Thailand's sole carrier
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
55 comments displayed.
#7
-
randomuploads (5 hours ago) [-]
Billions of tax-dollars spent on purely offensive weaponry. How is that something to be proud of...?
#11 to #10
-
randomuploads (4 hours ago) [-]
The fact that it's posted at all instead of shunned like the embarrassment it is.
#26 to #11
-
fappafappafap [OP](3 hours ago) [-] Post picture of something interesting
Lol you're proud of it since you're not hiding it.
Thats some weird logic.
Lol you're proud of it since you're not hiding it.
Thats some weird logic.
#27 to #26
-
randomuploads (3 hours ago) [-]
That carrier is the weapon your goverment uses to kill innocent people. Now you can say yes I know, they're total pricks. Or you can post interesting pictures.
#33 to #27
-
fappafappafap [OP](2 hours ago) [-] A: I'm not American nor Thai, so neither of the carriers are related to me at all.
B: By that logic you can't post a picture of a closed hand because fists are used to kill innocent people.
B: By that logic you can't post a picture of a closed hand because fists are used to kill innocent people.
#36 to #33
-
randomuploads (2 hours ago) [-]
A: Well I'm sorry but you really should've said so about 4 replies earlier, your lack of denial made it seem you were from the USA.
B: Not at all, that's a ridiculous comparison. Everybody has hands.
B: Not at all, that's a ridiculous comparison. Everybody has hands.
#51 to #36
-
fappafappafap [OP](1 hour ago) [-] A: Hey, you assumed first. That's on you, not me. Not my fault you make assumptions without proving them first.
B: Everyone has hands, but not everyone needs to close it into a fist.
B: Everyone has hands, but not everyone needs to close it into a fist.
#53 to #51
-
randomuploads (1 hour ago) [-]
"Where in this content did it mention pride? "
Instead of correcting my obvious assumption you carried on the conversation. At that point I considered my assumption correct due to lack of denial from your end.
Literally nobody has a single carrier of this size. And the US has like 10. I'm telling you, the hand analogy is beyond ridiculous.
Instead of correcting my obvious assumption you carried on the conversation. At that point I considered my assumption correct due to lack of denial from your end.
Literally nobody has a single carrier of this size. And the US has like 10. I'm telling you, the hand analogy is beyond ridiculous.
#54 to #53
-
fappafappafap [OP](53 minutes ago) [-] What obvious assumption? I asked where it mentioned pride and you think I'm American or Thai?
That's like saying I ask where it mentioned pride in showing Israel's missile launchers, and now you think I'm Jewish.
And that's irrelevant, you mentioned that carrier is the weapon your government uses to kill innocent people. Fists do the exact same thing, in a different manner. A closed fist can be a lethal weapon to innocent people. Why is posting a picture of any lethal weapon to innocents allowed?
And do you even have proof of that US carrier killing innocent people?
That's like saying I ask where it mentioned pride in showing Israel's missile launchers, and now you think I'm Jewish.
And that's irrelevant, you mentioned that carrier is the weapon your government uses to kill innocent people. Fists do the exact same thing, in a different manner. A closed fist can be a lethal weapon to innocent people. Why is posting a picture of any lethal weapon to innocents allowed?
And do you even have proof of that US carrier killing innocent people?
#22 to #21
-
randomuploads (4 hours ago) [-]
What happened was that I made a point, and instead of countering said point you decided to attack my person.
#25 to #24
-
randomuploads (4 hours ago) [-]
If that's your point then you should've said so in the first place instead of expecting me to read your mind.
Anyway you're wrong. Aircraft carriers are purely offensive weapons designed to project airpower in parts of the world where the US has none or insufficient ground bases. Rather useless for defending your home country where you have bases everywhere.
They are also extremely vunerable to anyone with a half decent military. Tiny and comparatively extremely cheap diesel subs have been capable of sinking super carriers during excersises time and time again. Not even mentioning what would happen if a country like Russia decides it's tired of the US sticking it's carrier dong up the worlds ass.
So no, supercarriers are not at all necessary for the security of the USA.
Anyway you're wrong. Aircraft carriers are purely offensive weapons designed to project airpower in parts of the world where the US has none or insufficient ground bases. Rather useless for defending your home country where you have bases everywhere.
They are also extremely vunerable to anyone with a half decent military. Tiny and comparatively extremely cheap diesel subs have been capable of sinking super carriers during excersises time and time again. Not even mentioning what would happen if a country like Russia decides it's tired of the US sticking it's carrier dong up the worlds ass.
So no, supercarriers are not at all necessary for the security of the USA.
#28 to #25
-
Norway ONLINE (3 hours ago) [-] 1. weapons are never strictly offensive or defensive. A strong military serves as a deterrent, "The best defense is a good offense" or "Hey maybe we shouldn't attack the US because they could have 2,000 planes here by nightfall"
2. Carriers are always escorted by other ships more than capable of blowing Mbute and his diesel sub out of the water
3. Russia could never NEVER win a non-nuclear war against the US. Russia and China, against the US only without allies is still a toss up. Russia may of had a good army when wars were fought on the ground and throwing 1 million people at the nazis to die was a viable option. But now with Air Force technology massive ground wars have become obsolete, so it comes to Naval and Air power, Which the US dominates no question
So, yes they are necessary
2. Carriers are always escorted by other ships more than capable of blowing Mbute and his diesel sub out of the water
3. Russia could never NEVER win a non-nuclear war against the US. Russia and China, against the US only without allies is still a toss up. Russia may of had a good army when wars were fought on the ground and throwing 1 million people at the nazis to die was a viable option. But now with Air Force technology massive ground wars have become obsolete, so it comes to Naval and Air power, Which the US dominates no question
So, yes they are necessary
#30 to #28
-
randomuploads (3 hours ago) [-]
1. US could halve it's military and still have the worlds largest. They're well past the point of deterrent.
2. Except that in the excercises they were flanked by the exact same carrier battle group as they would've been in real life. And they still got rekt.
"The problem was dramatically demonstrated when a Chinese Song-class submarine surfaced—previously undetected—in the middle of a U.S. carrier battlegroup much too close for comfort to the USS Kittyhawk in 2006."
nation.time.com/2012/12/04/more-than-the-navys-numbers-could-be-sinking/
3. I didn't say Russia would win an all out war with the US, I said that if a nation with the capabilities like the ones Russia has wants to sink a US carrier, they can.
2. Except that in the excercises they were flanked by the exact same carrier battle group as they would've been in real life. And they still got rekt.
"The problem was dramatically demonstrated when a Chinese Song-class submarine surfaced—previously undetected—in the middle of a U.S. carrier battlegroup much too close for comfort to the USS Kittyhawk in 2006."
nation.time.com/2012/12/04/more-than-the-navys-numbers-could-be-sinking/
3. I didn't say Russia would win an all out war with the US, I said that if a nation with the capabilities like the ones Russia has wants to sink a US carrier, they can.
#35 to #30
-
thekieran ONLINE (2 hours ago) [-] The problem with all of your statements is that you're assuming that the United States only protects itself, when in fact we protect the freedom and personal liberties of all of our allies.
(Japan, Canada, Britain, Australia, Israel, etc.)
Our military is the largest in the world because we also have a massive population/need for protection. Unlike China we are somewhat of a target for crippling international markets. If our infrastructure were to fail due to a war or political unrest then it would have catastrophic consequences across the globe. Is someone were to take out China, we'd just set up trade with whoever took it's place.
The American Military is protecting the undeniable best country on the planet. The country with the best quality of life and the largest number of opportunities to the average citizen. It's something that needs protection so please excuse us if we go a little more overboard than whatever ******** you call a homeland.
(Japan, Canada, Britain, Australia, Israel, etc.)
Our military is the largest in the world because we also have a massive population/need for protection. Unlike China we are somewhat of a target for crippling international markets. If our infrastructure were to fail due to a war or political unrest then it would have catastrophic consequences across the globe. Is someone were to take out China, we'd just set up trade with whoever took it's place.
The American Military is protecting the undeniable best country on the planet. The country with the best quality of life and the largest number of opportunities to the average citizen. It's something that needs protection so please excuse us if we go a little more overboard than whatever ******** you call a homeland.
#52 to #35
-
fappafappafap [OP](1 hour ago) [-] I wouldn't say USA did a good job with Japan though, considering they let the insane ***** who enacted the Three Alls Policy (Kill All, Loot All, Burn All) stay in power in Japan and let the unit 731 doctors get off with no punishment in exchange for data. And they didn't even try to make them atone for their crimes half as much as they made Germany did.
And before you say the unit 731 data saved lives, imagine the Unit 731 scientists experimented on American citizens and the Chinese let them go, you'd probably be pissed too.
And before you say the unit 731 data saved lives, imagine the Unit 731 scientists experimented on American citizens and the Chinese let them go, you'd probably be pissed too.
#37 to #35
-
randomuploads (2 hours ago) [-]
You remind me of religious folk. I always feel a pang of jealousy when I see how wonderful life can be when people take a good story, and pretend that it's true.
#43 to #39
-
randomuploads (2 hours ago) [-]
The moment someone calls the US (or any nation for that matter) "the undeniable best country" I instantly stop taking them seriously.
#44 to #43
-
thekieran ONLINE (2 hours ago) [-] is it because you can't actually find a reason? or is it because you'[re tired of losing arguments you know you can't win when it comes to the subject? The only reason I could think of as to why you would feel that way is because you're tired of not being the best, and deep down you know it's true.
It's like how closetted guys get really pissed at gay guys for no reason, they don't understand that what they're feeling is envy, so they reroute it to anger. That's what you're doing here.
It's like how closetted guys get really pissed at gay guys for no reason, they don't understand that what they're feeling is envy, so they reroute it to anger. That's what you're doing here.
#45 to #44
-
randomuploads (1 hour ago) [-]
You ********* always think life is some sort of competition.
#47 to #46
-
randomuploads (1 hour ago) [-]
I like how you call it "defense". The US hasn't fought a defensive war since...?
#48 to #47
-
thekieran ONLINE (1 hour ago) [-] Desert Storm was considered defensive because of potential nuclear damage. The war in Iraq was defensive because of the attack on 9/11. The Second world war was defensive because of the aforementioned allies we needed to save along with ourselves. Basically every war we've fought was in the defense of ourselves or our allies with the exception of Vietnam.
#50 to #48
-
randomuploads (1 hour ago) [-]
Oh and I'm gonna block you now because there nothing to be gained from a conversation with a brainwashed 15 year old.
#49 to #48
-
randomuploads (1 hour ago) [-]
You mixed up the crappy excuses the US makes for their invasive imperial wars. Afghanistan was supposedly for 9/11, Iraq was for WMD's that coincidentally were never found. That's how much you know what you're talking about.
#14 to #12
-
randomuploads (4 hours ago) [-]
Damn right I am. Wish I had some neat boats instead of all this lame ass healthcare and social security.
#15 to #14
-
clannadqs (4 hours ago) [-] >too stupid to realize that paying insurance rates is essentially the same as paying taxes for healthcare
>not realizing the majority of top ranked hospitals in the world are within the US
>not realizing most medical research stems from the US
kek
hospitals.webometrics.info/en/world
www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=2700&category=0®ion=all&year=all&order=it&min=0&min_type=it
>not realizing the majority of top ranked hospitals in the world are within the US
>not realizing most medical research stems from the US
kek
hospitals.webometrics.info/en/world
www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=2700&category=0®ion=all&year=all&order=it&min=0&min_type=it
#38 to #34
-
clannadqs (2 hours ago) [-] How is debt relevant to anything? There are dozens of nations WAY worse off in regards to debt than the US and most of them you wouldn't even think it (like Japan, UK, etc). It's not always about the number. Also, government debt is a lot different than civilian debt. Some nations literally thrive off of debt.
#41 to #40
-
clannadqs (2 hours ago) [-] That's not how debt works. We still have the most insane spending power of any nation regardless of how much money we borrow. We don't even borrow that much. The majority of our debt is owed to the people of the US, not other nations. The most we owe any other nation is like only 2 trillion dollars.
#5 to #4
-
fappafappafap [OP](6 hours ago) [-] That's some BS right there.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Thailand_relations#cite_ref-cdy_8-0
Says RIGHT there that China backed Thailand when Cambodia had an internal conflict.
Also from that page: China and Thailand has signed a Free Trade Agreement back in 2003 which covered agricultural products.[14] It was also known as an early harvest agreement on agricultural products in 2003.[15] A comprehensive agreement is still pending negotiations.
Straight up caught.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Thailand_relations#cite_ref-cdy_8-0
Says RIGHT there that China backed Thailand when Cambodia had an internal conflict.
Also from that page: China and Thailand has signed a Free Trade Agreement back in 2003 which covered agricultural products.[14] It was also known as an early harvest agreement on agricultural products in 2003.[15] A comprehensive agreement is still pending negotiations.
Straight up caught.
