring troops artillery tanks ect.... To shores. NOT carriers
You seem to be backtracking and clutching at straws now. I did not mention anything about troop transport or heavy lifting, so I don't see what relevance your last post has to do with the point I am making.
You claim that "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions." And I am saying that statement is not true. In the case of the US, their aircraft carriers are not just transport vehicles, they are also attack vehicles.
I've also pointed out to you that in some US invasions ( especially in the Middle East) the invasions actually started from their aircraft carriers. The aircraft carriers are equipped with cruise missiles and other artillery which are used in the first wave of attack BEFORE the air force gets involved, and weeks BEFORE any ground or amphibious troops are involved.
In the case of the US, aircraft carriers are an invasion tool."And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores
Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago?
Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers.
Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers.
Hence air superiority. Establish that SO ground troops are free to commence assault. It is not a Troop transport. Heavy lift capabilities bring troops artillery tanks ect.... To shores. NOT carriers
You seem to be backtracking and clutching at straws now. I did not mention anything about troop transport or heavy lifting, so I don't see what relevance your last post has to do with the point I am making.
You claim that "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions." And I am saying that statement is not true. In the case of the US, their aircraft carriers are not just transport vehicles, they are also attack vehicles.
I've also pointed out to you that in some US invasions ( especially in the Middle East) the invasions actually started from their aircraft carriers. The aircraft carriers are equipped with cruise missiles and other artillery which are used in the first wave of attack BEFORE the air force gets involved, and weeks BEFORE any ground or amphibious troops are involved.
In the case of the US, aircraft carriers are an invasion tool.
And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports.""...And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports..." ------------------------ Except that 'china building troop transports' is not relevant to the point I was making about US aircraft carriers. I rest my case. Nothing personal. Take care, and have a good weekend. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores
Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago?
Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers.
Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers.
Hence air superiority. Establish that SO ground troops are free to commence assault. It is not a Troop transport. Heavy lift capabilities bring troops artillery tanks ect.... To shores. NOT carriers
You seem to be backtracking and clutching at straws now. I did not mention anything about troop transport or heavy lifting, so I don't see what relevance your last post has to do with the point I am making.
You claim that "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions." And I am saying that statement is not true. In the case of the US, their aircraft carriers are not just transport vehicles, they are also attack vehicles.
I've also pointed out to you that in some US invasions ( especially in the Middle East) the invasions actually started from their aircraft carriers. The aircraft carriers are equipped with cruise missiles and other artillery which are used in the first wave of attack BEFORE the air force gets involved, and weeks BEFORE any ground or amphibious troops are involved.
In the case of the US, aircraft carriers are an invasion tool.
And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports.
"...And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports..."
------------------------
Except that 'china building troop transports' is not relevant to the point I was making about US aircraft carriers.
I rest my case. Nothing personal.
Take care, and have a good weekend. "You didn't have a case to begin with. You have a fantastic weekend. | |||
"Think you either must have your head buried in the sand,or slightly naive to what Chinese Government has been doing.I suggest you buy a newspaper " I suggest you stop. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores
Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago?
Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers.
Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers.
Hence air superiority. Establish that SO ground troops are free to commence assault. It is not a Troop transport. Heavy lift capabilities bring troops artillery tanks ect.... To shores. NOT carriers
You seem to be backtracking and clutching at straws now. I did not mention anything about troop transport or heavy lifting, so I don't see what relevance your last post has to do with the point I am making.
You claim that "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions." And I am saying that statement is not true. In the case of the US, their aircraft carriers are not just transport vehicles, they are also attack vehicles.
I've also pointed out to you that in some US invasions ( especially in the Middle East) the invasions actually started from their aircraft carriers. The aircraft carriers are equipped with cruise missiles and other artillery which are used in the first wave of attack BEFORE the air force gets involved, and weeks BEFORE any ground or amphibious troops are involved.
In the case of the US, aircraft carriers are an invasion tool.
And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports.
"...And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports..."
------------------------
Except that 'china building troop transports' is not relevant to the point I was making about US aircraft carriers.
I rest my case. Nothing personal.
Take care, and have a good weekend.
You didn't have a case to begin with. You have a fantastic weekend."I do have a case and a good case in fact. I’m sure you clearly understand the point I was making, you were just clutching at straws with your responses. I say no more, coz I choose not to allow the ping pong messaging to drag on unnecessarily. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores
Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago?
Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers.
Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers.
Hence air superiority. Establish that SO ground troops are free to commence assault. It is not a Troop transport. Heavy lift capabilities bring troops artillery tanks ect.... To shores. NOT carriers
You seem to be backtracking and clutching at straws now. I did not mention anything about troop transport or heavy lifting, so I don't see what relevance your last post has to do with the point I am making.
You claim that "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions." And I am saying that statement is not true. In the case of the US, their aircraft carriers are not just transport vehicles, they are also attack vehicles.
I've also pointed out to you that in some US invasions ( especially in the Middle East) the invasions actually started from their aircraft carriers. The aircraft carriers are equipped with cruise missiles and other artillery which are used in the first wave of attack BEFORE the air force gets involved, and weeks BEFORE any ground or amphibious troops are involved.
In the case of the US, aircraft carriers are an invasion tool.
And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports.
"...And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports..."
------------------------
Except that 'china building troop transports' is not relevant to the point I was making about US aircraft carriers.
I rest my case. Nothing personal.
Take care, and have a good weekend.
You didn't have a case to begin with. You have a fantastic weekend.
I do have a case and a good case in fact. I’m sure you clearly understand the point I was making, you were just clutching at straws with your responses.
I say no more, coz I choose not to allow the ping pong messaging to drag on unnecessarily. "First 0 cruise missles on a aircraft carrier. 2. 0 " artillery on a aircraft carrier. 3.0 " ground troops capabilities. It's called a aircraft carrier for a reason. They don't launch tanks off a flight deck. 4. So you are stating that everytime a carrier is deployed the US is "invading ". It's is and always be a air superiority platform. Not boots on the ground to take a country. You cannot just park a carrier on a beachead and say look at us we invading . | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores
Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago?
Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers.
Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers.
Hence air superiority. Establish that SO ground troops are free to commence assault. It is not a Troop transport. Heavy lift capabilities bring troops artillery tanks ect.... To shores. NOT carriers
You seem to be backtracking and clutching at straws now. I did not mention anything about troop transport or heavy lifting, so I don't see what relevance your last post has to do with the point I am making.
You claim that "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions." And I am saying that statement is not true. In the case of the US, their aircraft carriers are not just transport vehicles, they are also attack vehicles.
I've also pointed out to you that in some US invasions ( especially in the Middle East) the invasions actually started from their aircraft carriers. The aircraft carriers are equipped with cruise missiles and other artillery which are used in the first wave of attack BEFORE the air force gets involved, and weeks BEFORE any ground or amphibious troops are involved.
In the case of the US, aircraft carriers are an invasion tool.
And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports.
"...And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports..."
------------------------
Except that 'china building troop transports' is not relevant to the point I was making about US aircraft carriers.
I rest my case. Nothing personal.
Take care, and have a good weekend.
You didn't have a case to begin with. You have a fantastic weekend.
I do have a case and a good case in fact. I’m sure you clearly understand the point I was making, you were just clutching at straws with your responses.
I say no more, coz I choose not to allow the ping pong messaging to drag on unnecessarily.
First 0 cruise missles on a aircraft carrier.
2. 0 " artillery on a aircraft carrier.
3.0 " ground troops capabilities. It's called a aircraft carrier for a reason. They don't launch tanks off a flight deck.
4. So you are stating that everytime a carrier is deployed the US is "invading ". It's is and always be a air superiority platform. Not boots on the ground to take a country. You cannot just park a carrier on a beachead and say look at us we invading ."So what's your point? You don't think the US has got the capability to put boots on the ground and invade a country!? Honestly, I don't really care about your response. As I've said before China is often a bad actor on the world stage but to be critical of them building up armed forces is enormously hypocritical... especially if you come from the country which spends the most in their military than any other country in the world! It's nuts
| |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores
Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago?
Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers.
Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers.
Hence air superiority. Establish that SO ground troops are free to commence assault. It is not a Troop transport. Heavy lift capabilities bring troops artillery tanks ect.... To shores. NOT carriers
You seem to be backtracking and clutching at straws now. I did not mention anything about troop transport or heavy lifting, so I don't see what relevance your last post has to do with the point I am making.
You claim that "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions." And I am saying that statement is not true. In the case of the US, their aircraft carriers are not just transport vehicles, they are also attack vehicles.
I've also pointed out to you that in some US invasions ( especially in the Middle East) the invasions actually started from their aircraft carriers. The aircraft carriers are equipped with cruise missiles and other artillery which are used in the first wave of attack BEFORE the air force gets involved, and weeks BEFORE any ground or amphibious troops are involved.
In the case of the US, aircraft carriers are an invasion tool.
And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports.
"...And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports..."
------------------------
Except that 'china building troop transports' is not relevant to the point I was making about US aircraft carriers.
I rest my case. Nothing personal.
Take care, and have a good weekend.
You didn't have a case to begin with. You have a fantastic weekend.
I do have a case and a good case in fact. I’m sure you clearly understand the point I was making, you were just clutching at straws with your responses.
I say no more, coz I choose not to allow the ping pong messaging to drag on unnecessarily. "And as to your point on the carriers opening the invasion in 1991. They did not AH-64 apaches did "Ground based aircraft " US army. | |||
"They are building their transport fleet. Investing in their navy to challenge world navies. Their GDP this year is the only one that is going to show growth. That in itself is a warning. Why?" Because America arent doing the same | |||
"Strange how in the last number of decades all the new viruses have come from China. Like MERS from Saudi Arabia? Shows ignorance. SARS. H5N1. H7N7. Covid 19. China is the World hot spot. If all new viruses come from China, then MERS doesn't exist. If we extend that to all recent threats, Ebola comes from the Congo. Or are you changing your argument then calling me ignorant because I showed you were incorrect? Most, not all, I worded that wrong. So you don't blame China for this outbreak." What is the point of blaming someone? | |||
"Chinese Government, Biggest threat to World safety ? Opinions Wrong. Biggest threat to "world safety" is the pandemic......currently. " wrong,biggest threat is the people who created the virus surely , virus is only really dangerous to people who eat shit food , drink shit drinks ,and smother themselves in chemicals to make them selves look good | |||
"The west will be skint after this fiasco,China will buy up cheap just watch it happen Yup hence why the US will not go into full lockdown. Best way to destroy a country other then war is to bleed their economies. Absolutely least someone understands that , going to be horrible for a lot of people after this Covid but most people are in denial Denial? Nobody's denied anything, or are you meaning "long covid", that sounds nasty for some folk. He is meaning economy wise. He's meaning "going to be horrible for a lot of people". Recession or a depression economically. Depends if you hear about other people losing there Job Recession , if you lose yours Depression Only thing that depresses me, are the anti maskers, anti lockdowners, and anti vaxxers. Oh, and misinformation spreaders
Anti maskers.... Could be exempt and you wouldn't know or entitled to know
Anti lockdown.... Possibly more concerned about the effects of life on the loss of jobs, income, economy
Ant vaxxers.... It's their choice initially. Some could have medical or mental health reasons (don't say they're mad for not submitting to they're position)
Misinformation..... Personally, I think both sides are guilty of spreading misinformation
However, I've not seen or heard of any threats from the anti vaxxers towards the pro vaxxers but plenty the other way. "don't know why a vaxxer would moan about an anti as he vaccinated surely lol , or didn't it work , like the flu jab that people still die from | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores
Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago?
Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers.
Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers.
Hence air superiority. Establish that SO ground troops are free to commence assault. It is not a Troop transport. Heavy lift capabilities bring troops artillery tanks ect.... To shores. NOT carriers
You seem to be backtracking and clutching at straws now. I did not mention anything about troop transport or heavy lifting, so I don't see what relevance your last post has to do with the point I am making.
You claim that "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions." And I am saying that statement is not true. In the case of the US, their aircraft carriers are not just transport vehicles, they are also attack vehicles.
I've also pointed out to you that in some US invasions ( especially in the Middle East) the invasions actually started from their aircraft carriers. The aircraft carriers are equipped with cruise missiles and other artillery which are used in the first wave of attack BEFORE the air force gets involved, and weeks BEFORE any ground or amphibious troops are involved.
In the case of the US, aircraft carriers are an invasion tool.
And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports.
"...And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports..."
------------------------
Except that 'china building troop transports' is not relevant to the point I was making about US aircraft carriers.
I rest my case. Nothing personal.
Take care, and have a good weekend.
You didn't have a case to begin with. You have a fantastic weekend.
I do have a case and a good case in fact. I’m sure you clearly understand the point I was making, you were just clutching at straws with your responses.
I say no more, coz I choose not to allow the ping pong messaging to drag on unnecessarily.
First 0 cruise missles on a aircraft carrier.
2. 0 " artillery on a aircraft carrier.
3.0 " ground troops capabilities. It's called a aircraft carrier for a reason. They don't launch tanks off a flight deck.
4. So you are stating that everytime a carrier is deployed the US is "invading ". It's is and always be a air superiority platform. Not boots on the ground to take a country. You cannot just park a carrier on a beachead and say look at us we invading ."You seem to be going off point. Lets let's get back on track. I am responding to your comment above where you said "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions" I am saying you are wrong about that. US aircraft carriers and other naval vessels are usually the first to be deployed in an attack when the US seeks to invade another country. This happens long before soldiers are deployed on the ground, but somehow you assume it is the other way round. In the US invasion of Iraq, the attack commenced using naval vessels including aircraft carriers weeks before any amphibious or ground troops got involved. Below is an excerpt from the New York times which shows the role of aircraft carriers and why they are an important tool when the US seeks to invade another country: "When the United States military presence is declining around the world and overseas bases are being closed, the Navy and its aircraft carriers are more important than ever. Every President since World War II has found it necessary to ask, "Where are the carriers, and how fast can we get them there? President Clinton, in his first six months, has had to deploy aircraft carriers to Somalia, Iraq and the Balkans. The carrier's flexibility and awesome military power make it an effective Presidential tool in managing crises. The carriers and their aircraft were also an important part of the military campaign that freed Kuwait and defeated the Iraqi army." | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores
Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago?
Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers.
Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers.
Hence air superiority. Establish that SO ground troops are free to commence assault. It is not a Troop transport. Heavy lift capabilities bring troops artillery tanks ect.... To shores. NOT carriers
You seem to be backtracking and clutching at straws now. I did not mention anything about troop transport or heavy lifting, so I don't see what relevance your last post has to do with the point I am making.
You claim that "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions." And I am saying that statement is not true. In the case of the US, their aircraft carriers are not just transport vehicles, they are also attack vehicles.
I've also pointed out to you that in some US invasions ( especially in the Middle East) the invasions actually started from their aircraft carriers. The aircraft carriers are equipped with cruise missiles and other artillery which are used in the first wave of attack BEFORE the air force gets involved, and weeks BEFORE any ground or amphibious troops are involved.
In the case of the US, aircraft carriers are an invasion tool.
And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports.
"...And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports..."
------------------------
Except that 'china building troop transports' is not relevant to the point I was making about US aircraft carriers.
I rest my case. Nothing personal.
Take care, and have a good weekend.
You didn't have a case to begin with. You have a fantastic weekend.
I do have a case and a good case in fact. I’m sure you clearly understand the point I was making, you were just clutching at straws with your responses.
I say no more, coz I choose not to allow the ping pong messaging to drag on unnecessarily.
First 0 cruise missles on a aircraft carrier.
2. 0 " artillery on a aircraft carrier.
3.0 " ground troops capabilities. It's called a aircraft carrier for a reason. They don't launch tanks off a flight deck.
4. So you are stating that everytime a carrier is deployed the US is "invading ". It's is and always be a air superiority platform. Not boots on the ground to take a country. You cannot just park a carrier on a beachead and say look at us we invading .
You seem to be going off point.
Lets let's get back on track.
I am responding to your comment above where you said "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions"
I am saying you are wrong about that. US aircraft carriers and other naval vessels are usually the first to be deployed in an attack when the US seeks to invade another country. This happens long before soldiers are deployed on the ground, but somehow you assume it is the other way round.
In the US invasion of Iraq, the attack commenced using naval vessels including aircraft carriers weeks before any amphibious or ground troops got involved.
Below is an excerpt from the New York times which shows the role of aircraft carriers and why they are an important tool when the US seeks to invade another country:
"When the United States military presence is declining around the world and overseas bases are being closed, the Navy and its aircraft carriers are more important than ever. Every President since World War II has found it necessary to ask, "Where are the carriers, and how fast can we get them there? President Clinton, in his first six months, has had to deploy aircraft carriers to Somalia, Iraq and the Balkans. The carrier's flexibility and awesome military power make it an effective Presidential tool in managing crises. The carriers and their aircraft were also an important part of the military campaign that freed Kuwait and defeated the Iraqi army.""A day after the deadline set in United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, the coalition launched a massive air campaign, which began the general offensive codenamed Operation Desert Storm with more than 1,000 sorties launching per day. It began on 17 January 1991, at 2:38 AM, Baghdad time, when Task Force Normandy (eight US Army AH-64 Apache helicopters led by two US Air Force MH-53 Pave Low helicopters) destroyed Iraqi radar sites near the Iraqi–Saudi Arabian border which could have warned Iraq of an upcoming attack. Ground based aircraft based in Kuwait. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores
Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago?
Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers.
Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers.
Hence air superiority. Establish that SO ground troops are free to commence assault. It is not a Troop transport. Heavy lift capabilities bring troops artillery tanks ect.... To shores. NOT carriers
You seem to be backtracking and clutching at straws now. I did not mention anything about troop transport or heavy lifting, so I don't see what relevance your last post has to do with the point I am making.
You claim that "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions." And I am saying that statement is not true. In the case of the US, their aircraft carriers are not just transport vehicles, they are also attack vehicles.
I've also pointed out to you that in some US invasions ( especially in the Middle East) the invasions actually started from their aircraft carriers. The aircraft carriers are equipped with cruise missiles and other artillery which are used in the first wave of attack BEFORE the air force gets involved, and weeks BEFORE any ground or amphibious troops are involved.
In the case of the US, aircraft carriers are an invasion tool.
And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports.
"...And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports..."
------------------------
Except that 'china building troop transports' is not relevant to the point I was making about US aircraft carriers.
I rest my case. Nothing personal.
Take care, and have a good weekend.
You didn't have a case to begin with. You have a fantastic weekend.
I do have a case and a good case in fact. I’m sure you clearly understand the point I was making, you were just clutching at straws with your responses.
I say no more, coz I choose not to allow the ping pong messaging to drag on unnecessarily.
First 0 cruise missles on a aircraft carrier.
2. 0 " artillery on a aircraft carrier.
3.0 " ground troops capabilities. It's called a aircraft carrier for a reason. They don't launch tanks off a flight deck.
4. So you are stating that everytime a carrier is deployed the US is "invading ". It's is and always be a air superiority platform. Not boots on the ground to take a country. You cannot just park a carrier on a beachead and say look at us we invading .
You seem to be going off point.
Lets let's get back on track.
I am responding to your comment above where you said "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions"
I am saying you are wrong about that. US aircraft carriers and other naval vessels are usually the first to be deployed in an attack when the US seeks to invade another country. This happens long before soldiers are deployed on the ground, but somehow you assume it is the other way round.
In the US invasion of Iraq, the attack commenced using naval vessels including aircraft carriers weeks before any amphibious or ground troops got involved.
Below is an excerpt from the New York times which shows the role of aircraft carriers and why they are an important tool when the US seeks to invade another country:
"When the United States military presence is declining around the world and overseas bases are being closed, the Navy and its aircraft carriers are more important than ever. Every President since World War II has found it necessary to ask, "Where are the carriers, and how fast can we get them there? President Clinton, in his first six months, has had to deploy aircraft carriers to Somalia, Iraq and the Balkans. The carrier's flexibility and awesome military power make it an effective Presidential tool in managing crises. The carriers and their aircraft were also an important part of the military campaign that freed Kuwait and defeated the Iraqi army."
A day after the deadline set in United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, the coalition launched a massive air campaign, which began the general offensive codenamed Operation Desert Storm with more than 1,000 sorties launching per day. It began on 17 January 1991, at 2:38 AM, Baghdad time, when Task Force Normandy (eight US Army AH-64 Apache helicopters led by two US Air Force MH-53 Pave Low helicopters) destroyed Iraqi radar sites near the Iraqi–Saudi Arabian border which could have warned Iraq of an upcoming attack.
Ground based aircraft based in Kuwait."Did you read the last line of my post from the New York times ? Your constant claim is :"Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions" Last line of my post from the New York Times says: "The carriers and their aircraft were also an important part of the military campaign that freed Kuwait and defeated the Iraqi army." Again I say you are wrong about stating that aircraft carriers are not used for invasions. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores
Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago?
Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers.
Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers.
Hence air superiority. Establish that SO ground troops are free to commence assault. It is not a Troop transport. Heavy lift capabilities bring troops artillery tanks ect.... To shores. NOT carriers
You seem to be backtracking and clutching at straws now. I did not mention anything about troop transport or heavy lifting, so I don't see what relevance your last post has to do with the point I am making.
You claim that "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions." And I am saying that statement is not true. In the case of the US, their aircraft carriers are not just transport vehicles, they are also attack vehicles.
I've also pointed out to you that in some US invasions ( especially in the Middle East) the invasions actually started from their aircraft carriers. The aircraft carriers are equipped with cruise missiles and other artillery which are used in the first wave of attack BEFORE the air force gets involved, and weeks BEFORE any ground or amphibious troops are involved.
In the case of the US, aircraft carriers are an invasion tool.
And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports.
"...And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports..."
------------------------
Except that 'china building troop transports' is not relevant to the point I was making about US aircraft carriers.
I rest my case. Nothing personal.
Take care, and have a good weekend.
You didn't have a case to begin with. You have a fantastic weekend.
I do have a case and a good case in fact. I’m sure you clearly understand the point I was making, you were just clutching at straws with your responses.
I say no more, coz I choose not to allow the ping pong messaging to drag on unnecessarily.
First 0 cruise missles on a aircraft carrier.
2. 0 " artillery on a aircraft carrier.
3.0 " ground troops capabilities. It's called a aircraft carrier for a reason. They don't launch tanks off a flight deck.
4. So you are stating that everytime a carrier is deployed the US is "invading ". It's is and always be a air superiority platform. Not boots on the ground to take a country. You cannot just park a carrier on a beachead and say look at us we invading .
You seem to be going off point.
Lets let's get back on track.
I am responding to your comment above where you said "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions"
I am saying you are wrong about that. US aircraft carriers and other naval vessels are usually the first to be deployed in an attack when the US seeks to invade another country. This happens long before soldiers are deployed on the ground, but somehow you assume it is the other way round.
In the US invasion of Iraq, the attack commenced using naval vessels including aircraft carriers weeks before any amphibious or ground troops got involved.
Below is an excerpt from the New York times which shows the role of aircraft carriers and why they are an important tool when the US seeks to invade another country:
"When the United States military presence is declining around the world and overseas bases are being closed, the Navy and its aircraft carriers are more important than ever. Every President since World War II has found it necessary to ask, "Where are the carriers, and how fast can we get them there? President Clinton, in his first six months, has had to deploy aircraft carriers to Somalia, Iraq and the Balkans. The carrier's flexibility and awesome military power make it an effective Presidential tool in managing crises. The carriers and their aircraft were also an important part of the military campaign that freed Kuwait and defeated the Iraqi army."
A day after the deadline set in United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, the coalition launched a massive air campaign, which began the general offensive codenamed Operation Desert Storm with more than 1,000 sorties launching per day. It began on 17 January 1991, at 2:38 AM, Baghdad time, when Task Force Normandy (eight US Army AH-64 Apache helicopters led by two US Air Force MH-53 Pave Low helicopters) destroyed Iraqi radar sites near the Iraqi–Saudi Arabian border which could have warned Iraq of an upcoming attack.
Ground based aircraft based in Kuwait.
Did you read the last line of my post from the New York times ?
Your constant claim is :"Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions"
Last line of my post from the New York Times says: "The carriers and their aircraft were also an important part of the military campaign that freed Kuwait and defeated the Iraqi army."
Again I say you are wrong about stating that aircraft carriers are not used for invasions."We go round and round and round. That being said being every carrier that was deployed iraq afghanistan were there for 1 reason. Air superiority and CAS. In support of the main invading force. Destroyers cruisers ect.. are to protect carriers and provide additional support with cruise missles. They are a support vessle not the main invading force. | |||
" Building military transport vessels only serve 1 purpose. They not going to invade themselves now are they ? Yet the UK is currently building two aircraft carriers... Wonder who we're going to invade..?
Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions... Troop transports are can't take a country without boots on the ground. Carriers provide air support and air dominance. Hence amphibious ships to carry infantry and mechanized.
"....Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions..."
--------------------------
Who told you that ?
That's certainly not true, quite the opposite. Aircraft carriers are sometimes the first line of attack in an invasion.
In recent times when the US has invaded countries in the Middle East, the invasion starts with cruise missiles launched from an aircraft carrier.
They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform. You don't storm a beach from aircraft carrier. It's called a amphibious assault ship.
"...They are a air superiority platform. Not a invasion platform..."
-------------------------
The US starts an invasion by establishing air superiority.
The US starts an invasion using aircraft carriers.
US Marine amphibious assaults do not occur from inside a aircraft carrier. Troop transports carry troops mechanized ect .. to shores
Do you have any idea how the US fought the wars in the gulf a few years ago?
Like I said the invasion started from the aircraft carriers.
Amphibious and ground troops got involved weeks after that, weeks after the initial attack from aircraft carriers.
Hence air superiority. Establish that SO ground troops are free to commence assault. It is not a Troop transport. Heavy lift capabilities bring troops artillery tanks ect.... To shores. NOT carriers
You seem to be backtracking and clutching at straws now. I did not mention anything about troop transport or heavy lifting, so I don't see what relevance your last post has to do with the point I am making.
You claim that "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions." And I am saying that statement is not true. In the case of the US, their aircraft carriers are not just transport vehicles, they are also attack vehicles.
I've also pointed out to you that in some US invasions ( especially in the Middle East) the invasions actually started from their aircraft carriers. The aircraft carriers are equipped with cruise missiles and other artillery which are used in the first wave of attack BEFORE the air force gets involved, and weeks BEFORE any ground or amphibious troops are involved.
In the case of the US, aircraft carriers are an invasion tool.
And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports.
"...And if you scroll up instead of just taking one statement you will see I posted about china building troop transports..."
------------------------
Except that 'china building troop transports' is not relevant to the point I was making about US aircraft carriers.
I rest my case. Nothing personal.
Take care, and have a good weekend.
You didn't have a case to begin with. You have a fantastic weekend.
I do have a case and a good case in fact. I’m sure you clearly understand the point I was making, you were just clutching at straws with your responses.
I say no more, coz I choose not to allow the ping pong messaging to drag on unnecessarily.
First 0 cruise missles on a aircraft carrier.
2. 0 " artillery on a aircraft carrier.
3.0 " ground troops capabilities. It's called a aircraft carrier for a reason. They don't launch tanks off a flight deck.
4. So you are stating that everytime a carrier is deployed the US is "invading ". It's is and always be a air superiority platform. Not boots on the ground to take a country. You cannot just park a carrier on a beachead and say look at us we invading .
You seem to be going off point.
Lets let's get back on track.
I am responding to your comment above where you said "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions"
I am saying you are wrong about that. US aircraft carriers and other naval vessels are usually the first to be deployed in an attack when the US seeks to invade another country. This happens long before soldiers are deployed on the ground, but somehow you assume it is the other way round.
In the US invasion of Iraq, the attack commenced using naval vessels including aircraft carriers weeks before any amphibious or ground troops got involved.
Below is an excerpt from the New York times which shows the role of aircraft carriers and why they are an important tool when the US seeks to invade another country:
"When the United States military presence is declining around the world and overseas bases are being closed, the Navy and its aircraft carriers are more important than ever. Every President since World War II has found it necessary to ask, "Where are the carriers, and how fast can we get them there? President Clinton, in his first six months, has had to deploy aircraft carriers to Somalia, Iraq and the Balkans. The carrier's flexibility and awesome military power make it an effective Presidential tool in managing crises. The carriers and their aircraft were also an important part of the military campaign that freed Kuwait and defeated the Iraqi army."
A day after the deadline set in United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, the coalition launched a massive air campaign, which began the general offensive codenamed Operation Desert Storm with more than 1,000 sorties launching per day. It began on 17 January 1991, at 2:38 AM, Baghdad time, when Task Force Normandy (eight US Army AH-64 Apache helicopters led by two US Air Force MH-53 Pave Low helicopters) destroyed Iraqi radar sites near the Iraqi–Saudi Arabian border which could have warned Iraq of an upcoming attack.
Ground based aircraft based in Kuwait.
Did you read the last line of my post from the New York times ?
Your constant claim is :"Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions"
Last line of my post from the New York Times says: "The carriers and their aircraft were also an important part of the military campaign that freed Kuwait and defeated the Iraqi army."
Again I say you are wrong about stating that aircraft carriers are not used for invasions.
We go round and round and round. That being said being every carrier that was deployed iraq afghanistan were there for 1 reason. Air superiority and CAS. In support of the main invading force. Destroyers cruisers ect.. are to protect carriers and provide additional support with cruise missles. They are a support vessle not the main invading force. "Ahh, so in the light of the evidence I presented above, you have now changed your tune from "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions" to "not the main invading force." No wonder we are going round in circles. When you keep changing your tune we end up going round and round like a game of music & chairs. So, let me show you further evidence that aircraft carriers are used for invasions. This is an excerpt from the UK defence journal: "Major naval operations such as Pearl Harbour and Midway, the turning points in the war, were dominated by aircraft carriers. The slow and lumbering steel battleships, once the mightiest vessels in the worlds navies, were proven totally outclassed by their successor." Did you see what it says there? It says those operations were *dominated* by aircraft carriers. The keyword there is: Dominated. But according to you: "Aircraft carriers are not used for invasions" | |||
"Chinese Government, Biggest threat to World safety ? Opinions " Is this question based on the latest nonsense from John Ratcliffe? He's the US Director of National Intelligence - a Trump appointee to a post he had absolutely no experience for. China is a police state that does not allow for personal freedom. However, like the USA, it is more than happy to imprison, or even kill, those it percieves as a threat - though on nowhere near as large a scale; certainly outwith its own borders. The reason the USA is so upset about China is that, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, they have been the only superpower - and that's already changed, economically. They don't want China to achieve military parity with them as well. They should calm down. China will not, nor does it really need to, have a military capability to match that of the USA. They will continue to pursue their rising influence in world trade and avoid a military confrontation with the USA - no matter how much the USA wants one; particularly at sea, the only arena in which their dominance is assured. That said, the USA is no more capable of an outright military victory over China than it was in the 1950's. They had a far greater technological advantage back then, too. That's why the USA is scared shitless of China - because they're immune to US military power; and unlike the Soviet Union, China has a powerful capitalist economy. The USA is desperate to turn the world against the Chinese, for no other reason than they can't stand the competition. The Chinese government are definitely NOT the good guys. However, in the USA - sort of a democracy - their current President is trying to overturn the result of a general election that didn't suit him. He's either mentally ill, or he has no more belief in democracy than Xi does. | |||
| |||
"Chinese Government, Biggest threat to World safety ? Opinions Is this question based on the latest nonsense from John Ratcliffe? He's the US Director of National Intelligence - a Trump appointee to a post he had absolutely no experience for. China is a police state that does not allow for personal freedom. However, like the USA, it is more than happy to imprison, or even kill, those it percieves as a threat - though on nowhere near as large a scale; certainly outwith its own borders. The reason the USA is so upset about China is that, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, they have been the only superpower - and that's already changed, economically. They don't want China to achieve military parity with them as well. They should calm down. China will not, nor does it really need to, have a military capability to match that of the USA. They will continue to pursue their rising influence in world trade and avoid a military confrontation with the USA - no matter how much the USA wants one; particularly at sea, the only arena in which their dominance is assured. That said, the USA is no more capable of an outright military victory over China than it was in the 1950's. They had a far greater technological advantage back then, too. That's why the USA is scared shitless of China - because they're immune to US military power; and unlike the Soviet Union, China has a powerful capitalist economy. The USA is desperate to turn the world against the Chinese, for no other reason than they can't stand the competition. The Chinese government are definitely NOT the good guys. However, in the USA - sort of a democracy - their current President is trying to overturn the result of a general election that didn't suit him. He's either mentally ill, or he has no more belief in democracy than Xi does." Spot on | |||
| |||
