On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:15:16 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/9/15 9:57 PM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 5:24:53 PM UTC-7, Tom Nofinger wrote:
On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 3:14:19 PM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/9/2015 5:55 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/9/15 5:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/9/15 3:55 PM, wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 15:28:26 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


I simply don't believe the U.S. military has the capability to protect
our homeland or even its own resources against the sorts of
non-traditional adversaries we face today. Money blown on carriers
would
be better spent on the training and placement of intel forces.


The fact still remains that there no better tool to project force than
a carrier battle group.
Whether we should be projecting that force is open to conjecture but
as long as we are, we need the tool..
Personally I have no problem leaving all of those folks in Southeast
Europe, South Asia and the middle east, to kill each other

I bet if the 6th fleet sailed a carrier group into the eastern Med to
prop up your favorite country, you would like the carriers a bit
better.



There you go again. I don't like or dislike carriers. I simply think the
billions spent on building and running them would be better spent these
days on recruiting, training, and supporting intel resources.


And what are you going to do with that Intel?


When necessary, act on it in a force-appropriate manner. The team that
took out bin Laden was land-based and acted upon intel that took years
to assemble.



I think you are debating for the sake of debating.

He dances because he has to take a leak.

LOL!


The stupid in rec.boats seems to be rising every day.

You *do* seem to be posting more and more magniloquent inanities.
--

Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner
*behavior* causes problems.