On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady

Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.

In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H



Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.

So we should stop building ships?

--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H


Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.

So we should stop building ships?

--
John H


RFC

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H


Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.

So we should stop building ships?

--
John H


RFC

You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.

Should we stop building ships?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H


Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?

--
John H

RFC

You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.

Should we stop building ships?
--
John H



Intel assets don't prevent war? That's a really interesting statement,
considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.

To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.

On Dec 4, 5:15*pm, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. *Lots
of cracks happening. *So better designers were needed. *Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H

Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?

--
John H

RFC

You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.

Should we stop building ships?
--
John H

Intel assets don't prevent war? * That's a really interesting statement,
* considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.

To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.

Well, that should be enough for most here to realize it's probably the
best way to go.. After all, it it was bad for the US, you would be all
for it.. you are a weird bird..

wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:15 pm, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.
Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H
Both.
I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?
--
John H
RFC
You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.
Should we stop building ships?
--
John H
Intel assets don't prevent war? That's a really interesting statement,
considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.

To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.

Well, that should be enough for most here to realize it's probably the
best way to go.. After all, it it was bad for the US, you would be all
for it.. you are a weird bird..


Your thought processes provide more insight into your ability to "think"
than you think.

It was *bad* for the USA to invade Iraq. Bush had a million different
reasons for invading, and most of them were based on either bad intel,
mistakenly misinterpreting the intel, or deliberately misinterpreting
the intel.

If we had better intel, Bush and Cheney wouldn't have had the wiggle
room to invade.

Can you follow that?

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:15:45 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H


Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?

--
John H

RFC

You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.

Should we stop building ships?
--
John H



Intel assets don't prevent war? That's a really interesting statement,
considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.

Read my post. The intel assets we, and many other countries, had did not
prevent us from attacking Iraq. They gave us the heads up on the WMD being
developed by Saddam.


To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.

It's hard not to make personal insults, isn't it?

Do you believe we should not build new ships? You've never answered that
question. If it is the cost that bothers you, how much do you think we
should spend for a new ship?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:15:45 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H


Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?

--
John H

RFC
You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.

Should we stop building ships?
--
John H


Intel assets don't prevent war? That's a really interesting statement,
considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.

Read my post. The intel assets we, and many other countries, had did not
prevent us from attacking Iraq. They gave us the heads up on the WMD being
developed by Saddam.

To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.

It's hard not to make personal insults, isn't it?

Do you believe we should not build new ships? You've never answered that
question. If it is the cost that bothers you, how much do you think we
should spend for a new ship?
--
John H



I'm sorry, John, but I really don't see any purpose in playing word
games with you. If you can't figure it out, it is your problem, not
mine, because, to be blunt (and not offensive), I don't give a **** what
you think...

About anything.

Merry Christmas.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:40:58 -0500, Boater wrote:

wrote:
On Dec 4, 5:15 pm, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.
Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H
Both.
I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?
--
John H
RFC
You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.
Should we stop building ships?
--
John H
Intel assets don't prevent war? That's a really interesting statement,
considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.

To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.

Well, that should be enough for most here to realize it's probably the
best way to go.. After all, it it was bad for the US, you would be all
for it.. you are a weird bird..


Your thought processes provide more insight into your ability to "think"
than you think.

It was *bad* for the USA to invade Iraq. Bush had a million different
reasons for invading, and most of them were based on either bad intel,
mistakenly misinterpreting the intel, or deliberately misinterpreting
the intel.

If we had better intel, Bush and Cheney wouldn't have had the wiggle
room to invade.

Can you follow that?

No, it wasn't bad. It was bad to give Saddam six months notice. It enabled
him to get rid of the WMD.
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:56:55 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:15:45 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:08:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:20:20 -0500, Boater wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:28:46 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The problem with lots of the aluminum ship structures was bad design. Lots
of cracks happening. So better designers were needed. Harry maybe?
Actually, since aluminum and steel have the same strength to weight
ratio, it would seem that someone heard rumors that aluminum is
lighter, and designed it that way. Lighter is weaker. Duh.

Casady
Gee, I just bought a carbon fiber tripod. Maybe they could make warships
out of that. It wouldn't be any more a waste of taxpayer money than what
they are doing now.
In what way are they wasting money on warships, Harry? Should we not be
building them, or should we be building them with a different design?
--
John H


Both.

I think spending $500 million on another high tech toy for the military
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Better that money be spent on brainy
people assets that can be used for intel and other purposes that prevent
war. The problem with that sort of "flashy" ship is that some yahoo in
the chain of command will want to use to to make a point. The point
won't be made, and its presence will contribute to us getting into
another stupid shooting war.
So we should stop building ships?

--
John H

RFC
You want to spend money on intel assets. Intel assets don't 'prevent' war.
They may give a heads up, like they did with the WMD Saddam was developing.

Should we stop building ships?
--
John H


Intel assets don't prevent war? That's a really interesting statement,
considering this country's recent history in invading Iraq.

Read my post. The intel assets we, and many other countries, had did not
prevent us from attacking Iraq. They gave us the heads up on the WMD being
developed by Saddam.

To answer your question, since you don't seem to be able to read and
understand my lengthy response, I don't believe we should be wasting a
half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a high tech toy for the Navy.
Once again, try reading for content.

It's hard not to make personal insults, isn't it?

Do you believe we should not build new ships? You've never answered that
question. If it is the cost that bothers you, how much do you think we
should spend for a new ship?
--
John H



I'm sorry, John, but I really don't see any purpose in playing word
games with you. If you can't figure it out, it is your problem, not
mine, because, to be blunt (and not offensive), I don't give a **** what
you think...

About anything.

Merry Christmas.

Harry, I find you like most liberals. You make pronouncements on subjects
about which you know nothing. When someone questions you with specifics,
you quickly demur, change the subject, or begin with the personal insults.
Maybe some of you are different. I'd sure like to meet one.

About whose thoughts do you care, Harry? Maybe that person could be enticed
into asking you a question to which you could give a straightforward reply.
If your answer is 'no one in this group', then why do you continue to post
here?

Apparently a deal to stop with the personal insults is out of the question?
I notice you've started again. Is that your 'taking responsibility for your
actions'?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*