If this weren't so sad...
 

On 3/9/15 9:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 18:38:57 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

I understand that. My point is that a U.S. carrier is an appealing
target, and as determined as some terrorists seem to be, at some point
they are going to try.

I think they know that and the Navy has plans to protect them from far
more dangerous actors than some goat herders.


You mean the goat herders who destroyed the WTC and part of the Pentagon?

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

If this weren't so sad...
 

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.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:16:50 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/9/15 8:53 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:53:01 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 3/9/15 5:07 PM, wrote:

I bet Harry also doesn't understand that a carrier is also a pretty
good sized hospital and has an electrical plant large enough to power
essential services for a small city. The battle group also has a lot
of manpower to render aid and a very good fleet of helicopters to get
that aid out across the countryside.
As I said earlier, it is an excellent platform for humanitarian aid
but that needs to be in a safe part of the world, not where they seem
to need it most these days.



None of which has anything to do with the fact that carriers are targets.

These days everything is a target. I would worry more about a suburban
mall than a carrier battle group.
Certainly they might lob a missile at one but we have a fair to
middling chance of just shooting it down. These cruise missile are
pretty slow. The place where it came from will reap the whirlwind.
That CBG will have a guided missile ships tagging along that could
turn 2 or 3 square miles into bouncing rubble.


You know no more about whether a carrier will be successfully attacked
than I do or anyone else here does. I think it is possible and you are
regurgitating the DoD bull****.

Actually, Krause, that's not true. You've displayed a level of knowledge far below
anyone else that has discussed the subject.
--

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

If this weren't so sad...
 

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:17:37 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/9/15 9:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 18:38:57 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

I understand that. My point is that a U.S. carrier is an appealing
target, and as determined as some terrorists seem to be, at some point
they are going to try.

I think they know that and the Navy has plans to protect them from far
more dangerous actors than some goat herders.


You mean the goat herders who destroyed the WTC and part of the Pentagon?

Tell us about the anti-missile and anti-air defenses of the WTC and the Pentagon.

There you go again.
--

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

If this weren't so sad...
 

On 3/9/2015 10:16 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/9/15 8:53 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:53:01 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 3/9/15 5:07 PM, wrote:

I bet Harry also doesn't understand that a carrier is also a pretty
good sized hospital and has an electrical plant large enough to power
essential services for a small city. The battle group also has a lot
of manpower to render aid and a very good fleet of helicopters to get
that aid out across the countryside.
As I said earlier, it is an excellent platform for humanitarian aid
but that needs to be in a safe part of the world, not where they seem
to need it most these days.



None of which has anything to do with the fact that carriers are
targets.

These days everything is a target. I would worry more about a suburban
mall than a carrier battle group.
Certainly they might lob a missile at one but we have a fair to
middling chance of just shooting it down. These cruise missile are
pretty slow. The place where it came from will reap the whirlwind.
That CBG will have a guided missile ships tagging along that could
turn 2 or 3 square miles into bouncing rubble.


You know no more about whether a carrier will be successfully attacked
than I do or anyone else here does. I think it is possible and you are
regurgitating the DoD bull****.

You're a fine one to talk about regurgitating bull****.

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

If this weren't so sad...
 

On 3/10/15 8:02 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:16:50 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 3/9/15 8:53 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:53:01 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 3/9/15 5:07 PM, wrote:

I bet Harry also doesn't understand that a carrier is also a pretty
good sized hospital and has an electrical plant large enough to power
essential services for a small city. The battle group also has a lot
of manpower to render aid and a very good fleet of helicopters to get
that aid out across the countryside.
As I said earlier, it is an excellent platform for humanitarian aid
but that needs to be in a safe part of the world, not where they seem
to need it most these days.



None of which has anything to do with the fact that carriers are targets.

These days everything is a target. I would worry more about a suburban
mall than a carrier battle group.
Certainly they might lob a missile at one but we have a fair to
middling chance of just shooting it down. These cruise missile are
pretty slow. The place where it came from will reap the whirlwind.
That CBG will have a guided missile ships tagging along that could
turn 2 or 3 square miles into bouncing rubble.


You know no more about whether a carrier will be successfully attacked
than I do or anyone else here does. I think it is possible and you are
regurgitating the DoD bull****.

Actually, Krause, that's not true. You've displayed a level of knowledge far below
anyone else that has discussed the subject.



Ooooh...another day of Sheriff John, the newsgroup white racist,
ejaculating stupidity from his keyboard. We're soooo lucky.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

If this weren't so sad...
 

True North wrote:
On Monday, 9 March 2015 15:43:51 UTC-3, wrote:
On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 8:08:20 PM UTC-4, True North wrote:

BTW ..it was four submarines we took off British hands. Three are based in Halifax in various stages of operational readiness.
Those three in Halifax are ****ing junk you idiot.

Speaking about "junk", Jackass..... where's that **** brown piece of crap you call a boat?



Wow! This from the guy who admits his boat is a corroding POS.

If this weren't so sad...
 

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 8:20:18 PM UTC-4, Someone wrote:

Speaking about "junk", Jackass..... where's that **** brown piece of crap you call a boat?



Wow! This from the guy who admits his boat is a corroding POS.

No doubt, huh? The stupid cocksucker cant even back it up when on the trailer.