EU as joke (modified)

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:16:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article , "tadaa" wrote:

Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting
into trouble . Quite frankly i don't see a point of maintaining a
strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How
large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries
that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just
have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have
a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing
for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy.

Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?

Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you
have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the
stick in short order.

Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were
preparing to surrender.

Al Minyard

Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were
preparing to surrender.

That's just ridiculous trolling.

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:16:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?

Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you
have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the
stick in short order.

Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were
preparing to surrender.

Just as a quick look for 1939, the Royal Navy launched two battleships,
three aircraft carriers and ten cruisers; the Royal Air Force was
trading biplanes for Spitfires and building up its bomber force while
completing the world's first radar-directed integrated air defence
system; and the Army was expanding and re-equipping at a furious rate.

A rather strange process of "preparing to surrender", unless one expects
that all this equipment was being produced so it could be handed over to
Germany...

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 08:22:29 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:16:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?

Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you
have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the
stick in short order.

Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were
preparing to surrender.

Just as a quick look for 1939, the Royal Navy launched two battleships,
three aircraft carriers and ten cruisers; the Royal Air Force was
trading biplanes for Spitfires and building up its bomber force while
completing the world's first radar-directed integrated air defence
system; and the Army was expanding and re-equipping at a furious rate.

A rather strange process of "preparing to surrender", unless one expects
that all this equipment was being produced so it could be handed over to
Germany...

Sorry, but I was not including the UK in "europe". I should have been more
explicit. The UK was, indeed, preparing for war, and did quite well when
said war occurred.

Al Minyard