The RAF is on a very good number, the creation of Joint Force Harrier has effectively resulted in the RN’s fixed wing aircraft being permanently donated to the RAF- that is situation the RAF would very much like to maintain. In reality the RAF has very little operational requirement for V/STOL aircraft. I can see the small potential logic of having a small number of B’s to operate from the LPH(R), if they end up being dig enough to do so, in an emergency.

I can’t believe they would have plumped for the F-35B just to keep control of the RN’S air assets…

..but then maybe I’m not cynical enough.

RAF input

Surely the RAF’s requirement for the B would have made an RN selection of the C variant difficult? Besides the cost savings of a single buy of one airframe, both selecting the B would make combined ops easier.

[QUOTE=plawolf;1147701]That just plainly makes no sense. I said the west in general find it hard to trust any culture that is significantly different, muslims have certainly born the brunt of that lately. Even with your examples, the vast majority of the people in the west still harbor distrust and even resentment towards many of those countries you listed. Just because the west and the US are forced to do business with these people does not mean that they trust or like them, let along accept their way of life.[/qutoe]

Oh please, the vast majority don’t give a sh*t one way or the other.

Have you ever read any history books whatsoever? :rolleyes: That is the single most stupid and ill-informed remark I have seen in a very long time.

Grow-up

The US had no problems waging war on weak third world countries who they colonized with just as much zeal as any of the other colonial powers.

And what is your point here? Are you holding this up as something the Chinese haven’t engaged in? Or a purely western thing?

Nor did the US have any problems jumping into WWI at the death.

If waiting several years isn’t reticence, then what is.

The US has never had a problem with war, especially wars they are all but guaranteed to win.

So? They are clever enough to chose their wars carefully.

Had the Japanese not attacked, America might have entered the war, but only much much later, and it would have done so for its own national interests as opposed to some noble act to protect the innocent.

I’ll stress your own word might. And to what aim would the US get involved if it had not been directly attacked or overtly threatened? Does the fact that it took a direct attack on the US not suggest to you a hint a reticence. The govt may have wanted to get involved sooner, but the people didn’t, and in a democracy (however imperfect) that counts for something.

Do you have a reading impairment?

No, but thanks for asking.:p

The west does not trust muslim nations and only deal with them out of necessity. How hard is that to understand? :rolleyes:

It is hard to understand because it is not true! Again the Gulf States? I’m not disputing the fact that these countries (and Iran, Iraq) have something the West wants. So what? They trade. Do you think if there was no oil, the US would up and invade them all for being Muslim?

So Iran is representative of the muslim world? You still can’t seem to grasp the concept.

Sigh, it was an example to highlight why there might be some dissension between Iran and US. Obviously it was too complicated for you.

I never said western prejudices were the sole factor governing wester policy.

So what was quip about 5 year plans then? Seemed like you were suggesting that if the west suddenly stopped dealing with China, China would revert back to its control economy ways. If that is not what you meant, then you should take more care with your words in future.

Or perhaps you should reread them and nto just grab the first interpretation that suits your purpose. The written word has to be read with a mediocom of wit….try it some day.

Its not about should, its about could. China is now so integrated into the world economy and playing such a big part that to exclude it willy nilly would devastate the world economy. To even suggest that cutting off all trade links with China as a viable policy option shows an astonishing lack of awareness about the current world dynamics. Its about as feasible as suggestion the world stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow and all switch to renewable.

Wait a minute, I included the bad idea bit and restressed it, but now I should’t have even said it! Sorry mate, I’m in the evil west where I can say what I bloody well like (almost!) and I certainly ain’t changing that to please you. If you don’t consider the unthinkable, how do you know its unthinkable?

Yes, but your ‘interpretations’ all lack basis and depth to the point where they seem more like excuses.

And yours are obviously the shining beacon of wisdom in the dark of course. You make sweeping statements the world and get upset because someone thinks differently. Nor am I going to provide detailed essays on my thoughts, so don’t expect too much depth.

Restrictive is a relative term, all states are restrictive to some degree. The west does not trust China because China is not like them and does not want to be like the west in all things, not because anyone seriously think China is a threat to world peace.

Again with the generalisation. Taiwan probably views China as a threat to their peace and a daresay Tibet might have something to say.

It is America’s making because the US put its 7th fleet in the strait to stop the Chinese taking Taiwan just like they did with Hainan. The US did not have to get involved in the Chinese civil war, but it did so, and created the awkward situation that China is faced with today.

Yes, it was most inconsiderate of America to protect an ally wasn’t it? No US did not HAVE to get involved in that war, nor did the Soviets, nor did the Chinese HAVE to have the war, but they did.

And how many country’s constitution did the US write? How many countries did the US occupy for decades? The US not only shaped how Japan would develop after WWII, but also stayed around to make sure things went the way they wanted. The same with Germany, and that was the whole point – to completely change the culture of the two defeated Axis powers that they would never again raise arms against the west. Its so far beyond mere fashion fads and commercialism that to even suggest it smacks of denial and spin.

I’m disputing the degreee, not the fact.

[quote]Again, a matter of perspective. All states restrict individual liberties to maintain social order. Who’s to say where the line must lie?

No, it is in response to your, ‘we can cut off all trade links with China if we want’.

So what particularly untrustworthy things have China done in recent years to warrant such distrust from the west? Has China done anything in recent decades to suggest that it has its eye on world conquest? Because thats what trust really boils down to in the international level – peace.

Who said anything about world conquest? As for distrust – ever present threat to Taiwan; Tianamen?

At the end of the day, its the same old party in control, and with the latter in place, it will take a few more years of the openess before remaining distrust is removed. I think it will go, but not for a while yet.

No, we were talking about threatening western dominance, not merely challenge it. Every tribe or army that stood against a western army is challenging the dominance of the west, to threaten western dominance, you have to have a credible ability to break it.

Had Japan been in Germany’s place, then it would have seriously threatened western dominance of the world. But all it did was take a few far off colonies from western powers who had more immediate concerns closer to home. It was never in a position to threaten the home soil of western powers, so it had little chance of forcing the west to yield.

It had every chance to force the west yield, but it ensured US involvement. How long would the Allies have continued fighting in theatres without US intervention?

He has had plenty of time and opportunity to example himself if I have wronged him. So stop dreaming up excuses and start facing the facts.

Perhaps if you weren’t so *ahem* abrasive in your approach he may have felt the urge to explain or apologise, but you are hardly likely to bring out the best in anyone.

Only when someone says something immensely silly.

translation=”anything I don’t agree with”

Originally Posted by Vortex
Gosh, this is awfully entertaining….where’s that popcorn emotioncon? Keep it up folks. he gets paid by the alphabet…

Who gets paid by who? And awh look! Someone just discovered the smilies function. Are we having fun making all the little cutesy faces? There there.

you’ve spouted so many emoticons they’ve started to breed 😮 At least they have learnt new skills compared to their parents.

To the popcorn crew – sadly the urge to continue is draining out of me, so you’ll left with the one-man show that is plawolf.

Oil and geopolitical needs, or did you think they were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts?

Yes. But note the selection of countries was in response to how the evil West picks on Muslim and gives “Christian” countries an easier time.

And how many years have the Japanese been slaughtering Chinese, Koreans and every other Asian people they invaded before the US decided to get involved in the war? And even then it was because the Japanese forced war upon them. The suffering of innocents might have influenced American decisions to some degree, but obviously it wasn’t enough.

Maybe it escaped your notice, but the US spent a large amount of time trying to avoid getting into ANY war, Europe as well as Japan. Nor did the Japanese share your rosy view that the US had to be forced into the war.

Again, oil and geopolitics. Pakistan is a good example example of where the west is supporting a government because that government is about as pro-western as they are likely to get. The same as what the case with the Shah and Saddam, at least to start with.

What do you want? First they are giving countries a difficult time because of religon, then it doesn’t matter because its “Oil and Geopolitics”.

What the hell are you on about? You think all muslims are jew-haters or something? :rolleyes:

Please read the sentance and note the words “if” followed by “you”. The point was a reference to Iran, in case you couldn’t work it out. Remember, country in dispute with West, wants to wipe out Israel, ignores attempted extermiantion, etc.????

There are plenty of examples of countries being discriminated against because of their religion, take Turkey as an example, with all the trouble they have had trying to join th EU.

With Turkey you have a point, but then as Turkey doesn’t seem overly sure where its going at the moment, why would Europe want to let them in? I would also suggest there are other (non-western imperialism?) factors as well.

I don’t know, you are the one who made it sound like it was the US and the west that dragged China kicking and screaming to where it is now.

No, you chose to construe it that way. The West and US, nor for that matter Hong Kong or Taiwan didn’t force China to open it, it was a decision from themselves. The West have exploited it, as the Chinese have exploited Western markets.

Why should I? You were the one saying that the west could go back to having zero trade with China as if the west don’t need Chinese goods.

Again, you are choosing to misinterpret my words. I pointed out that such action woudl hurt both parties I DID NOT say that this is what we should do.

Who don’t you come back when you have moved on from the cold war? :rolleyes:

China is communist in name only. Its more capitalist then the majority of western ‘capitalist’ countries. And given the number of countries the US has invaded or gone to war with in its history, if they don’t trade with anyone who they have fought with, then they can’t trade with many countries at all.

Also, its not just the military stuff, a lot of the items on the ban list are for civilian uses.

You mean like China has moved on from WW2? All I’ve done it is tried to provide some interpretation on why things are the way they are and you choose to take it a personal effront to China/you/whoever, repsumably because it doesn’t fit your world view. China is still a restrictive state despite the reforms it has made and that will make a lot of people of nervous, Western or otherwise, especially when it is tied to the potential to be the next Superpower. Trust happens with time, not overnight….

Who here actually think China would want to pick a fight with the US? The only issue of contention between the two that might lead to war in the foreseeable future is Taiwan, and that is entirely of America’s making.

How is that of entirely of America’s making? The US is actually standing by the “side” it supported in a war from 60 years ago? This is of (both) China’s making and it will only come to war if China chooses to press its claims.

Thats fair enough, but you are mistaken if you think Japan was somehow spared western colonization. It was American gunboat diplomacy that prompted Japanese Industrialization and Imperialism as a means to emulate the west’s success. And post-WWII American occupation and the US drafted constitution all helped to make it into a western nation in appearance, institution and mindset.

Now we’re into what you mean by colonisation! Yes, there is plenty of western influence, but that influence, particularly commercial can be seen all over the world. Eating french fries and big macs does not make you US colony.

China is communist in name only.

Okay, its a single-party state repressive regime.

Its more capitalist then the majority of western ‘capitalist’ countries.

If you say so, in what ways?

And given the number of countries the US has invaded or gone to war with in its history, if they don’t trade with anyone who they have fought with, then they can’t trade with many countries at all.

This must go in with the “not buying Chinese” statment I apparantly made!

The issue is not previous fights, but trust.

The 1904-05 war was about Manchuria and north eastern Chinese port city of Dalian, not Mongolia. So you will have to ask Matt what he meant with that odd sentence, because I took it as him listing the Japanese and Mongolians as two examples, which I then dismissed because the Mongol Empire was in the 1200-1400s, which falls outside of the 400 years limit.

Your actual words were to say that was IN the 400 year criteria:

Even if you mean the 1400s, that was still comfortably within the ‘400 years’ criteria.