| Author | Post |
|---|
cygonaut
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | New York USA |
| Posts: | 34644 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:09 pm |
|
The USS New York sails into New York harbour Photo: AP
|
oleman
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4806 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:10 pm |
|
McRocket wrote: commonsensical wrote: Well said.
Just ignore the usual idiots who reply with their pacifist fantasies. I don't know who said it but it was once said that...."If you want peace right now you can have it...Surrender!"
Peace through strength. You don't have to actually beat the living crap out of people. Just knowing that you can and will is enough to stop them from starting something.
So you are saying that the only way America can protect it's sovereignty is to spend more then the rest of the world on weapons combined?
And that if one penny less is spent that America is doomed to being conquered?
And exactly who could conquer America right now? Even if 2/3 of the present military expenditure was spent - what 3 countries combined could conquer America?
Being the worlds only super power has a cost. I hope the majority of my taxes go to the military.
|
ATTAburnsinHELL
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:17 pm |
|
oleman wrote: McRocket wrote: commonsensical wrote: Well said.
Just ignore the usual idiots who reply with their pacifist fantasies. I don't know who said it but it was once said that...."If you want peace right now you can have it...Surrender!"
Peace through strength. You don't have to actually beat the living crap out of people. Just knowing that you can and will is enough to stop them from starting something.
So you are saying that the only way America can protect it's sovereignty is to spend more then the rest of the world on weapons combined?
And that if one penny less is spent that America is doomed to being conquered?
And exactly who could conquer America right now? Even if 2/3 of the present military expenditure was spent - what 3 countries combined could conquer America?
Being the worlds only super power has a cost. I hope the majority of my taxes go to the military.
I hope we cut the military budget in half
they got enough toys
|
McRocket
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2949 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:18 pm |
|
oleman wrote: McRocket wrote: commonsensical wrote: Well said.
Just ignore the usual idiots who reply with their pacifist fantasies. I don't know who said it but it was once said that...."If you want peace right now you can have it...Surrender!"
Peace through strength. You don't have to actually beat the living crap out of people. Just knowing that you can and will is enough to stop them from starting something.
So you are saying that the only way America can protect it's sovereignty is to spend more then the rest of the world on weapons combined?
And that if one penny less is spent that America is doomed to being conquered?
And exactly who could conquer America right now? Even if 2/3 of the present military expenditure was spent - what 3 countries combined could conquer America?
Being the worlds only super power has a cost. I hope the majority of my taxes go to the military.
You do realize that the kind of spending level you want is what bankrupted the Soviet Union.
If you are prepared to give up Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security - you could have your wish.
What's a few dozen million dieing poor people and starving, homeless seniors (many of whom are veterens) in comparison with being able to wear t-shirts that read - 'America is the only world superpower'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
|
George Aligator
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:23 pm |
|
President Eisenhower coined the term "military-industrial complex" to describe the system America developed to fight WWII. That system rapidly turned into the military-industrial-political complex and has driven both the federal budget and America's foreign policy ever since.
Ike was no hippie and his primary concern was not the dollar spending but the reality that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Our huge military --- we spend more than the next 20 or so nations combined -- causes us to look for a military solution to problems that are fundamentally economic, political or cultural. Do I need to point out some contemporary examples?
The military-industrial complex distorts our entire economy. We made a car that drove around on the moon, but we can't make a car many people want to drive around town. With the end of the bi-polar Cold War, the distortions of our military burden are become increasingly destructive and increasingly severe.
There is probably a link between America's passion for private gun ownership and America's infatuation with military power, between our sky-high murder rate and our involvement in endless, mindless, winless wars. The political dividing lines of these issues trace remarkably similar demographic contours.
|
Oldsalt
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:28 pm |
|
ATTAburnsinHELL wrote: Oldsalt wrote: ATTAburnsinHELL wrote: Oldsalt wrote: ATTAburnsinHELL wrote: Any ship longer than 20ft can be sunk in two minutes by an iranian in a speedboat carrying cheap ship-to-ship missles that can fire them from under the horizon
New technology makes our entire fleet obsolete dinosaurs
When we sent our ships into the gulf off the coast of iran, the admirals freaked when Iranian speedboats popped up out of nowhere and taunted the slow moving fat targets
The new missles are shoulder fired, skim the top of the waves until the last minute when they pop up skyward and come straight down on a ship- absolutely defenseless. One is enough to blow a hole right through the ship. Five and the ship would disappear from sight
Obsolete and useless
Wrong again Oh Four Letter phony! YOU are Obsolete and Useless!
And only YOU would FREAK if you knew anything about what you claim to know above. Which isn't much since you are so FAR behind reality.
Sorry to bust your seagoing bubble Salty but your beloved blue Water fleet is as useless as a mounted calvary charge
The Chinese military has developed a ballistic missile, Dong Feng 21, specifically designed to kill US aircraft carriers: “Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.” That’s the US Naval Institute talking, remember. They’re understating the case when they say that, with speed, satellite guidance and maneuverability like that, “the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased.” You know why that’s an understatement? Because of a short little sentence I found farther on in the article—and before you read that sentence, I want all you trusting Pentagon groupies to promise me that you’ll think hard about what it implies. Here’s the sentence: “Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.” That’s right: no defense at all. The truth is that they have very feeble defenses against any attack with anything more modern than cannon. I’ve argued before no carrier group would survive a saturation attack by huge numbers of low-value attackers, whether they’re Persians in Cessnas and cigar boats or mass-produced Chinese cruise missiles. But at least you could look at the missile tubes and Phalanx gatlings and pretend that you were safe. But there is no defense, none at all, against something as obvious as a ballistic missile.
read the whole article
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
No bubbles to burst here. Once again...even with your crummy link above. You bring to us more proof that You really DO NOT KNOW, what you DON'T KNOW!
Nothing further that I feel needs to be said on this topic. Go right ahead and believe whatever sources you seem to place so much faith in. I stand by the actual information I have from neighbors, and even relatives who are still wearing the uniform. Try again.
OK loudmouth, instead of pumping bilge here, how about you for once backing up what you claim and how I am wrong, because if you don't you'll be exposed as a LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No need to back up anything for you. From many of my previous posts here. You have always declared, and accused me of being a Liar. Nothing new there, no matter what I tell you on this topic will never be enough to make you happy. Finally. Your source IS NOT a reputable one by anyone's stretch of any imagination...unless, as is your case...it says everything you WANT to hear, and read to substantiate your claims.
If you think everything I've said is bilge here. So be it. That still will not make everything you insist I should agree with anymore true...merely because you use name calling to impress others like you, who are equally as Uninformed, and Misinformed based on your source which...is obviously, and admittedly partisan.
If you don't like what I've said. There is nothing I can do to change it. So. I stand by my previous words that...YOU don't know, What you don't know, but claim to be the sole authority on here. Stay that way. Believe whatever you like. I have no need to bring any falsehoods, or fabrications into this thread knowing how...as you always do. You will continue to call me a Liar.
|
Mazel Schlimazel
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:29 pm |
|
ATTAburnsinHELL wrote: oleman wrote: McRocket wrote: commonsensical wrote: Well said.
Just ignore the usual idiots who reply with their pacifist fantasies. I don't know who said it but it was once said that...."If you want peace right now you can have it...Surrender!"
Peace through strength. You don't have to actually beat the living crap out of people. Just knowing that you can and will is enough to stop them from starting something.
So you are saying that the only way America can protect it's sovereignty is to spend more then the rest of the world on weapons combined?
And that if one penny less is spent that America is doomed to being conquered?
And exactly who could conquer America right now? Even if 2/3 of the present military expenditure was spent - what 3 countries combined could conquer America?
Being the worlds only super power has a cost. I hope the majority of my taxes go to the military.
I hope we cut the military budget in half
they got enough toys
The military budget should only be large enough to protect America's immediate interests and for self-defense (and as ga said, not to entangle ourselves in more wars than we can handle). So I agree that the budget is very overbloated as it now stands. At the same time, there should be enough in the budget left over to make sure that war veterans receive the proper care that they deserve...
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:31 pm by Mazel Schlimazel
|
noetsi
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10164 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:35 pm |
|
| A minor detail here. The US New York is not a battleship (the last American battleships, the New Jersey class were built in the Second World War). Its a amphibious transport dock ships. It moves supplies around the world for the military, its not a ship that normally would see combat.
|
McRocket
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2949 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:38 pm |
|
ATTAburnsinHELL wrote: I hope we cut the military budget in half
they got enough toys
It's nice we can agree on something.
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:38 pm by McRocket
|
Mazel Schlimazel
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:45 pm |
|
noetsi wrote: A minor detail here. The US New York is not a battleship (the last American battleships, the New Jersey class were built in the Second World War). Its a amphibious transport dock ships. It moves supplies around the world for the military, its not a ship that normally would see combat.
Thanks for the clarification, noetsi...
|
noetsi
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10164 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:54 pm |
|
| No problem. I am surprised they could use steel from a building in a naval warship which has very high component requirements. Particularly steel that was obviously burnt.
|
Oldsalt
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 10:01 pm |
|
noetsi wrote: No problem. I am surprised they could use steel from a building in a naval warship which has very high component requirements. Particularly steel that was obviously burnt.
Surprised? You surprised? Steel that was burnt??? NOETSI. Have you ever heard of a process called Welding, or Cutting of steel????
Do you know what is involved in cutting, or welding steel?
HEAT....as in FIRE.....burnt, melted, molded, rolled, flattened....WITH HEAT....FIRE!
Naval ships....ALL SHIPS have high requirements...which just happens to allow them to FLOAT, and not break apart...called BURNING, CUTTING, AND WELDING.
And you are SURPRISED? That coming from someone who claims to be such a wonder at almost everything found in books, or DATA files????? Wow!
|
robertr2000
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 11:54 pm |
|
cygonaut wrote:
The USS New York sails into New York harbour Photo: AP
Cool.
Our first war ship that can be collapsed by fire. ![[usa]](/forums/themes/default/usa.gif) ![[yellowribbon]](/forums/themes/default/yellowribbon.gif)
|
robertr2000
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 11:58 pm |
|
McRocket wrote: ATTAburnsinHELL wrote: I hope we cut the military budget in half
they got enough toys
It's nice we can agree on something.
You'd think that they could get by on half of that $2.979 Trillion (that we know about).
Cut out $1.490 Trillion. We'd be running a surplus!!! ![[cheers]](/forums/themes/default/cheers2.gif) ![[elephant]](/forums/themes/default/elephant.gif) ![[peace-victory]](/forums/themes/default/doublepeace.gif)
|
wilmywood8455
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:12 am |
|
commonsensical wrote: AlterEgo wrote: ![[fallingdown]](/forums/themes/default/laughing.gif)
Lets review. Because of the impotence, and incompetence of the Clinton administration, 3000 people died on Sep. 11, 2001, less than 8 months after George Bush took office. Since then, no American has died on American soil because of a terrorist act.
Why? Ships like this are now being employed to do what they were designed to do, protect American soil.
The purpose of our military, be it Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force or specfor is not as you say to: "prop up the tottering American empire". It is to protect this country from outside threats. This ship is no more than a piece of equipment that is used by the people who actually protect this country. And those people deserve the best equipment we can supply them with to accomplish that job.
Apparently, you'd like to see our volunteer military using second hand equipment with Korean war technology. Why don't you try to justify that to any current military parent.
And if the American culture is tottering it's because of dog piles like you who vote for ass hats like Obama, Harry Greed, Nancy Pilousy, etc. who's only purpose in life is to destroy this unique country.
We're not suckers George, you're an idiot.
Well said.
Just ignore the usual idiots who reply with their pacifist fantasies. I don't know who said it but it was once said that...."If you want peace right now you can have it...Surrender!"
Peace through strength. You don't have to actually beat the living crap out of people. Just knowing that you can and will is enough to stop them from starting something.
Giving yourself a reacharound here?
|
AlterEgo
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 166 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:55 am |
|
McRocket wrote: AlterEgo wrote: How many times have the Euros been attacked since 9/11? Remember the attacks in Spain? How about the riots by the arabs in Paris?
You also ignore the fact that since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. has been the defacto defender of Europe. Hell, they couldn't even take on the Bosnia/Serbia issue. Defender against who?
I know you don't consider a China interested in taking Taiwan a threat, or a nuclear armed NoKo and Iran a threat, or a resurgent Communist Russia under Vlad Putin a threat. Need I go on McRocket?
Please do. And no, I do not consider 'NoKo' or Iran a threat to America's sovereignty. At all.
Thank God for the U.S.S. New York! And God Bless all those who protect your right to be an ass hat.
Yes, where would we be without her 2 X 30mm Bushmaster II self defence guns, her RAM lightweight missile launchers and two .50 cal's?
After all, what's another 1/2 a billion dollars for a ship with probably less firepower then a single M1 tank?
Have a safe night.
I know you don't consider the NoKo's or Iran a threat. People like you never consider our enemies a threat.
Would a nuclear tipped ICBM fired from N. Korea that impacts on Pearl Harbor, L.A. Seattle, or San Diego be a threat?
What would you think if a nuclear armed Iran fired an ICBM at say London, or Berlin, or Jerusalem? Or at one of our military bases in Iraq? Would Iran be a threat then?
I don't know where you live, but what if some terrorist set off a suit case nuc in your city or state? And it killed a couple hundred thousand people. A suit case nuc supplied by Iran. Would you feel threatened by Iran then?
It's not where we would be without her(the New York's) Bushmasters, or her RAM missile launchers, it's where would the personnel on that ship be with out those weapons should they come under attack.
And the personnel on that ship represent the long arm of defense of the U.S.. It's much better to take the war to the enemy, than to let the enemy bring it to us, as they did on 9-11. Because if we wait for them to attack us, American civilians will die on American soil. Is that what you really want? 3,000 civilians killed on 9-11 wasn't enough for you?
|
robertr2000
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:55 am |
|
AlterEgo wrote: I know you don't consider the NoKo's or Iran a threat. People like you never consider our enemies a threat.
Would a nuclear tipped ICBM fired from N. Korea that impacts on Pearl Harbor, L.A. Seattle, or San Diego be a threat?
What would you think if a nuclear armed Iran fired an ICBM at say London, or Berlin, or Jerusalem? Or at one of our military bases in Iraq? Would Iran be a threat then?
I don't know where you live, but what if some terrorist set off a suit case nuc in your city or state? And it killed a couple hundred thousand people. A suit case nuc supplied by Iran. Would you feel threatened by Iran then?
It's not where we would be without her(the New York's) Bushmasters, or her RAM missile launchers, it's where would the personnel on that ship be with out those weapons should they come under attack.
And the personnel on that ship represent the long arm of defense of the U.S.. It's much better to take the war to the enemy, than to let the enemy bring it to us, as they did on 9-11. Because if we wait for them to attack us, American civilians will die on American soil. Is that what you really want? 3,000 civilians killed on 9-11 wasn't enough for you?
Oh ![[eyeroll]](/forums/themes/default/sarcasm.gif) , You're one of those people.
I give you AlterEgo
|
McRocket
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2949 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:57 am |
|
AlterEgo wrote: Would a nuclear tipped ICBM fired from N. Korea that impacts on Pearl Harbor, L.A. Seattle, or San Diego be a threat?
What would you think if a nuclear armed Iran fired an ICBM at say London, or Berlin, or Jerusalem? Or at one of our military bases in Iraq? Would Iran be a threat then?
I don't know where you live, but what if some terrorist set off a suit case nuc in your city or state? And it killed a couple hundred thousand people. A suit case nuc supplied by Iran. Would you feel threatened by Iran then?
Why would Lil Kim launch a nuke at the U.S. knowing that such a launch would mean his countries total destruction within minutes?
The same with Iran.
It's called MAD - and it worked exceedingly well for decades during the Cold War.
There is NO CHANCE they would ever do as you suggest.
And to spend trillions of dollars just in case the impossible is possible is ridiculously wasteful.
Especially when there are tens of millions of soon-to-be-seniors (many who are vets) who are depending on Social Security. But will find when they desperately need it that the cupboard is bare because people like you thought their money was better spent runnning around the world pissing everyone off just so you can sleep a tiny bit better.
You cannot have it all.
$1.4-1.8 trillion dollar deficits cannot be sustained. Something has to give.
And I choose to house and feed Americans that need it and balance the budget so your grandchildren have a strong country rather then spend it on weapons that are totally unnecessary.
And before you call me a 'peace loving hippy' - I served my country.
But yes, I do love peace.
There is NOTHING good about war.
NOTHING.
Have a thoughtful day.
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:57 am by McRocket
|
SamHouston
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 04:16 am |
|
I SEE YOU LIKE MY NEW ALIEN SHIP ![[allamerican]](/forums/themes/default/allamerican.gif) Sammy
like the motto!!!!! * NEVER ~ FORGET*
|
oleman
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4806 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:30 pm |
|
McRocket wrote: oleman wrote: McRocket wrote: commonsensical wrote: Well said.
Just ignore the usual idiots who reply with their pacifist fantasies. I don't know who said it but it was once said that...."If you want peace right now you can have it...Surrender!"
Peace through strength. You don't have to actually beat the living crap out of people. Just knowing that you can and will is enough to stop them from starting something.
So you are saying that the only way America can protect it's sovereignty is to spend more then the rest of the world on weapons combined?
And that if one penny less is spent that America is doomed to being conquered?
And exactly who could conquer America right now? Even if 2/3 of the present military expenditure was spent - what 3 countries combined could conquer America?
Being the worlds only super power has a cost. I hope the majority of my taxes go to the military.
You do realize that the kind of spending level you want is what bankrupted the Soviet Union.
If you are prepared to give up Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security - you could have your wish.
What's a few dozen million dieing poor people and starving, homeless seniors (many of whom are veterens) in comparison with being able to wear t-shirts that read - 'America is the only world superpower'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
USSR was broke by socializm. Freedom is kept via strength not weakness.
|
Current time is 04:38 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
