Navy a global force for good ads [Archive] - Debate Policy

revelarts

06-06-2012, 02:27 PM

jimnyc

06-06-2012, 02:33 PM

I think it meant it did good things, defended good things. And "most powerful force" on Earth, was a bit of bragging I suppose, the strength of the Navy and/or America's military. Nothing wrong with them being proud to "answer the calling" and enlisting, proud of what they do and accomplish and proud of the amount of force they are as a whole.

Gaffer

06-06-2012, 02:45 PM

Why do you hate the military so much rev?

The navy brings in supplies to areas that have suffered disasters, they protect shipping lanes. They provide rescue operations. What's wrong with that?

They also need bases to operate from. And since other countries can't always do the resupplying and outfitting it makes sense to have our own bases there. Those bases also support other countries navies. You might want to check youtube for information about logistics and how it works.

ConHog

06-06-2012, 02:49 PM

revelarts

06-06-2012, 02:55 PM

Why do you hate the military so much rev?

The navy brings in supplies to areas that have suffered disasters, they protect shipping lanes. They provide rescue operations. What's wrong with that?

They also need bases to operate from. And since other countries can't always do the resupplying and outfitting it makes sense to have our own bases there. Those bases also support other countries navies. You might want to check youtube for information about logistics and how it works.

I don't hate the military I just think they don't need to deployed all over the world.
we can't afford to take care of our own why are we spending billions in foreign countires
and keeping up bases after the cold war is over.
I think it's stupid, and wastefully.
I know you think we''l die if we don't have them but as I've metioned before. Russia doesn't do it anymore , China doesn't, and no one is kicking their doors in.
It makes no sense. we don't need to be a GLOBAL force for good or bad.
Navy should be in gulf and off our coast and in the great lakes. with a few ships/subs cruising the world "a Continental force for America".
and that doesn't equal isolationism. again Switzerland and Germany and don't have a navy and army bases scattered and funded GLOBALLY for good. They aren't isolationist. GLOBAL FORCE ,It's BS. and COST BILLIONS we don't have.

scaling back the military is not a sin. And not hatred.

ConHog

06-06-2012, 03:01 PM

I don't hate the military I just think they don't need to deployed all over the world.
we can't afford to take care of our own why are we spending billions in foreign countires
and keeping up bases after the cold war is over.
I think it's stupid, and wastefully.
I know you think we''l die if we don't have them but as I've emtioned before. russia doesn't China doesn't no one knocking there doors in.
it makes no sense. we don't need to be a GLOBAL force for good or bad.
Navy should be in gulf and off our coast and in the great lakes. with a few ships/subs cruising the world "a Continental force for America".
and that doesn't equal isolationism. again Switzerland and Germany don't have a navy and army bases scattered and funded GLOBAL for good. It's BS. and COST BILLIONS we don't have.

scaling back the military is not a sin. And not hatred.

I think you hate anyone who works for the government period. From the dog catcher to the POTUS. That's besides the point.

You can't compare us to China, or Japan, or whatever, and oh here's another hint. There has ALWAYS been a world super power, and there always will be, if we relinquish that title, someone else will step into the void.

You want a microcosm of proof of that. Think back to the Cold War, the Soviet Union was only too happy to step into ANY void we left (think Cuba primarily)

Do you know WHY those other countries don't have fleets sailing around the world taking over places? Because the USN stands ready if they try. Do you REALLY believe that Iran wouldn't be fucking up the Strait over there if a USN aircraft carrier wasn't ready and able to whip their ass if they tried?

Do you think N Korea would let old grudges slide if we weren't over there staring across the 35th parallel?

Now , if you want to argue that some of these other countries should be helping fund US troops stationed in their region of the world, hell we'd agree there.

revelarts

06-06-2012, 03:05 PM

Actually bro the COTUS doesn't shit about defending the country from invaders. It instead charges the federal government with providing for the common defense of the country as a whole. Now surely we can agree that making sure the world has a stable oil supply, for example, falls under that umbrella?

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

nothing there about a global force for good that's for sure

Oil,
We've got plenty of oil in Alaska, what do care out the M.E..
And how about we let "market forces" handle that it anyway and not the Military.
Or isn't the market good for stuff like that?

Gaffer

06-06-2012, 03:11 PM

I don't hate the military I just think they don't need to deployed all over the world.
we can't afford to take care of our own why are we spending billions in foreign countires
and keeping up bases after the cold war is over.
I think it's stupid, and wastefully.
I know you think we''l die if we don't have them but as I've metioned before. Russia doesn't do it anymore , China doesn't, and no one is kicking their doors in.
It makes no sense. we don't need to be a GLOBAL force for good or bad.
Navy should be in gulf and off our coast and in the great lakes. with a few ships/subs cruising the world "a Continental force for America".
and that doesn't equal isolationism. again Switzerland and Germany don't have a navy and army bases scattered and funded GLOBAL for good. It's BS. and COST BILLIONS we don't have.

scaling back the military is not a sin. And not hatred.

As I said you don't understand logistics. And just because something isn't needed now doesn't mean it won't be needed later. Russia has bases all over the world. Don't let the lack of their being reported fool you. China is just now creating a navy that will be very prominent in the future. Shipping lanes involve much more than just oil.

I'm sure many of our naval veterans can give you lessons on the duties and necessity of the navy and the bases overseas.

I'm a big believer in taking any war action to our enemy first and on his territory. Our Navy allows us to do just that. The firstist with the mostist is going to prevail.

revelarts

06-06-2012, 03:15 PM

I think you hate anyone who works for the government period. From the dog catcher to the POTUS. That's besides the point.

You can't compare us to China, or Japan, or whatever, and oh here's another hint. There has ALWAYS been a world super power, and there always will be, if we relinquish that title, someone else will step into the void.

You want a microcosm of proof of that. Think back to the Cold War, the Soviet Union was only too happy to step into ANY void we left (think Cuba primarily)

Do you know WHY those other countries don't have fleets sailing around the world taking over places? Because the USN stands ready if they try. Do you REALLY believe that Iran wouldn't be fucking up the Strait over there if a USN aircraft carrier wasn't ready and able to whip their ass if they tried?

Do you think N Korea would let old grudges slide if we weren't over there staring across the 35th parallel?

Now , if you want to argue that some of these other countries should be helping fund US troops stationed in their region of the world, hell we'd agree there.

See Con you think Just becuase I think the Goveremnt should be working for "we the people"
and that the military and police should be the tail and not the head that i HATE it.

well like George Washington i think said a the gov't is like a fire, GREAT in it's place, but out of place it's a horrible terror.

As far as there will always be a global power, well times have changed a bit , but sure it's a possibility. But can you imagine a world that had a multitude of nations of various powers, none really with a huge advantage working and trading with each other and small fights from time to time?

And are you saying that the US will ALWAYS be the Global force... and FOR GOOD?
Are you saying that regimes won't fall or change hands if we project military might every time we don't like something. that's working real well in Afghanistan right now.
Being the rulers of the world or global police is a fools dream IMO.

BTW When we became a prosperous nation we were not the world power militarily.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-06-2012, 03:17 PM

Actually bro the COTUS doesn't shit about defending the country from invaders. It instead charges the federal government with providing for the common defense of the country as a whole. Now surely we can agree that making sure the world has a stable oil supply, for example, falls under that umbrella?

Just let them completely cut off oil from the Middle East and you'll see how fast the doubters agree with you about the importance of a stable oil supply..
In fact that is such a known reality/concept that Iran threatens that very thing in an attempt to get concessions from us and to back us down..
The most important reason that we should find a way to have all our oil coming from a combination of our lands/offshore , Canada and Mexico! Its possible to do and everytime its suggested it gets shot down by interests here that are for foreign oil - namely Middle East oil.
Our Navy is a force for good!
Its also a badazz force for kicking azz too!!!! ---Tyr

Gaffer

06-06-2012, 03:33 PM

See Con you think Just becuase I think the Goveremnt should be working for "we the people"
and that the military and police should be the tail and not the head that i HATE it.

well like George Washington i think said a the gov't is like a fire, GREAT in it's place, but out of place it's a horrible terror.

As far as there will always be a global power, well times have changed a bit , but sure it's a possibility. But can you imagine a world that had a multitude of nations of various powers, none really with a huge advantage working and trading with each other and small fights from time to time?

And are you saying that the US will ALWAYS be the Global force... and FOR GOOD?
Are you saying that regimes won't fall or change hands if we project military might every time we don't like something. that's working real well in Afghanistan right now.
Being the rulers of the world or global police is a fools dream IMO.

When we became a prosperous nation we were not the world power militarily.

While our govt is way to big and can't be trusted. Our military is a completely different arm. It's presence in other parts of the world allow us to monitor things and respond as needed. The bases provide jumping off points.

The govt is too big and is being abused. That's not the fault of the military whose purpose is to protect this country. Even if we became independent of foreign oil we would still need to have the bases and monitor the middle east. We still have bases in Europe monitoring the Russians.

After the fall of the soviet union Russia became a "democracy", sorta. Now they are back to threatening their neighbors and in some cases invading them. They are using a lot of the same tactics they used during the cold war. China has been saber rattling as well. I won't even get into iran and syria. This is all a threat to our nation and needs to be confronted. That's why we have military bases and naval presence throughout the world.

logroller

06-06-2012, 03:41 PM

Anybody recall the SNL Navy ad?

"It's not just a job, its $96.78 a week."

jimnyc

06-06-2012, 03:49 PM

I think you hate anyone who works for the government period. From the dog catcher to the POTUS. That's besides the point.

Hilarious! :lol:

I still love ya though, Rev! But you do show just a 'teensy' bit of bias towards our government and might even give off the vibe that you don't trust them! :laugh:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-06-2012, 04:12 PM

While our govt is way to big and can't be trusted. Our military is a completely different arm. It's presence in other parts of the world allow us to monitor things and respond as needed. The bases provide jumping off points.

The govt is too big and is being abused. That's not the fault of the military whose purpose is to protect this country. Even if we became independent of foreign oil we would still need to have the bases and monitor the middle east. We still have bases in Europe monitoring the Russians.

After the fall of the soviet union Russia became a "democracy", sorta. Now they are back to threatening their neighbors and in some cases invading them. They are using a lot of the same tactics they used during the cold war. China has been saber rattling as well. I won't even get into iran and syria. This is all a threat to our nation and needs to be confronted. That's why we have military bases and naval presence throughout the world.

Hey, if you go around the world taking names and kickin' azz people are going to hate you. American Navy has lots of enemies. Which is as it should be since our Nation has lots of enemies. Imagine how large the enemy list would be if the Navy didnt do so much good around the world!???-Tyr

ConHog

06-06-2012, 05:03 PM

See Con you think Just becuase I think the Goveremnt should be working for "we the people"
and that the military and police should be the tail and not the head that i HATE it.

well like George Washington i think said a the gov't is like a fire, GREAT in it's place, but out of place it's a horrible terror.

As far as there will always be a global power, well times have changed a bit , but sure it's a possibility. But can you imagine a world that had a multitude of nations of various powers, none really with a huge advantage working and trading with each other and small fights from time to time?

And are you saying that the US will ALWAYS be the Global force... and FOR GOOD?
Are you saying that regimes won't fall or change hands if we project military might every time we don't like something. that's working real well in Afghanistan right now.
Being the rulers of the world or global police is a fools dream IMO.

BTW When we became a prosperous nation we were not the world power militarily.

You could not be more wrong Rev. There is a DIRECT link in WWII bringing the US to prominence in the world both economically and militarily at the same time.

ConHog

06-06-2012, 05:06 PM

Hilarious! :lol:

I still love ya though, Rev! But you do show just a 'teensy' bit of bias towards our government and might even give off the vibe that you don't trust them! :laugh:

Oh, I don't want him to get the wrong idea either, I like Rev as a poster and believe he's probably a good guy, but he is a tin hat dude if I ever saw one.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-06-2012, 05:12 PM

You could not be more wrong Rev. There is a DIRECT link in WWII bringing the US to prominence in the world both economically and militarily at the same time.

By the end of WW2 we were the single dominate power in the world. We had the A-bomb nobody else did, we had the industrial might that could be matched by nobody at that time , most importantly we had both the great and massive resources along with the capitalist system required to become a Super giant amidst the world..
Since we have squandered a great deal of that and a major part of the squandering has been done during obama's first term.--Tyr

DragonStryk72

06-06-2012, 05:14 PM

I think you hate anyone who works for the government period. From the dog catcher to the POTUS. That's besides the point.

You can't compare us to China, or Japan, or whatever, and oh here's another hint. There has ALWAYS been a world super power, and there always will be, if we relinquish that title, someone else will step into the void.

You want a microcosm of proof of that. Think back to the Cold War, the Soviet Union was only too happy to step into ANY void we left (think Cuba primarily)

Do you know WHY those other countries don't have fleets sailing around the world taking over places? Because the USN stands ready if they try. Do you REALLY believe that Iran wouldn't be fucking up the Strait over there if a USN aircraft carrier wasn't ready and able to whip their ass if they tried?

Do you think N Korea would let old grudges slide if we weren't over there staring across the 35th parallel?

Now , if you want to argue that some of these other countries should be helping fund US troops stationed in their region of the world, hell we'd agree there.

He doesn't, he simply doesnt give the government the blind faith you put in it, CH.

There has not always been a global super power, because until 1492 AD, we didn't even have a full globe to be the power of. Even after that, it was basically England, France, Spain, and Holland on about equal footing for a few hundred years, with one or the other being nominally ahead of the others, but they were not super powers. In fact, it was their screwing around with the entire earth that continued to screw them (Magna Carta, Revoutionary, etc). It wasn't until the post WWII world that superpowers really existed, due to the loss of most if not all of the colonies held by the formerly Big 4.

The reason they don't have them is because they've been far more watchful over their internal affairs, and generally don't give a shit if some third world dictator is being overthrown by another third world dictator.

The truth is, we do need to scale back. Certainly not to the degree Rev suggests, but we are trying to do too much. I totally understand having the navy keep an eye on China, and the middle east, but CH, don't pretend like there isn't huge waste in the military, and not just of money. We are trying to be world's police force, and we just can't be, nor should we be.

ConHog

06-06-2012, 05:26 PM

He doesn't, he simply doesnt give the government the blind faith you put in it, CH.

There has not always been a global super power, because until 1492 AD, we didn't even have a full globe to be the power of. Even after that, it was basically England, France, Spain, and Holland on about equal footing for a few hundred years, with one or the other being nominally ahead of the others, but they were not super powers. In fact, it was their screwing around with the entire earth that continued to screw them (Magna Carta, Revoutionary, etc). It wasn't until the post WWII world that superpowers really existed, due to the loss of most if not all of the colonies held by the formerly Big 4.

The reason they don't have them is because they've been far more watchful over their internal affairs, and generally don't give a shit if some third world dictator is being overthrown by another third world dictator.

The truth is, we do need to scale back. Certainly not to the degree Rev suggests, but we are trying to do too much. I totally understand having the navy keep an eye on China, and the middle east, but CH, don't pretend like there isn't huge waste in the military, and not just of money. We are trying to be world's police force, and we just can't be, nor should we be.

You've misread me if you don't think I agree that there is fat in the military that could be cut out. Actually , you haven't misread me, you just haven't seen the posts I've made in various other threads where I have said exactly that.

jimnyc

06-06-2012, 05:41 PM

Oh, I don't want him to get the wrong idea either, I like Rev as a poster and believe he's probably a good guy, but he is a tin hat dude if I ever saw one.

He's a respectful wearer of the foil, that's what I like about him. Damn, I even push his buttons and he won't hit back! He believes in what he believes and respectfully makes his points. I'll give him props for that. And nothing wrong with being passionate about what you believe in.

He reminds me a little of Mel Gibson in that 'Conspiracy Theory' movie. Rev, do you have a padlock on your refrigerator and then again on your milk? :laugh:

ConHog

06-06-2012, 06:12 PM

He's a respectful wearer of the foil, that's what I like about him. Damn, I even push his buttons and he won't hit back! He believes in what he believes and respectfully makes his points. I'll give him props for that. And nothing wrong with being passionate about what you believe in.

He reminds me a little of Mel Gibson in that 'Conspiracy Theory' movie. Rev, do you have a padlock on your refrigerator and then again on your milk? :laugh:

I've had some PMs with Rev, he IS a good guy. It's all good with me that he has his opinions about the gov't. LOL

revelarts

06-06-2012, 07:17 PM

I guess I should appreciate being thought of as Crazy but a decent folk.
The truth is often believed to be crazy by those that can't bear it though -cough-
:poke:

And Jim if I lived in California and wanted to keep my raw milk a pad lock on the frig might not be a bad idea.
But I hope from time to i get you guys thinking a bit further than the neocon Americam guberment am double plus good , u no say bad thing about it, reservation.

back to the issues, I've noticed no ones mentioned how we are suppose to pay for this world wide police and navy that brings "good" to people while "kicking their azzez".
I guess i'm just crazy to wonder about such -tin foil issues like that.- the navy/miltary will work even without pay or benefits i'm sure. tin foil thinking that trillions in debt, partly to the same people we want to "keep an eye on" -China- has anything to do with the military... it's a different branch.

bring be back to earth here somebody.

jimnyc

06-06-2012, 07:26 PM

I guess I should appreciate being thought of as Crazy but a decent folk.
The truth is often believed to be crazy by those that can't bear it though -cough-
:poke:

And Jim if I lived in California and wanted to keep my raw milk a pad lock on the frig might not be a bad idea.
But I hope from time to i get you guys thinking a bit further than the neocon Americam guberment am double plus good , u no say bad thing about it reservation.

back to the issues, I've noticed no ones mentioned how we are suppose to pay for this world wide police and navy that brings "good" to people while "kicking their azzez".
I guess i'm just crazy to wonder about such -tin foil issues like that.- the navy/miltary will work even without pay or benefits i'm sure. tin foil thinking that trillions in debt, partly to the same people we want to "keep an eye on" -China- has anything to do with the military... it's a different branch.

bring be back to earth here somebody.

I mean the crazy talk with all the love in the world, Rev!! Just having fun, at your expense of course. And yep, I like to learn, even if some things I find cuckoo. On those things we debate, and other things I learn from. But I like to kid outside of that, just like I call Conhog a no good piece of dog crap who's married to Corona drinking, no tax paying, burrito eating tamale! I don't always kid with some people unless I like them enough to do so and know them long enough to poke at them a bit. :poke:

And admittedly, sometimes I'm just an asshole!

revelarts

06-06-2012, 07:54 PM

I've been called plenty worse than crazy Jim, but crazy has come up more than once on and offline.
wonder why?

jimnyc

06-06-2012, 08:01 PM

I've been called plenty worse than crazy Jim, but crazy has come up more than once on and offline.
wonder why?

Fuck, we're all a little nutso, Rev! Hell, I call you a nutter and I take 4 different meds daily cause I'm a little on the edge at times! LOL Lotsa nuts throughout history were some awfully smart bastards! (unfortunately some of them were killers that ate their prey) (<---- Just sayin)

aboutime

06-08-2012, 12:25 PM

ConHog

06-08-2012, 12:47 PM

I guess I should appreciate being thought of as Crazy but a decent folk.
The truth is often believed to be crazy by those that can't bear it though -cough-
:poke:

And Jim if I lived in California and wanted to keep my raw milk a pad lock on the frig might not be a bad idea.
But I hope from time to i get you guys thinking a bit further than the neocon Americam guberment am double plus good , u no say bad thing about it, reservation.

back to the issues, I've noticed no ones mentioned how we are suppose to pay for this world wide police and navy that brings "good" to people while "kicking their azzez".
I guess i'm just crazy to wonder about such -tin foil issues like that.- the navy/miltary will work even without pay or benefits i'm sure. tin foil thinking that trillions in debt, partly to the same people we want to "keep an eye on" -China- has anything to do with the military... it's a different branch.

bring be back to earth here somebody.

Well, here's ONE way to make it easier to fund.

Tell the UN to piss off. Hell, we're supporting them financially AND being the world police. Drop the UN and that's more money to kick de azz.

Thunderknuckles

06-08-2012, 01:11 PM

I don't think Rev hates anything about Government. He's just distrustful of it and I think that's a good thing.

revelarts

06-08-2012, 01:44 PM

Well, here's ONE way to make it easier to fund.

Tell the UN to piss off. Hell, we're supporting them financially AND being the world police. Drop the UN and that's more money to kick de azz.

I agree, stopping the payments to the U.N. would be a great start.

(CNSNews.com) - U.S. payments for UN peacekeeping activities have more than doubled in the last six years, rising from $700 million in 2003 to an expected $1.8 billion in 2009, according to a report published this month by the Government Accountability Office.

U.S. taxpayers pick up 26 percent of the tab for UN peacekeeping....

And 22% of the regular budget, i think.
and some folks are pissed that we don't "pay what we owe" the U.N. on time or more.

but we are billions in the hole with Afghanistan for 10 yrs now. after Alquida left so should we. That's what we went there for. nation building is BS. Unless we decided that we want to be an open empire instead of a stealth one. and just put in Roman styles governors in countries we fear problems in. or just want to control resources from.

Maintianing bases in every corner of the globe is costing billions. And I'm far from convinced it's necessary since we are not facing opponents anywhere CLOSE to the magnitude of the USSR.which had 10 thousand PLUS nukes pointing in our direction. there's nothing CLOSE to that kind of threat. 1000 Alquida with homemade bombs or pistols scattered world wide anit jack. Russia wants no war with us and can barely keeps it's economy running. China has never attacked us or anyone really and could more easily cripple us financially or buy US (or kill us by putting a little poison in a few wall mart products, bam were done, at low low prices).

point is we have overkill for protection of the country. seems a GOOD USE of drones would be to patrol the shipping lanes if that REALLY what we are concerned about. None of the other issues you guys have brought up are compelling IMO.

DragonStryk72

06-08-2012, 02:30 PM

Name another Navy you'd prefer to defend our nation, rather than our own. The constitution states that we will have a navy. If it means protecting our allies, and other friendly nations from the threats of idea's like we experienced in the First, and Second World Wars. Who else would you like to see NOT protecting the sea lanes, and coast lines?
What you seem to be saying is called PROTECTIONISM. We can't limit ourselves to living alone, within our borders, and ignoring all others.
It just won't work.
Unless you have a better Idea. Go for it.

Again, he wasn't saying to only protect ourselves, or living alone within our borders. Why is everyone taking what he said to the insane overstatement place?

Gaffer

06-08-2012, 02:36 PM

I agree, stopping the payments to the U.N. would be a great start.

And 22% of the regular budget, i think.
and some folks are pissed that we don't "pay what we owe" the U.N. on time or more.

but we are billions in the hole with Afghanistan for 10 yrs now. after Alquida left so should we. That's what we went there for. nation building is BS. Unless we decided that we want to be an open empire instead of a stealth one. and just put in Roman styles governors in countries we fear problems in. or just want to control resources from.

Maintianing bases in every corner of the globe is costing billions. And I'm far from convinced it's necessary since we are not facing opponents anywhere CLOSE to the magnitude of the USSR.which had 10 thousand PLUS nukes pointing in our direction. there's nothing CLOSE to that kind of threat. 1000 Alquida with homemade bombs or pistols scattered world wide anit jack. Russia wants no war with us and can barely keeps it's economy running. China has never attacked us or anyone really and could more easily cripple us financially or buy US (or kill us by putting a little poison in a few wall mart products, bam were done, at low low prices).

point is we have overkill for protection of the country. seems a GOOD USE of drones would be to patrol the shipping lanes if that REALLY what we are concerned about. None of the other issues you guys have brought up are compelling IMO.

Well rev, for your information Russia still has 10,000 missiles pointed at us. They're also eyeballing a lot of that old soviet territory. They are doing well with their gas and oil supply lines to Europe, so they are not bad off financially. And china has attacked us in the past. You might recall something called the Korean war? It was even a sneak attack with no warning or declaration. And china has been shipping contaminated food and other items to the US for years. There are news reports on it, just not very many. Leftist don't like negative reporting on other leftists.

Drones are a useful tool for the military. But they need a place to operate from. The control can be in the US in a air conditioned room sipping Margaretta's, but the drones can't fly 5000 miles and then do recon for days at a time. They need bases to operate from. There's that logistics problem again.

Getting rid of the EPA, IRS, DHS, DOE and other blood sucking agencies would go a long way in reducing spend and debt. Or at least modify most of them into something manageable with no power to make regulations. Leave the military alone.

revelarts

06-08-2012, 02:59 PM

Name another Navy you'd prefer to defend our nation, rather than our own. The constitution states that we will have a navy. If it means protecting our allies, and other friendly nations from the threats of idea's like we experienced in the First, and Second World Wars. Who else would you like to see NOT protecting the sea lanes, and coast lines?
What you seem to be saying is called PROTECTIONISM. We can't limit ourselves to living alone, within our borders, and ignoring all others.
It just won't work.
Unless you have a better Idea. Go for it.

Again, he wasn't saying to only protect ourselves, or living alone within our borders. Why is everyone taking what he said to the insane overstatement place?thanks

Just the idea of a smaller military sets off alarm bells maybe, i get that. But I'm not saying trash the navy/military just reduce it to protect the U.S. and not the GLOBE.
But WW2 is over the cold war is over, even the warfare has changed a bit.
we have satlites watching major moves and ICBMS and planes that can fly God knows how fast with bombs X times larger than those used in Japan. subs that can do the same hitting any target hitting in the world.

we've got over 700 bases in over 100 countries it seem a bit extreme if all we really want to do is "keep an eye on" folks. or protect shipping lanes.
If your really want to protect Oil well let the oil companies CHIP IN and pay for the military. Why is it on the whole country's dime and blood when the oil is not Only for us, our soldiers are protecting. Or why don't we get at the least discounts since we are protecting "our oil".

ConHog

06-08-2012, 05:09 PM

thanks

Just the idea of a smaller military sets off alarm bells maybe, i get that. But I'm not saying trash the navy/military just reduce it to protect the U.S. and not the GLOBE.
But WW2 is over the cold war is over, even the warfare has changed a bit.
we have satlites watching major moves and ICBMS and planes that can fly God knows how fast with bombs X times larger than those used in Japan. subs that can do the same hitting any target hitting in the world.

we've got over 700 bases in over 100 countries it seem a bit extreme if all we really want to do is "keep an eye on" folks. or protect shipping lanes.
If your really want to protect Oil well let the oil companies CHIP IN and pay for the military. Why is it on the whole country's dime and blood when the oil is not Only for us, our soldiers are protecting. Or why don't we get at the least discounts since we are protecting "our oil".

Rev, there is NO doubt that the military should be slimmed down. Anyone who's served can attest to seeing various wastes and such. $500 hammers are not just an urban myth.

But that doesn't seem to be what you are saying in your many posts.

It isn't as easy as saying "okay we don't need THIS base anymore" and shutting it down. We have ongoing missions around the world and those men and women need, and deserve, the support that they can only get from in theater bases.

And many of those 700 "bases" are nothing more than 20 soldiers living inside a prefab building. In the grand scheme of things, that amounts to chump change.

PS the oil companies DO chip in by providing jobs which generates income tax. That's just ridiculous to suggest that should pay for the military.

Myself, I would start by eliminating the Air Farce. They are irrelevant in today's battlefield. There isn't a mission they perform that couldn't be handled by the Navy.

That would save untold $M every year.

aboutime

06-08-2012, 05:35 PM

Rev, there is NO doubt that the military should be slimmed down. Anyone who's served can attest to seeing various wastes and such. $500 hammers are not just an urban myth.

But that doesn't seem to be what you are saying in your many posts.

It isn't as easy as saying "okay we don't need THIS base anymore" and shutting it down. We have ongoing missions around the world and those men and women need, and deserve, the support that they can only get from in theater bases.

And many of those 700 "bases" are nothing more than 20 soldiers living inside a prefab building. In the grand scheme of things, that amounts to chump change.

PS the oil companies DO chip in by providing jobs which generates income tax. That's just ridiculous to suggest that should pay for the military.

Myself, I would start by eliminating the Air Farce. They are irrelevant in today's battlefield. There isn't a mission they perform that couldn't be handled by the Navy.

That would save untold $M every year.

That is how I responded to this thread. Speaking about the navy as a global force for good.
As a retired member of the navy. I tend to see our National Defense in a narrow way. And the Navy is a force to be respected. Not only for it's powerful capabilities. But for the ability of our navy to assist other nations who are unable to assist themselves. Especially during these difficult, financial times around the world.
I do not intend to speak about our bases around the world. That is the job of the President, Congress, and the Pentagon BigWigs.
Sadly today. Many Americans are not aware of the endless deeds our navy does around the world. Even as the administration, and congress are attempting to wean, and wear down the size of our navy.
That discussion should come at another time.
Meanwhile. I dare anyone to explain how happy, or satisfied you might be if our navy wasn't as powerful as it presently is today.

logroller

06-08-2012, 05:48 PM

$500 hammers? I've seen a titanium hammer cost upwards of $100, but $500 seems high.

And I've got to take issue with those who call for lesser regs; admittedly reg agencies have a tendency to go overboard, but the reason those agencies exists is because of market failures. Corps will shit on everything around them to turn a dime. Certainly there are market based solutions, along with regional regulatory enforcement, which can be implemented to reduce the negative impact of reg controls, but eliminating them altogether is not feasible.

revelarts

06-08-2012, 07:14 PM

Rev, there is NO doubt that the military should be slimmed down. Anyone who's served can attest to seeing various wastes and such. $500 hammers are not just an urban myth.

But that doesn't seem to be what you are saying in your many posts. .
read them again.
my first post ask if the Navy needs to be a global force. my next says that it should be a Continental force with a few ships in various areas around the world.

It isn't as easy as saying "okay we don't need THIS base anymore" and shutting it down. We have ongoing missions around the world and those men and women need, and deserve, the support that they can only get from in theater bases.

And many of those 700 "bases" are nothing more than 20 soldiers living inside a prefab building. In the grand scheme of things, that amounts to chump change.

I never said it would be easy. I'd like to says Shut em down and put people on a plane home but we should look carefulflly at what we've got and pear it down. Drastically. and it'd seem if there's only 20 guys then those might some of the first to go.

PS the oil companies DO chip in by providing jobs which generates income tax. That's just ridiculous to suggest that should pay for the military.

the corner grocery does the same AND without asking the U.S. military to protect it's foriegn banana crops.(Well maybe Smeadly Butler would argue with that.) But it's rediculous that we have troops guarding pipelines for international corps that Assume the troops services.

Myself, I would start by eliminating the Air Farce. They are irrelevant in today's battlefield. There isn't a mission they perform that couldn't be handled by the Navy.
That would save untold $M every year.
funny

That is how I responded to this thread. Speaking about the navy as a global force for good.
As a retired member of the navy. I tend to see our National Defense in a narrow way. And the Navy is a force to be respected. Not only for it's powerful capabilities. But for the ability of our navy to assist other nations who are unable to assist themselves. Especially during these difficult, financial times around the world.
I do not intend to speak about our bases around the world. That is the job of the President, Congress, and the Pentagon BigWigs.
Sadly today. Many Americans are not aware of the endless deeds our navy does around the world. Even as the administration, and congress are attempting to wean, and wear down the size of our navy.
That discussion should come at another time.
Meanwhile. I dare anyone to explain how happy, or satisfied you might be if our navy wasn't as powerful as it presently is today.

"That is the job of the President, Congress, and the Pentagon BigWigs.
Sadly today. Many Americans are not aware of the endless deeds our navy does around the world. Even as the administration, and congress are attempting to wean, and wear down the size of our navy."

hrrum
OK you say that's it's sad we don't know of the endless good the navy does but then want to pass all of the decisions on the "big wigs".
I'd like to imagine that the people of the country get at least a chance to comment.
No, that we tell the "big wigs" that WE WANT X or Y. They work for us. The navy works for us, are paid by us.
as much as i respect the military they are public servants. As well as the president and the big wigs.
we've abdicated to much when we sit back and say let them handle it. they'll handle it all right.

it's one reason why I might throw out the idea "CLOSE ALL THE FOREIGN BASES" is partly to jar the thinking of people. Because it's not a FORGONE conclusion that we have them or X number of ships. Or that we should keep them. Will we die if we don't? What are the real chances? There's no such thing as perfect security, as bad azz as the navy is. but what can we really afford? what do we really need?
If there are good reason let them be presented. Make the Sale.
If people don't know enough tell us. In detail and lets folks decide.

And as far as all the good the navy does around the world, I'm sorry but when i hear that (this might sting a bit) it sounds a lot like folks arguing for universal health care.
GLOBAL MILITARY CARE, provided by America "it's a right"

I'm sure the navy does a lot of good. I'm sure it does. but is it what we should be doing? Is it constitutional? Is it affordable?
I know for some folk saying, 'lets pull back the military', is like saying 'lets cut off our b@lls' or sumthin. I get the impression here that our military pride comes into play. But we shouldn't run our country on military pride. we've got to be realistic and very hard on this and all parts of the gov't it seems to me.

DragonStryk72

06-08-2012, 08:50 PM

I never said it would be easy. I'd like to says Shut em down and put people on a plane home but we should look carefulflly at what we've got and pear it down. Drastically. and it'd seem if there's only 20 guys then those might some of the first to go.

I would say we should definitely keep our base in Japan, since it's so very central almost the entire Asian bloc, along with Australia and such. Keep our largest base in the Middle East, for handling things in Africa/Europe, and really, do we need any other bases? That would still allow us fast response to target areas, but cut down the logistical support needed for so many of the other bases in places we honestly don't need them. And instead of keeping different bases based on branch, make the bases communal for the military.

"That is the job of the President, Congress, and the Pentagon BigWigs.
Sadly today. Many Americans are not aware of the endless deeds our navy does around the world. Even as the administration, and congress are attempting to wean, and wear down the size of our navy."
Think of the worst case of government waste you can come up that currently exists. these are the people you trust not to be wasting our money in the military budget

it's one reason why I might throw out the idea "CLOSE ALL THE FOREIGN BASES" is partly to jar the thinking of people. Because it's not a FORGONE conclusion that we have them or X number of ships. Or that we should keep them. Will we die if we don't? What are the real chances? There's no such thing as perfect security, as bad azz as the navy is. but what can we really afford? what do we really need?
If there are good reason let them be presented. Make the Sale.
If people don't know enough tell us. In detail and lets folks decide.

And as far as all the good the navy does around the world, I'm sorry but when i hear that (this might sting a bit) it sounds a lot like folks arguing for universal health care.
GLOBAL MILITARY CARE, provided by America "it's a right"

I'm sure the navy does a lot of good. I'm sure it does. but is it what we should be doing? Is it constitutional? Is it affordable?
I know for some folk saying, 'lets pull back the military', is like saying 'lets cut off our b@lls' or sumthin. I get the impression here that our military pride comes into play. But we shouldn't run our country on military pride. we've got to be realistic and very hard on this and all parts of the gov't it seems to me.

The problem is one that America is "too good', believe or not. It doesn't matter to us that we're being knocked on our asses, we're still trying to help everyone else out, because, really, we're good people. We want to help others, but honestly, thebest thing we could do in the long term is to stabilize our own country first. It's the same thing Russia's been doing, oddly enough, and thus why they're not falling into the trap with the rest of us. If we can stabilize our own economy, then we'll help to stabilize other economies and government elsewhere by improving the world economy overall.

fj1200

06-08-2012, 11:30 PM

$500 hammers? I've seen a titanium hammer cost upwards of $100, but $500 seems high.

And I've got to take issue with those who call for lesser regs; admittedly reg agencies have a tendency to go overboard, but the reason those agencies exists is because of market failures. Corps will shit on everything around them to turn a dime. Certainly there are market based solutions, along with regional regulatory enforcement, which can be implemented to reduce the negative impact of reg controls, but eliminating them altogether is not feasible.

What the hell are you talking about? :slap:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-09-2012, 10:49 AM

That is how I responded to this thread. Speaking about the navy as a global force for good.
As a retired member of the navy. I tend to see our National Defense in a narrow way. And the Navy is a force to be respected. Not only for it's powerful capabilities. But for the ability of our navy to assist other nations who are unable to assist themselves. Especially during these difficult, financial times around the world.
I do not intend to speak about our bases around the world. That is the job of the President, Congress, and the Pentagon BigWigs.
Sadly today. Many Americans are not aware of the endless deeds our navy does around the world. Even as the administration, and congress are attempting to wean, and wear down the size of our navy.
That discussion should come at another time.
Meanwhile. I dare anyone to explain how happy, or satisfied you might be if our navy wasn't as powerful as it presently is today.

It is a big bad world out there and most of it is covered by water. A deep water Navy is a must not a luxury. We have to not only insure the Security of our naton but also have to be able to protect our interests worldwide . For that a strong Navy is a must... If the costs are deemed to be too high and we need a few billion more I say take the money from the government give away programs that allow so many lazy bastards to lie about drinking 40's, shooting hoops and knocking up underage girls . Which just adds to the regeneration of future lazy bastards that will do the same.. I say National security should come before taking care of such worthless lazy, ffing parasites.
Of course such commen sense thinking will not be to the liking of the dem party and its ongoing plantation system which so greatly aids in its reelection efforts. After all that plantation system played the major role in installing the ffing lying socialist nation destroying democrat weasel we have infesting the Whitehouse now! -Tyr

aboutime

06-09-2012, 04:32 PM

read them again.
my first post ask if the Navy needs to be a global force. my next says that it should be a Continental force with a few ships in various areas around the world.

I never said it would be easy. I'd like to says Shut em down and put people on a plane home but we should look carefulflly at what we've got and pear it down. Drastically. and it'd seem if there's only 20 guys then those might some of the first to go.

the corner grocery does the same AND without asking the U.S. military to protect it's foriegn banana crops.(Well maybe Smeadly Butler would argue with that.) But it's rediculous that we have troops guarding pipelines for international corps that Assume the troops services.

funny

"That is the job of the President, Congress, and the Pentagon BigWigs.
Sadly today. Many Americans are not aware of the endless deeds our navy does around the world. Even as the administration, and congress are attempting to wean, and wear down the size of our navy."

hrrum
OK you say that's it's sad we don't know of the endless good the navy does but then want to pass all of the decisions on the "big wigs".
I'd like to imagine that the people of the country get at least a chance to comment.
No, that we tell the "big wigs" that WE WANT X or Y. They work for us. The navy works for us, are paid by us.
as much as i respect the military they are public servants. As well as the president and the big wigs.
we've abdicated to much when we sit back and say let them handle it. they'll handle it all right.

it's one reason why I might throw out the idea "CLOSE ALL THE FOREIGN BASES" is partly to jar the thinking of people. Because it's not a FORGONE conclusion that we have them or X number of ships. Or that we should keep them. Will we die if we don't? What are the real chances? There's no such thing as perfect security, as bad azz as the navy is. but what can we really afford? what do we really need?
If there are good reason let them be presented. Make the Sale.
If people don't know enough tell us. In detail and lets folks decide.

And as far as all the good the navy does around the world, I'm sorry but when i hear that (this might sting a bit) it sounds a lot like folks arguing for universal health care.
GLOBAL MILITARY CARE, provided by America "it's a right"

I'm sure the navy does a lot of good. I'm sure it does. but is it what we should be doing? Is it constitutional? Is it affordable?
I know for some folk saying, 'lets pull back the military', is like saying 'lets cut off our b@lls' or sumthin. I get the impression here that our military pride comes into play. But we shouldn't run our country on military pride. we've got to be realistic and very hard on this and all parts of the gov't it seems to me.

Thankfully. This is a tiny forum, and thankfully for the rest of the American people. REVELARTS has no power to bring the RON PAUL idea's into being.
Otherwise. If revelarts had such powers to eliminate our navy as a force to be admired around the world. Those who seem to be insisting that the U.S. should become a protectionist society, by eliminating our military presence around the world would soon discover the true meanings of Cutting off Their Noses, to Spite their face.

ConHog

06-09-2012, 04:34 PM

Thankfully. This is a tiny forum, and thankfully for the rest of the American people. REVELARTS has no power to bring the RON PAUL idea's into being.
Otherwise. If revelarts had such powers to eliminate our navy as a force to be admired around the world. Those who seem to be insisting that the U.S. should become a protectionist society, by eliminating our military presence around the world would soon discover the true meanings of Cutting off Their Noses, to Spite their face.

I would suggest Act Of Valor to anyone who doesn't think the Navy is a vital tool for protecting our nation.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-09-2012, 05:38 PM

Well rev, for your information Russia still has 10,000 missiles pointed at us. They're also eyeballing a lot of that old soviet territory. They are doing well with their gas and oil supply lines to Europe, so they are not bad off financially. And china has attacked us in the past. You might recall something called the Korean war? It was even a sneak attack with no warning or declaration. And china has been shipping contaminated food and other items to the US for years. There are news reports on it, just not very many. Leftist don't like negative reporting on other leftists.

Drones are a useful tool for the military. But they need a place to operate from. The control can be in the US in a air conditioned room sipping Margaretta's, but the drones can't fly 5000 miles and then do recon for days at a time. They need bases to operate from. There's that logistics problem again.

Getting rid of the EPA, IRS, DHS, DOE and other blood sucking agencies would go a long way in reducing spend and debt. Or at least modify most of them into something manageable with no power to make regulations. Leave the military alone.

Our Navy has lots of bases floating on water and even a few underwater(subs)..
All serve as deterents to aggressive actions from our enemies.
An ounce of prevention is worth a few nukes of cure.. or even possibly more.--Tyr

revelarts

06-09-2012, 05:50 PM

so what keeps people from attacking China?

ConHog

06-09-2012, 05:52 PM

so what keeps people from attacking China?

Umm - nuclear weapons?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-09-2012, 05:58 PM

so what keeps people from attacking China?

Nukes and a lack of damn good reasons for doing so.
As in how will it profit them and what are thier chances for success? Defeat is always a possibility and a very great deterent..
Additionally other nation's interests would be greatly affected by such an attack and they must consider those nation's reactions to thier attacking China..--Tyr

revelarts

06-09-2012, 06:33 PM

Umm - nuclear weapons?

Nukes and a lack of damn good reasons for doing so.
As in how will it profit them and what are thier chances for success? Defeat is always a possibility and a very great deterent..
Additionally other nation's interests would be greatly affected by such an attack and they must consider those nation's reactions to thier attacking China..--Tyr

Other nation's interests would NOT be greatly affected if we are attacked?

So China's Nukes work as a deterrent against ALL nations and hostile players But we CANNOT SURVIVE with our Nukes unless we ADD a navy spread across the seas like sunshine AND over 100 military bases in foreign countries.

What am i missing here?

ConHog

06-09-2012, 06:46 PM

Other nation's interests would NOT be greatly affected if we are attacked?

So China's Nukes work as a deterrent against ALL nations and hostile players But we CANNOT SURVIVE with our Nukes unless we ADD a navy spread across the seas like sunshine AND over 100 military bases in foreign countries.

What am i missing here?

Here's what you are missing Rev.

We would be VERY reticent in using the nuclear option. The Chinese on the other hand would nuke their own people to keep what power they do have.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-09-2012, 06:46 PM

Other nation's interests would NOT be greatly affected if we are attacked?

So China's Nukes work as a deterrent against ALL nations and hostile players But we CANNOT SURVIVE with our Nukes unless we ADD a navy spread across the seas like sunshine AND over 100 military bases in foreign countries.

What am i missing here?

Clever attempt but a big fail.
First, the possible use of nukes does not apply to every type of aggression. Thats a big one.
Second , nukes can not insure the safety of ocean traffic in regions where its of National security importance to maintain an unimpeded flow of trade. Oil transport being the major one.
Third, where this nation's survival is concerned overkill is most often a goooooooooooood thing..--Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-09-2012, 06:51 PM

Here's what you are missing Rev.

We would be VERY reticent in using the nuclear option. The Chinese on the other hand would nuke their own people to keep what power they do have.

Notice that both our previous posts were timed at 6:46 .
Hows it feel to know that this supposed uneducated and poor grammar writing person came up with pretty much the same thing as you.
I guess we uneducated, unenlightened folk think much alike , eh?-:laugh2:--Tyr

ConHog

06-09-2012, 06:59 PM

Notice that both our previous posts were timed at 6:46 .
Hows it feel to know that this supposed uneducated and poor grammar writing person came up with pretty much the same thing as you.
I guess we uneducated, unenlightened folk think much alike , eh?-:laugh2:--Tyr

I didn't say you were uneducated. I made fun of the grammar in a single post of yours. I actually have no idea how educated you are or aren't.

As for the rest, and ask around about this, I am not one to Lord my educational credentials over anyone.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-09-2012, 07:12 PM

I didn't say you were uneducated. I made fun of the grammar in a single post of yours. I actually have no idea how educated you are or aren't.

As for the rest, and ask around about this, I am not one to Lord my educational credentials over anyone.

Could have fooled me amigo. For that one post attempted to do just that..
Myself, I do not care about the writing skills of a poster. I would rather judge the merits of the poster's words and if those words are legible go from there.
Arrogance being a self-serving and wicked mistress. I do my best to kick it to the curb..
Now if you plan on being my teacher well-- I jest aint agonna pays yez a dime. Becuz my guiss iz dat yuz aint gotz the rite requipmant to bees a pretty female teecher and dats da onlyist kind dat I will bees allowin'..-:laugh2:-Tyr

revelarts

06-09-2012, 07:14 PM

Here's what you are missing Rev.

We would be VERY reticent in using the nuclear option. The Chinese on the other hand would nuke their own people to keep what power they do have.
I'd like to think we'd be reticent too but based on what when been doing lately and DESDEN etc. Most folks should be reticent to attack us as well.

Clever attempt but a big fail.
First, the possible use of nukes does not apply to every type of aggression. Thats a big one.
Second , nukes can not insure the safety of ocean traffic in regions where its of National security importance to maintain an unimpeded flow of trade. Oil transport being the major one.
Third, where this nation's survival is concerned overkill is most often a goooooooooooood thing..--Tyr

not a fail at all you and other have repeated that'd we'd be on the edge of collapse and death without a Navy spread across the world. China does not and you've stated they their MAIN deterrent is their Nuclear arsenal, Not their small Navy .
And Now you admit we have overkill when it comes to our defense needs go.
That's Aaaaaaallll that I've been saying.

And again I'm not saying TRASH the whole Navy or ALL the Bases,
just a BIG reduction,
A strong and nimble military but inline with today's and realistic future threats not political BS hype.

ConHog

06-09-2012, 07:23 PM

I'd like to think we'd be reticent too but based on what when been doing lately and DESDEN etc. Most folks should be reticent to attack us as well.

not a fail at all you and other have repeated that'd we'd be on the edge of collapse and death without a Navy spread across the world. China does not and you've stated they their MAIN deterrent is their Nuclear arsenal, Not their small Navy .
And Now you admit we have overkill when it comes to our defense needs go.
That's Aaaaaaallll that I've been saying.

And again I'm not saying TRASH the whole Navy or ALL the Bases,
just a BIG reduction,
A strong and nimble military but inline with today's and realistic future threats not political BS hype.

and likewise I admit that we could reduce the size of our military, including the Navy.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-09-2012, 07:44 PM

I'd like to think we'd be reticent too but based on what when been doing lately and DESDEN etc. Most folks should be reticent to attack us as well.

not a fail at all you and other have repeated that'd we'd be on the edge of collapse and death without a Navy spread across the world. China does not and you've stated they their MAIN deterrent is their Nuclear arsenal, Not their small Navy .
And Now you admit we have overkill when it comes to our defense needs go.
That's Aaaaaaallll that I've been saying.

And again I'm not saying TRASH the whole Navy or ALL the Bases,
just a BIG reduction,
A strong and nimble military but inline with today's and realistic future threats not political BS hype.

Dont be putting words into my mouth amigo. I previously did not state China's nukes being a major deterent. In fact I didnt bring up nukes at all until after others had (even then I cited thier limited functions against certain types of aggressions)..Only later did I cite anything about thier deterence factor. Go back , read my first post. I previously gave other reasons for our great need for a large strong Navy. Number one being protecting our nation's interests worldwide.. With the cited point that most of the world is covered by water.. Thus the Navy becomes of great importance especially in international trade.. Especially in bringing in foreign oil..
We already tried going small , remember we found out what a great mistake going small was at the start of WW2 and how Pearl Harbor almost cost us the war right at the start. Likely would have had we not already broken the Japanese Naval codes which allowed us the knowledge to move certain targets(aircraft carriers) before the early morning sneak attack..-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-09-2012, 07:50 PM

and likewise I admit that we could reduce the size of our military, including the Navy.

Obama's trillion dollar spending is designed to force us to have to make major cuts. Guess where a lion's share of those cuts are planned. Here is a hint--our military.
Last time I checked our Navy was part of our military..--;)--Tyr

ConHog

06-09-2012, 07:53 PM

Dont be putting words into my mouth amigo. I previously did not state China's nukes being a major deterent. In fact I didnt bring up nukes at all until after others had (even then I cited thier limited functions against certain types of aggressions)..Only later did I cite anything about thier deterence factor. Go back , read my first post. I previously gave other reasons for our great need for a large strong Navy. Number one being protecting our nation's interests worldwide.. With the cited point that most of the world is covered by water.. Thus the Navy becomes of great importance especially in international trade.. Especially in bringing in foreign oil..
We already tried going small , remember we found out what a great mistake going small was at the start of WW2 and how Pearl Harbor almost cost us the war right at the start. Likely would have had we not already broken the Japanese Naval codes which allowed us the knowledge to move certain targets(aircraft carriers) before the early morning sneak attack..-Tyr

Oh good Lord. Learn some history. We broke no code until May, 1942. Well after Pearl Harbor.

It was one of those coincidences of history that our aircraft carriers were not in dock on Dec 7,1941.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-09-2012, 08:28 PM

Oh good Lord. Learn some history. We broke no code until May, 1942. Well after Pearl Harbor.

It was one of those coincidences of history that our aircraft carriers were not in dock on Dec 7,1941.
Congrats Japanese naval code was broken later and gave us knowledge that helped in the decisive victory in the Battle of Midway. My mistake as it was the Japanese diplomatic codes broken that gave us advanced warning of the war declaration Japan was planning and yes about Pearl Harbor too. The long held and acknowledged premise that the information came too late to prevent the Pearl Harbor attack was to save face, to save FDR's reputation and to not ever allow the relatives of over 3000 American victims that day know that thousands could have been saved. It was decided that keeping secret the code having been broken was of far more benefit that evacuating Pearl Harbor and tipping off the enemy to that vital ability. In additon America was still highly against joining in the war. After the sneak attack at Pearl they became overwhelimingly in favor of declaring war. FDR had wanted to declare war but had held off because of public sentiment against it. He knew Pearl harbor attack would give him the support that he needed and wanted .-Tyr

revelarts

06-09-2012, 08:30 PM

Dont be putting words into my mouth amigo. I previously did not state China's nukes being a major deterent. In fact I didnt bring up nukes at all until after others had (even then I cited thier limited functions against certain types of aggressions)..Only later did I cite anything about thier deterence factor. Go back , read my first post. I previously gave other reasons for our great need for a large strong Navy. Number one being protecting our nation's interests worldwide.. With the cited point that most of the world is covered by water.. Thus the Navy becomes of great importance especially in international trade.. Especially in bringing in foreign oil..
We already tried going small , remember we found out what a great mistake going small was at the start of WW2 and how Pearl Harbor almost cost us the war right at the start. Likely would have had we not already broken the Japanese Naval codes which allowed us the knowledge to move certain targets(aircraft carriers) before the early morning sneak attack..-Tyr

didn't mean to put words in your mouth sorry if i did.

But ok at this point we do have the largest military in the world, and the the most ships in the water and the most bases.

We spend more than most countries on the military.
http://newhumanist.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/PIE_CHARTS-244x300.png
And we SUPPLY much ,if not most, of the heavy military equipment around the world via our arms industry.
Much of the world would not even have weapons if they didn't buy them from US.

We are a Looong way from WW2 levels as far as an arms race goes or being geared up to build new weapons, ships, planes, tanks or whatever. Weapons are our last solid manufacturing base.

If there's a New Arms race we are still far ahead of anyone. and our spys, satellites and phone taping people overseas that should be taped etc. should alert us to any threats from that corner.

We can't really compare ourselves today to pre-WWII U.S., Briton or the France with it Mignono line militarily.

ConHog

06-09-2012, 08:43 PM

Congrats Japanese naval code was broken later and gave us knowledge that helped in the decisive victory in the Battle of Midway. My mistake as it was the Japanese diplomatic codes broken that gave us advanced warning of the war declaration Japan was planning and yes about Pearl Harbor too. The long held and acknowledged premise that the information came too late to prevent the Pearl Harbor attack was to save face, to save FDR's reputation and to not ever allow the relatives of over 3000 American victims that day know that thousands could have been saved. It was decided that keeping secret the code having been broken was of far more benefit that evacuating Pearl Harbor and tipping off the enemy to that vital ability. In additon America was still highly against joining in the war. After the sneak attack at Pearl they became overwhelimingly in favor of declaring war. FDR had wanted to declare war but had held off because of public sentiment against it. He knew Pearl harbor attack would give him the support that he needed and wanted .-Tyr

Bullshit

The "Nomura Note" was deciphered , but didn't specifically suggest any specific attack and in fact FDR wasn't even made aware of it's existence until Dec, 8. Because of being lost in the paperwork shuffle of it being broken on a Sunday.

This from a guy who jumps my ass about believing Johnson had JFK killed? LOL

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-09-2012, 10:35 PM

Bullshit

The "Nomura Note" was deciphered , but didn't specifically suggest any specific attack and in fact FDR wasn't even made aware of it's existence until Dec, 8. Because of being lost in the paperwork shuffle of it being broken on a Sunday.

This from a guy who jumps my ass about believing Johnson had JFK killed? LOL

Just for you dude.
IN 1979 the NSA released 2,413 JN-25 ORDERS OF THE 26, 581 interceps by USA between Sept. 1 and Dec. 4th 1941, the NSA SAYS, "We know now they contained important details concerning te existence , organization, objective and even the whereabouts of the Pearl Harbor Strike force."(Parker page 21).
Starting in early November 1941 when the attack fleet asembled and started receiving radio messages, OP-20-G stayed opened 24 hours a day and the "First Team" of code breakers worked on JN-25(JAPANESE NAVAL CODE).
In Nov. and early Dec. 1941 OP-20-G spent 85% of its efforts breaking Japanese naval traffic(!!) , 12% on Japanese diplomatic traffic and 3% on German naval codes. FDR was personally briefed twice daily by his aide Captain John Beardell , and demanded the raw messages in English. The U.S. government still refuses to identify or declassify any pre DEC7th , 1941 decrypts of JN-25 on the basis of National Security, over a half century after the war..

MAGIC, -the security designation given to ALL decoded Japanese diplomatic messages cited, "it's hard not to conclude with historians such as Charles Batson that, "Magic STANDING ALONE POINTS SO IRRESISTABLY TO THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK THAT IT IS INCONCEIVEABLE ANYBODY COULD HAVE FAILED TO FORCAST THE JAPQANESE MOVE."
THE NSA REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION IN 1955..

Amigo, FDR knew and allowed the attack. To save face ,to save FDR's reputation and for security reasons this has been held back from the general population for well over half a century. FDR had to have that attack in order to declare war on Germany which he was determined to do come hell or high water! Japan's attack was allowed and used for that very purpose.. -Tyr
This is not the only proof but its enough for me..-Tyr

ConHog

06-09-2012, 11:00 PM

Just for you dude.
IN 1979 the NSA released 2,413 JN-25 ORDERS OF THE 26, 581 interceps by USA between Sept. 1 and Dec. 4th 1941, the NSA SAYS, "We know now they contained important details concerning te existence , organization, objective and even the whereabouts of the Pearl Harbor Strike force."(Parker page 21).
Starting in early November 1941 when the attack fleet asembled and started receiving radio messages, OP-20-G stayed opened 24 hours a day and the "First Team" of code breakers worked on JN-25(JAPANESE NAVAL CODE).
In Nov. and early Dec. 1941 OP-20-G spent 85% of its efforts breaking Japanese naval traffic(!!) , 12% on Japanese diplomatic traffic and 3% on German naval codes. FDR was personally briefed twice daily by his aide Captain John Beardell , and demanded the raw messages in English. The U.S. government still refuses to identify or declassify any pre DEC7th , 1941 decrypts of JN-25 on the basis of National Security, over a half century after the war..

MAGIC, -the security designation given to ALL decoded Japanese diplomatic messages cited, "it's hard not to conclude with historians such as Charles Batson that, "Magic STANDING ALONE POINTS SO IRRESISTABLY TO THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK THAT IT IS INCONCEIVEABLE ANYBODY COULD HAVE FAILED TO FORCAST THE JAPQANESE MOVE."
THE NSA REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION IN 1955..

Amigo, FDR knew and allowed the attack. To save face ,to save FDR's reputation and for security reasons this has been held back from the general population for well over half a century. FDR had to have that attack in order to declare war on Germany which he was determined to do come hell or high water! Japan's attack was allowed and used for that very purpose.. -Tyr
This is not the only proof but its enough for me..-Tyr

That right there proves CONCLUSIVELY that you don't KNOW what FDR knew from JN-25 decrypts.

What we DO know is that he did not see Purple cipher transcript known as the Nomura Note until AFTER the attack.

PS - FDR didn't declare war on ANYONE, BUT he didn't want war with Japan, he wanted war with Germany, and certainly there was no guarantee that being attacked by Japan would lead to war with Germany; and in fact Germany declared war on us first which then precipitated us declaring war on them.

FDR was actually trying to negotiate with Japan though, and was totally surprised by the attack as the Japanese had hoped for.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-09-2012, 11:16 PM

That right there proves CONCLUSIVELY that you don't KNOW what FDR knew from JN-25 decrypts.

What we DO know is that he did not see Purple cipher transcript known as the Nomura Note until AFTER the attack.

PS - FDR didn't declare war on ANYONE, BUT he didn't want war with Japan, he wanted war with Germany, and certainly there was no guarantee that being attacked by Japan would lead to war with Germany; and in fact Germany declared war on us first which then precipitated us declaring war on them.

FDR was actually trying to negotiate with Japan though, and was totally surprised by the attack as the Japanese had hoped for.

Sure dude , the NSA came to the wrong conclusion way back in 1955 too huh ? You just bought the face saving line and refuse to even admit the possibilty of your mistake. -Tyr

DragonStryk72

06-09-2012, 11:57 PM

Sure dude , the NSA came to the wrong conclusion way back in 1955 too huh ? You just bought the face saving line and refuse to even admit the possibilty of your mistake. -Tyr

:link:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-10-2012, 01:06 AM

:link:

Damn dude you are a little confused arent you?
On one thread you are rudely telling me to "move the fuck on" and here you are trying to engage me in civil conversation.
I dont do demands from smartassed want to be mini-mods..
Besides you are just wanting to find a way to start more shit.
Piss off..-Tyr

Kathianne

06-10-2012, 01:50 AM

That right there proves CONCLUSIVELY that you don't KNOW what FDR knew from JN-25 decrypts.

What we DO know is that he did not see Purple cipher transcript known as the Nomura Note until AFTER the attack.

PS - FDR didn't declare war on ANYONE, BUT he didn't want war with Japan, he wanted war with Germany, and certainly there was no guarantee that being attacked by Japan would lead to war with Germany; and in fact Germany declared war on us first which then precipitated us declaring war on them.

FDR was actually trying to negotiate with Japan though, and was totally surprised by the attack as the Japanese had hoped for.

Some right and some wrong. I don't think FDR knew 'Pearl Harbor' was coming, though certainly that something was. I don't think he knew December 7, but he did know the clock was ticking. So many do forget that however good our communications were in WWII, they are not what they are today.

Japan had and has no natural resources save it's people, fishing, and very bad farming. Since the late 19th C., Japan had been on full-throttle of the Meiji Revolution, which had not only brought the country forward in the span of less than 30 years, but by WWI had made it to an allied power. They expected some 'spoils' and didn't get them. Of course that would have not have been FDR's fault, however their anger by 1930's and with further development brought them to wanting empire, (which after all was what got the US to force open Japan back in the 19th C., causing the Meiji).

FDR hated empire, in fact his dealings with England and Churchill whom he liked, were nevertheless geared towards toppling that empire. Japan would just be 'easier' to do or so he thought.

I know I tend to cut short explanations, sometimes after writing too much. Here's a link that is concise, yet gives good explanations of the time leading up to Pearl Harbor.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/pearl.htm

\

ConHog

06-10-2012, 02:00 AM

Some right and some wrong. I don't think FDR knew 'Pearl Harbor' was coming, though certainly that something was. I don't think he knew December 7, but he did know the clock was ticking. So many do forget that however good our communications were in WWII, they are not what they are today.

Japan had and has no natural resources save it's people, fishing, and very bad farming. Since the late 19th C., Japan had been on full-throttle of the Meiji Revolution, which had not only brought the country forward in the span of less than 30 years, but by WWI had made it to an allied power. They expected some 'spoils' and didn't get them. Of course that would have not have been FDR's fault, however their anger by 1930's and with further development brought them to wanting empire, (which after all was what got the US to force open Japan back in the 19th C., causing the Meiji).

FDR hated empire, in fact his dealings with England and Churchill whom he liked, were nevertheless geared towards toppling that empire. Japan would just be 'easier' to do or so he thought.

I know I tend to cut short explanations, sometimes after writing too much. Here's a link that is concise, yet gives good explanations of the time leading up to Pearl Harbor.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/pearl.htm

\

Now see that i agree with. I would say that fdr knew the wroting was on the wall as concerns japan, but tp say he had the specifics of pearl harbor before hand and chose not to act is preposterous

Kathianne

06-10-2012, 02:13 AM

Now see that i agree with. I would say that fdr knew the wroting was on the wall as concerns japan, but tp say he had the specifics of pearl harbor before hand and chose not to act is preposterous

Wow! Our clocks must be stuck on the same time! LOL! We're in agreement.

ConHog

06-10-2012, 02:28 AM

Wow! Our clocks must be stuck on the same time! LOL! We're in agreement.

Actually we agree on quite a bit. We just also happen to have a personlity conflict

revelarts

06-10-2012, 09:12 AM

FDR wanted the U.S. in the War, All of his pro England activity and notes to Churchill etc show this. In Sept 27 1940 triparite pack Japan Germany Italy was signed. FDR knew that a Japanese war meant war with Germany as well.

According to Research done By Robert Stinnet who FOIAed the Docs of the cyptgrphers and And Washington events. It now appears that FDR Planned to provoke the Japanese into war and Did know shortly before hand the exact date of the attacks but wanted the Japanese to strike the 1st blow.

Again according to docs Stinnett obtained.
Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743201299/theindepeende-20)

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408

Station Cast (sp) on Corrigador(sp) broke Japanese code book D, the 5 number code.
Nov 12th - 13th U.S. navy 1941 sent message to Washington that U.S. was current on Japanese Naval code. FDR requested all messages.
Nov 15 FDR secret meeting with Washington folks that Dec was the danger zone.

Nov 25 Hawaii Jap fleet left Japan 6 carrier plus war ships
Adm Kimmell got the info from his Crptograhers at Pearl Harbor he sent warning to Washington, FDR's reply to Adm Kimell in Hawaii and MacArther in the Philippines ordered to Stand Aside and let Japan commit 1st act, defensive actions only, Nov 27 1941.
MacArthur sent reply "...all clear for successful defense..."
FOIA docs with proof in Book
(BTW Stinnett thinks it was a 'Nobel Lie' to get the U.S. people in the war that we needed to be in)

http://www.independent.org/images/blank.gif
Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor?
March 11, 2002
Robert B. Stinnett (http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=514), Douglas Cirignano (http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=800)

An Interview with Robert B. Stinnett by Douglas Cirignano
On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “...the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow...”

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408

Now before this FDR planned for a year or more to provoke the Japanese to attack.

On October 7, 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence submitted a memo to Navy Captains Walter Anderson and Dudley Knox (whose endorsement is included in the following scans). Captains Anderson and Knox were two of President Roosevelt's most trusted military advisors.

The memo, scanned below, detailed an 8 step plan to provoke Japan into attacking the United States. President Roosevelt, over the course of 1941, implemented all 8 of the recommendations contained in the McCollum memo. Following the eighth provocation, Japan attacked. The public was told that it was a complete surprise, an "intelligence failure", and America entered World War Two.

Oct 8 FDR met with fleet commander who didn't like the idea of being bait. ref Stinnetts book.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/McCollum/index.html
Scans of the McCollum memo at the link above

At Scott Horton’s suggestion, I wrote Robert Stinnett (http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=514), author of Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743201299/theindepeende-20), and asked “about the new story [1 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-pearl-harbor-mysterydec07,0,7080660.story),2 (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/06/Pearl_Harbor_warning_tale_debunked/UPI-21811228612980/)] that the NSA has debunked the Pearl Harbor foreknowledge narrative.” His response is as follows:
Memo for Anthony Gregory (http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=652):
I received your email which I believe you refer to the “Winds Code” story which I read in the New York Times on Sunday, December 7, 2008, based on a news release of the National Security Agency written by NSA “court historians.”
The story is NOT news. The “Winds Code” was introduced in the Congressional Investigation of 1945-46 in an attempt by Congress to divert attention from American success in solving the Japanese naval codes prior to Pearl Harbor. American newspapers and radio networks carried the story in November 1945.
The “winds code” was issued by the Japanese Foreign Office, not the Imperial Japanese Navy. The Foreign Office, certain the Allied nations would cut off communications, planned to use hidden word phrases in their world-wide news broadcasts aimed at Japanese Embassies and Consulates world-wide. Example “East wind Rain” in the weather report during the short wave news broadcast meant war with America; East wind North meant war with Russia. Ralph T. Briggs, a U.S. Naval intercept operator at Station “M”, Cheltenham, Maryland, intercepted the “Winds Code” broadcast on December 4, 1941, numbered the report and sent it to headquarters in Washington, D.C. The numbered report of Briggs is missing from U.S. Navy files.
While the Foreign Office report certainly revealed Japanese war intentions, the Japanese Navy also used a hidden war phrase: Niitaka Yama Nobore 1208, which translated meant “Climb Mt. Niitaka on December 8, 1941″ (Tokyo time). This radio message originated by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander in Chief of the Imperial Navy and was intercepted by Station “H” in Hawaii. Yamamoto transmitted the Niitaka message on December 2, 1941, in the hidden word phrase, according to testimony during the Congressional Investigation 1945-46. RADM Edwin Layton, who was Admiral Kimmel’s intelligence officer said the message was received in Hawaii in the hidden word system.
The Imperial Japanese Army also had a hidden word phrase. I have not seen the message, but it reportedly was “The Black Kite will fly on December 8, 1941.”
Best regards, Bob Stinnett."

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/12/10/stinnett-responds-to-nsas-pearl-harbor-claims/

revelarts

06-10-2012, 09:52 AM

http://www.historynet.com/book-review-day-of-deceit-by-robert-b-stinnett-wwii.htm

...Stinnett has left no stone unturned, and his account rewrites the historical record of the war. His well-written and gripping narrative is buttressed with copies of many relevant government documents, intelligence reports and Japanese diplomatic and military intercepts.
Explosive, revealing and disturbing, this book gets to the heart of the debate about America's leadership as the nation was swept into the war. It is a sober and careful study, however, without sensationalism. Stinnett has simply done his homework doggedly and thoroughly, and has sought to present what he believes is the full story behind the Japanese attack.
One of the most shocking of McCollum's proposals, says the author, was Action D, the deployment of U.S. warships within or adjacent to Japanese territorial waters. During secret White House meetings, Roosevelt personally took charge of Action D, labeling the provocations "pop-up" cruises. According to Stinnett, Roosevelt said, "I just want them to keep popping up here and there and keep the Japs guessing. I don't mind losing one or two cruisers, but do not take a chance on losing five or six." Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, commander of the Pacific Fleet, objected, saying, "It is ill-advised and will result in war if we make this move."
From March through July 1941, Stinnett writes, White House records show that FDR flouted international law and dispatched naval task groups into Japanese waters on three such cruises. One of the most provocative was a sortie into the Bungo Strait, southeast of Honshu, the principal access to Japan's Inland Sea....

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-10-2012, 10:32 AM

Now see that i agree with. I would say that fdr knew the wroting was on the wall as concerns japan, but tp say he had the specifics of pearl harbor before hand and chose not to act is preposterous

I want to point out your errors in that very short post since you chose to declare my writing to be so atrocious.
First sentence one mistake = that should be a capital -(I) not the lower case (i) that you mistakenly used.
Second sentence , has FOUR mistakes no less.-:laugh2:
First one is that FDR is an abbreviation of a person's name -an ex-President -, it should be capitalised like this (FDR) not the lower case (fdr) that you mistakenly used.
Second sentence , second mistake = you spelled the word (writing) as "wroting" which is apparently a made up word that I've never heard of or read before!
Second sentence , third mistake = you spelled the word (to) as (tp).
Second sentence , fourth mistake= Pearl Harbor is capitalised wheras you used the lower case spelling which is wrong and/or just being lazy....

I'd like to say with five glaring mistakes in just two sentences you are the last person here that should be so arrrogant as to attempt to lecture others on grammar, punctuation, spelling and/or their writing skills.

See how easy that is to do to people and how irritating?
Just a generous favor that I decided to do for you.
No need to thank me little one. You can thank me by learning this lesson today.
Look mom, I'm a teacher too!-:laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

DragonStryk72

06-10-2012, 01:34 PM

I want to point out your errors in that very short post, since you chose to declare my writing to be so atrocious.
The First sentence has one mistake = That should be a capital I, not the lower case I that you mistakenly used.
The Second sentence has FOUR mistakes, no less.-:laugh2:
The First one is that FDR is an abbreviation of a person's name, a former President, it should be capitalized like this (FDR) not the lower case (fdr) that you mistakenly used.
Second sentence, second mistake = You spelled the word (writing) as "wroting", which is apparently a made up word that I've never heard of, or read before!
Second sentence, third mistake = You spelled the word (to) as (tp).
Second sentence, fourth mistake= Pearl Harbor is capitalized, whereas you used the lower case spelling, which is wrong and/or just being lazy.

I'd like to say that, with five glaring mistakes in just two sentences, you are the last person here that should be so arrogant as to attempt to lecture others on grammar, punctuation, spelling and/or their writing skills.

See how easy that is to do to people and how irritating?
Just a generous favor that I decided to do for you.
No need to thank me little one. You can thank me by learning this lesson today.
Look mom, I'm a teacher too!-:laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

Let's talk about the poor abused comma of yours, Tyr. You won't use it where you shouldn't, and throw it in where it has no business being. You used ellipses for absolutely no reason, seeing as how it was the end of the sentence completely, whereas they are used to denote a long pause, or lead on to something else.

You were so busy acting arrogantly, that you misspelled the word arrogant, as well. It has only two Rs, not three.

Five mistakes? Oh god, I could only wish for that in your posts, Tyr. You say he has no business correcting you, but you committed foul after foul trying to one up him. Unfortunately, it really only made you look more like a dumbass, since you committed so many grammatical errors along the way.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you are going to insult someone over their intelligence or spelling, it behooves you to spell it correctly.

ConHog

06-10-2012, 01:57 PM

Let's talk about the poor abused comma of yours, Tyr. You won't use it where you shouldn't, and throw it in where it has no business being. You used ellipses for absolutely no reason, seeing as how it was the end of the sentence completely, whereas they are used to denote a long pause, or lead on to something else.

You were so busy acting arrogantly, that you misspelled the word arrogant, as well. It has only two Rs, not three.

Five mistakes? Oh god, I could only wish for that in your posts, Tyr. You say he has no business correcting you, but you committed foul after foul trying to one up him. Unfortunately, it really only made you look more like a dumbass, since you committed so many grammatical errors along the way.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you are going to insult someone over their intelligence or spelling, it behooves you to spell it correctly.

Not to mention i believe anyone can see that aometimes my posts have a few errors, but most of the time they do not and ive said before i sometines post from my droid whcih makes editing a challenge

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-10-2012, 02:44 PM

Let's talk about the poor abused comma of yours, Tyr. You won't use it where you shouldn't, and throw it in where it has no business being. You used ellipses for absolutely no reason, seeing as how it was the end of the sentence completely, whereas they are used to denote a long pause, or lead on to something else.

You were so busy acting arrogantly, that you misspelled the word arrogant, as well. It has only two Rs, not three.

Five mistakes? Oh god, I could only wish for that in your posts, Tyr. You say he has no business correcting you, but you committed foul after foul trying to one up him. Unfortunately, it really only made you look more like a dumbass, since you committed so many grammatical errors along the way.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you are going to insult someone over their intelligence or spelling, it behooves you to spell it correctly.

How about it behooves them to do so themselves?
In addition several of your corrections were wrong but I'll not bother to point out why because playing spelling/ grammar nazi is not to my liking nor am I keen on doing so. If I am indeed poor at it then it points to my lack of experience.
However its easily seen that I didnt start it because I had only such a tactic to toss out.
By the way amigo, what part of "just kiss my ass" didn't you understand?-:laugh2:
Is it your intention to sidetrack me all day with your childish prattling?--Tyr

ConHog

06-10-2012, 03:07 PM

Okay Tyr has derailed enough . Back to the topic.

I still say Rev is right , we do need to get out of AStan, but not for the reason he suggests. They don't want us there winning their democracy. So why are we trying?

revelarts

06-10-2012, 06:43 PM

Okay Tyr has derailed enough . Back to the topic.

I still say Rev is right , we do need to get out of AStan, but not for the reason he suggests. They don't want us there winning their democracy. So why are we trying?

Uh yeah I agree with that too.
but ..um... wrong thread man.

ConHog

06-10-2012, 06:46 PM

Uh yeah I agree with that too.
but ..um... wrong thread man.

I know, I lost track lol sorry about that.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-10-2012, 06:54 PM

Our Navy should have no cuts in it's budget. In fact, it should have an increase. What we should do is cut foreign aid a hundred billion a year and send that money to the Navy where it will better serve our nation's needs.
We should cut all the give away programs a few billion dollars a year and send that savings into our military budget.
Want peace prepare for war! It's not just a slogan but is a fact.
Sorry, no links boys. Just an opinion generated by my very own brain.-:laugh2:--Tyr

revelarts

06-10-2012, 06:59 PM

FDR wanted the U.S. in the War, All of his pro England activity and notes to Churchill etc show this. In Sept 27 1940 triparite pack Japan Germany Italy was signed. FDR knew that a Japanese war meant war with Germany as well.

According to Research done By Robert Stinnet who FOIAed the Docs of the cyptgrphers and And Washington events. It now appears that FDR Planned to provoke the Japanese into war and Did know shortly before hand the exact date of the attacks but wanted the Japanese to strike the 1st blow.

Again according to docs Stinnett obtained.
Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743201299/theindepeende-20)

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408

Station Cast (sp) on Corrigador(sp) broke Japanese code book D, the 5 number code.
Nov 12th - 13th U.S. navy 1941 sent message to Washington that U.S. was current on Japanese Naval code. FDR requested all messages.
Nov 15 FDR secret meeting with Washington folks that Dec was the danger zone.

Nov 25 Hawaii Jap fleet left Japan 6 carrier plus war ships
Adm Kimmell got the info from his Crptograhers at Pearl Harbor he sent warning to Washington, FDR's reply to Adm Kimell in Hawaii and MacArther in the Philippines ordered to Stand Aside and let Japan commit 1st act, defensive actions only, Nov 27 1941.
MacArthur sent reply "...all clear for successful defense..."
FOIA docs with proof in Book
(BTW Stinnett thinks it was a 'Nobel Lie' to get the U.S. people in the war that we needed to be in)
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408

Now before this FDR planned for a year or more to provoke the Japanese to attack.

Oct 8 FDR met with fleet commander who didn't like the idea of being bait. ref Stinnetts book.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/McCollum/index.html
Scans of the McCollum memo at the link above

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/12/10/stinnett-responds-to-nsas-pearl-harbor-claims/

http://www.historynet.com/book-review-day-of-deceit-by-robert-b-stinnett-wwii.htm

For those that missed it on the other page.

ConHog

06-10-2012, 07:03 PM

Our Navy should have no cuts in it's budget. In fact, it should have an increase. What we should do is cut foreign aid a hundred billion a year and send that money to the Navy where it will better serve our nation's needs.
We should cut all the give away programs a few billion dollars a year and send that savings into our military budget.
Want peace prepare for war! It's not just a slogan but is a fact.
Sorry, no links boys. Just an opinion generated by my very own brain.-:laugh2:--Tyr

The Navy could increase their own budget if they were more cost efficient. Just as EVERY government agency could be. BUT the government encourages inefficiency.

And our nation's needs are usually the last thing those who control the funds are worried about.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-10-2012, 07:06 PM

I know, I lost track lol sorry about that.

It's ok little buddy. I know that you have Tyr on the brain and I just want to let you know in advance if it turns romantic on your part I don't swing that way.-:lol:--Tyr

ConHog

06-10-2012, 07:11 PM

It's ok little buddy. I know that you have Tyr on the brain and I just want to let you know in advance if it turns romantic on your part I don't swing that way.-:lol:--Tyr

You remind me a bit of another 58 y/o I used to know. How do you feel about big flightless birds?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

06-10-2012, 07:36 PM

You remind me a bit of another 58 y/o I used to know. How do you feel about big flightless birds?

Spare me your gay fantasies.
I have no interests in your past love relationships or your bird fetish.-:laugh2:-Tyr