I'm not saying they all hate the coalition, I'm saying that they don't want them there. They want the help but not the troops, that is fact, they will tolerate it but obviously don't want them there indefinatley. They want them out as soon as possible. You seriously think that the Iraqis, even those in favour of the war, want to have there country run by the US? Obviously not, they want the country to be run by Iraqis, defended by Iraq and owned by Iraqis. That does not mean though that they are not greatfull for the help or that Iraq isn't better now than it was. It just means that Iraqis don't want to be run by a foriegn power. Similar with nations of the Empire, they didn't want to be ruled over but the benifits were definatley there. Really, whether Iraqis want the US out or not is irrelevant. My point is that the benifits that the British Empire brought are not dissolved by the fact that people didn't like being ruled over.

Russia

how. do you mean in numbers or capabilities

"I'm not saying they all hate the coalition, I'm saying that they don't want them there." This I could, tentatively, agree with. I think there's a strong, underlying dynamic in the major regional cultures which reacts badly to influences it perceives/interprets as "foreign". I like to use the image of a series of circles, some concentric and some overlapping, to represent the perceptions of "family" or "us". The rule of thumb is that the closer into the center another is seen to be, the greater call on the person or parties at issue he has. So, for instance, members of the particular tribe always have a door to the loyalties of members of the same tribe. Ditto, families. And, notably, muslims are always closer than nonmuslims, so that ANY alliance between nonmuslims and muslims of the ME always has a fracture line based on this. IOW, the alliance can always be challenged by enemies as an illegitimate association with nonmuslims against brother muslims, which goes some way to explain the dynamics of the last 100 years in the ME. FWIW, I never knew another region where I felt the politics and cultural politics were more complicated than the ME. Next to it, the Cold War was simple.

On second look, the Navy of the UK, in terms of personnel appears to be rather small. ------------------------------------- http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_nav_per

I think Japanese naval strength has been over looked on this thread. --------------------------- "The point is that Japan's growth as the second or third most powerful military force has changed the geopolitical landscape. Not a full "blue water" force with battle groups prowling the Seven Seas. And Japan has the world's second-largest navy, considered on a par with the US 7th Fleet, which is deployed in the Asia-Pacific. Japan's ground forces, which are being cut back (to 145,000 troops plus 15,000 reservists), are 30 percent larger than Britain's army." ----------------------------- http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FB07Dh09. ----------------------------- Does anyone have any information on the Japanese Submarine Fleet?

All conventional... And no carriers, SVTOVL or not.

I think it must be the Royal Navy. Yes the Russian Navy has a massive submarine force, many ships and sailors, hell they even have cruisers, something the RN does not! But what about the quality of the personnel, that is undoubtedly a major factor. In fact I remember reading not long ago something published by the British defence community on maritime doctrine, stating that quality and training of personnel is MORE important than any other one factor and is the factor that is MOST contributive to achieving seapower. Like another thread I read here about the Russian submarine service, may have been about Typhoons, oscars or akulas, but it said, "yes they are still in service. And one day maybe they'll put to sea. One day. Maybe." No good having all these vessels without the humans to float in and fight in the damn things. Trained manpower = seapower, incompetently crewed ships = nothing better than targets But if the MoD really did want to keep Britain a most capable seapower in aspects of both personnel and vessels, the solution is simple. Judt get rid of Geoff Hoon and reverse any change this psychotic ever instituted!

Geoff Hoon isn't the bad guy, Iano. He's a politician, and not a very powerful one at that. He's maybe not the best ever at defending the armed forces against the treasury (the villain of the piece, if you like) but neither is he the worst. The offical MOD line is that they would be more worried of any successor, should Hoon protest too much and be sacked by the government in order to place someone even more of a yes-man into the job..

Yes Horrible I see what you mean... after all, better the devil you know, than the angel [seemingly] you don't. And even if the Tories got in next election, I am sceptical they would reverse the recent cuts like they said... After all its natural for the Opposition to oppose the gov't of the day, but if they got in it would still all come down to money..