Woot! America's Navy #1 !

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I hardly see how providing easily verifiable technical facts translates to boasting.

I am submitting this post from compartment "1-254-0-Q" of an Arleigh Burke Guided Missile Destroyer.

Now I may be a little rusty. You are Deck 1, one level below Main Deck. Frame 254. How many frames on a DDG, plus are they 24" or 32" Frames?
0= centerline? Q?

My old ship was Deck, Frame, Forward, Eng, Aft., Port and Stbd., and number compartment.

Now the Ships that I help build had Blukhead 26, 56, 67, and 89.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Dis
are we going the path of the big militant empires?

Not so far. We can still supply our own army.

Empires such as rome and byzantine had populations that either didn't want to serve in the military or had insufficient population to do so.

Though you could make an argument for the high numbers of mexicans in our armed forces. But the majority are still white trash kids looking for some action. You can't get any more american than that.

When we have to look elsewhere to maintain our army, that's when we are in trouble.

One thing that is going on has been described as an "economic draft." The enlistment rates for kids in impoverished areas is pretty high. No jobs, the Army and Marines offer an alternative. The rust belt cities of the midwest come to mind.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I also totally see how your countless days of playing BF2 instead of doing your homework makes you less ignorant than me on these things. I mean, it’s not like I have actually fired a Harpoon and SM-2 myself or anything.

OK. That deserves a chuckle.

[Ted Striker]

You're the finest squad, I've ever set eyes on!

[Mr. Harley]

Patroklos - I know you are there, and you are repeating the standard US Military line. That is what worries me.

I repeat, what got us in trouble in Iraq was exactly the training that makes our military so good, and yet so inept for example at occupation. When you drum into people "we are the best in the world" and that becomes essentially part of the psyche of that culture, you have entered a very dangerous area.

You could easily find similar statements if you look at the Royal Navy prior to WW2. That did not give the survivors of the sailors on the Hood much solace. Similarly, in the Solomons you could have found US Captains confident about their technology - until the first Long Lance torpedo hit.

I do appreciate the context of what you stated about the Falklands. I see why your conclusions as to the lessons of that conflict are different than mine. In fact I agree with you - the best US defense against anti-shipping missiles is our Aircraft Carriers. However, in both the cases of China and Iran - will the rules of engagment permit us to destroy their launch platforms prior to open conflict?

If not, your scenario reference our carriers falls apart, and mine start kicking in with a vengeance. A first strike saturation attack could very well do extensive damage to several US ships, very likely sinking some of them. Those losses could become substantial. Would they affect the ability of our Naval Combat Groups to pursue their mission? Probably not. Do I thinks we should casually talk about our Military Dominance, and go to war unless, to borrow a phrase, they pose "Clean and Present Danger?" No, and herein lies the rub.

We gave the best Military in the world, when it comes to convential military conflict. However, and the ultimate version of that attitude "Bring them on" has led to almost 2000 dead, and several thousand maimed American soldiers. The other side chose to fight by a different set of rules.

Occupation is part and parcel of the entire package of defeating the enemy. Somewhere between WW2 and Vietnam we lost sight of that. You could argue we never really had that as a priority, and that we just got lucky with MacArthur in Japan. However, at this point we have totally lost that knack.

I am NOT trying to work Iraq into every post. My point is the dominance of our Navy, and Military as a whole, in toe-to-toe combat, makes intervention in foreign countries extremely tempting to politicians. After all, we can't lose that many men, look at Operation Desert Storm.

Which also dovetails nicely into one other statement you made, where you misread my point. The constant variables, and the lack of certainty, should not prevent you from deploying a weapons system. However, those factors are what should prevent you from engaging in war casually, unless you really don't care above the average grunt serving in the military, because none of your people are serving.

That is the other issue I have with this administration, and why I so badly wanted John McCain to still be in the Republican presidential primary in my state back in 2000 (he had already been forced out). Chickenhawks, of which both our President and VP are proud members of, are much more likely to engage in wars that kill someone else's spouse or child (I find Cheney paticularly galling - "I had better things to do."

That, and the lack of funding for the VA show me their true colors - for the soldiers until they come back home in a box, or with limb(s) missing. Then that's too expensive, like the new decision to cut 30% of PTSD diagnosis off from treatment - they aren't really PTSD. Or the rules that force kids whose parents die in Iraq out of their school before the end of the school year - they get to lose a parent and change schools the same year, lucky stiffs. F*ck those bastards who do that to vets and their families. (note - I am also the one of the people who states my taxes are too low, with properly maintaining our military - both hardware AND PEOPLE - part of my rationale.)

[notyoueither]

Oh my! 2000 dead! It's a disaster unknown to this point in time! Withdraw!

Seriously, comparing the Iraq occupation to naval warfare has just about got to take the cake...

[Ted Striker]

Shawn for President !

[notyoueither]

Ted for ass kisser!

[Ted Striker]

notyoueither for Dumbass !

Thanks

[notyoueither]

Leave my ass alone, Ted.

[Ted Striker]

You're the one that brought the whole ass thing up.

I'd say from your response I struck a nerve.

Not making any HEADway with the ladies?

Thanks

[notyoueither]

Wind him up, and away he goes...

[Ted Striker]

Yep, you have a way of running away from actual arguments.



Thanks

[notyoueither]

I am at a loss to see you making an argument in this thread, much less any other.

But whatever lights your pipe.

[Ted Striker]

I have successfully argued that you are no good with the ladies so are considering men and now I'm you're number one candidate.

Considering how much you have followed me around in these threads over the past year, I should be flattered, but, I find it kinda creepy.

Thanks