Anyone watching...
 

wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:21:36 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:


For Putin it's a "national security" issue. The internal "Russian"
domestic issues were exacerbated by Bush's lame-ass missile defense
plans in that part of the world. Putin doesn't want American missiles
right on his border, and I don't blame him. I don't want Russian
missiles in Mexico or Canada. American missiles in the Czech Republic
today, Georgia tomorrow. Bush refused to listen to Putin's protests
about those missiles, and now is getting spanked.
Simple diplomacy and strategic vision could have avoided this BS. BTW, I
heard Putin talking the other day about the "Georgian Terroists" and
making equivalencies with our invasion of Iraq. Whether you buy that or
not, it was George Bush who gave Putin that card to play.

I wouldn't disagree that it could have been handled better by Bush.
Squeezing Russia isn't smart, but I don't see this as a reaction to
Bush's mishandling of the situation. I see this as Putin making a
statement. Russia was recently a world player, and Putin's statement is
that it is once again a world player that has to be listened to. We take
Putin, and Russia, for granted at our peril.

If you want to talk mishandling, Saakashvili is right at the top of the
list.



Don't you find it interesting that both McCain *and* Obama have indicated
both support and endorsement of Bush's actions so far?

Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:30:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by
Carter which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the
seas by members of Congress on both sides
.
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

Eisboch

I think you are probably right. Carter did cut many military programs.
The B1 bomber IIRC, but he was looking for bang for the buck, so to
speak. Reagan, on the other hand, threw money at the military, and
reinstated the B1, which was an expensive dog.

Funny, in the Reagan era, we were talking about a 600 ship Navy, I
believe now we are talking about a 300 ship Navy.

Anyone watching...
 

Anyone watching...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:41:52 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


If you want to talk mishandling, Saakashvili is right at the top of the
list.



Don't you find it interesting that both McCain *and* Obama have
indicated both support and endorsement of Bush's actions so far?

Eisboch

Well, thankfully, he hasn't really done much since the invasion. Giving
ultimatums would have been a serious mistake. I agree with Vic, pushing
for Georgia's inclusion into NATO was a mistake. If I were Putin, I
would feel encircled, and threatened, especially since, up until
recently, Russia has been playing relatively nice.

I may be wrong, but I don't see this as a major crisis, more as a temper
tantrum from an ignored child. What will be interesting to see, will we
continue to push for Georgia and Ukraine's inclusion into NATO?

Anyone watching...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:38:46 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...

One of the Reagan Admin's goals was to so overspend on the military and so
encumber the country with debt, necessary social programs would have to be
cut.

That was a *goal*?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Here is what I want to know - where is Code Pink? "Peace Mother"
Sheehan? I’m pretty sure there hasn't been any picketing of embassies
this week or sending human shields, or at least interrupting Duma
sessions with outraged shouting, pink costumes and peace symbols.

Come on - we're talking One World here - where are the protests? We
can't but they can?

Harry's thinking is exactly similar to Robert Scheer's - it's all a
neocon plot to elect McCain.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...EDCD129NI4.DTL

Anyone watching...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:30:26 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
et...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.

Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm


Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by Carter
which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the seas by
members of Congress on both sides
.
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

Honest - I have not read Harry's reply yet.

I guarentee you he will say something along the lines of waste of
money, social issues and can't we all get along.

Anyone watching...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:36:31 -0400, hk wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.
Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm


Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by Carter
which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the seas by
members of Congress on both sides
.
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

Indeed, a colossal waste of taxpayer money...a 600-ship Navy. Boys and
their toys.

I hate being right all the time. :)

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..

Indeed, a colossal waste of taxpayer money...a 600-ship Navy. Boys and
their toys.



That's an interesting statement, coming from you.

How about all the union civilian yardbird jobs lost due to a major reduction
in military spending?
Ship building, maintenance, repairs, upgrades.

How about the union jobs lost at Pratt and Whitney and GE because a
reduction by 75% of aircraft carriers results in far fewer aircraft and
their associated repairs and engine replacements?

How about the union jobs lost in avionics, navigation, weapons systems? I
know from my working experience that almost all of these programs have
multi-tiered participants in industry. Companies like Raytheon may be the
prime, but they issue millions, if not billions of subcontracts to smaller
companies (like the one I had) to supply services, equipment, etc. to
support their programs.

I also recall a serious concern about major military contractors like
Raytheon losing their technical and structured manufacturing capabilities
due to reductions in military spending on new systems. It came down to a
handful of major contractors who, if they were forced to lay off people
commensurate with Carter's reduction in military spending, becoming unable
to respond technically and manufacturing wise to future threats due to lost
talent and scrapped projects.

Reagan's policies helped prevent all the above.

Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:47:18 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:30:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by
Carter which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the
seas by members of Congress on both sides
.
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

I think you are probably right. Carter did cut many military programs.
The B1 bomber IIRC, but he was looking for bang for the buck, so to
speak. Reagan, on the other hand, threw money at the military, and
reinstated the B1, which was an expensive dog.

Funny, in the Reagan era, we were talking about a 600 ship Navy, I
believe now we are talking about a 300 ship Navy.

Yep - thank you Donald Rumsfield.

Anyone watching...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:38:46 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
One of the Reagan Admin's goals was to so overspend on the military and so
encumber the country with debt, necessary social programs would have to be
cut.
That was a *goal*?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Here is what I want to know - where is Code Pink? "Peace Mother"
Sheehan? I’m pretty sure there hasn't been any picketing of embassies
this week or sending human shields, or at least interrupting Duma
sessions with outraged shouting, pink costumes and peace symbols.

Come on - we're talking One World here - where are the protests? We
can't but they can?

Harry's thinking is exactly similar to Robert Scheer's - it's all a
neocon plot to elect McCain.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...EDCD129NI4.DTL



You mean the neocons who run McCain's campaign, or a different
collection of neocons?

McCain isn't going to be elected. Almost everytime he speaks, he reveals
how disconnected he is from reality. After the conventions, the Dems are
going to go for his throat and rip it right out of his body. He really
truly is nothing more than an extension of Bush.



--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

Anyone watching...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:08:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...

Indeed, a colossal waste of taxpayer money...a 600-ship Navy. Boys and
their toys.



That's an interesting statement, coming from you.

How about all the union civilian yardbird jobs lost due to a major reduction
in military spending?
Ship building, maintenance, repairs, upgrades.

How about the union jobs lost at Pratt and Whitney and GE because a
reduction by 75% of aircraft carriers results in far fewer aircraft and
their associated repairs and engine replacements?

How about the union jobs lost in avionics, navigation, weapons systems? I
know from my working experience that almost all of these programs have
multi-tiered participants in industry. Companies like Raytheon may be the
prime, but they issue millions, if not billions of subcontracts to smaller
companies (like the one I had) to supply services, equipment, etc. to
support their programs.

I also recall a serious concern about major military contractors like
Raytheon losing their technical and structured manufacturing capabilities
due to reductions in military spending on new systems. It came down to a
handful of major contractors who, if they were forced to lay off people
commensurate with Carter's reduction in military spending, becoming unable
to respond technically and manufacturing wise to future threats due to lost
talent and scrapped projects.

Reagan's policies helped prevent all the above.

Retraining - we need to retrain all these painters, carpenters,
riggers, stage, crane operators, plumbers and make them all computer
engineers and technicians, doctors, lawyers and nurses.

Oh and pay them $34/hr while doing it.

Anyone watching...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:30:26 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.
Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm

Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by Carter
which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the seas by
members of Congress on both sides
.
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

Honest - I have not read Harry's reply yet.

I guarentee you he will say something along the lines of waste of
money, social issues and can't we all get along.


Absolutely. We've already wasted too many taxpayer dollars on the Navy.
I loved the recent articles about the Navy's "stealth" ship, the one
that was designed without weapons systems to handle close attacks.

You know, this one:

Sen. Collins: Navy scrapping stealth destroyer

By DAVID SHARP – Jul 22, 2008

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — The Navy has decided to scrap its newest
destroyer model after the first two are built in shipyards in Maine and
Mississippi, Sen. Susan Collins said Tuesday.

Collins, a Maine Republican, said Navy Secretary Donald Winter called
her to tell her the outcome of a meeting of top brass regarding the
future of the DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer.

Critics say the Zumwalt is too expensive for the Navy to achieve its
goal of a 313-ship fleet.

The Navy has been debating whether to build more of the current, and
less expensive, Arleigh Burke destroyers. A spokesperson for the
Pentagon said it would have no immediate comment on its plans.

The Zumwalt was conceived as a stealth warship with massive firepower to
pave the way for Marines to make their way ashore. It features advanced
technology, composite materials, an unconventional wave-piercing hull
and a smaller crew.

But the warship displaces 14,500 tons, making it 50 percent larger than
Arleigh Burke destroyers. And each of the warships will cost twice the
$1.3 billion that Arleigh Burkes cost.

Maine's Bath Iron Works, a General Dynamics subsidiary, is building one
of the ships. Northrop Grumman's Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi is
building the other.

The Senate has authorized funding for the third of what was supposed to
be seven ships. But the House has balked at funding that ship, which
would have been built in Bath.

Collins, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the Navy
review of the Zumwalt was triggered by a decision by the committee's
House counterpart to reject funding for the third ship.

- - -

And now, the real story:


Two weeks ago, the Navy canceled plans to build the rest of its hulking
stealth destroyers. At first, it looked like the DDG-1000s'
$5-billion-a-copy price tag was to blame. Now, it appears the real
reason has slipped out: The Navy's most advanced warship is all but
defenseless against one of its best-known threats.

We already knew that the older, cheaper, Burke-class destroyers
(pictured) are better able to fight off anti-ship missiles -- widely
considered the most deadly (and most obvious) hazard to the American
fleet. Specifically, the old Burkes can shoot down those missiles using
special SM-3 interceptors; the new DDG-1000 cannot.

But now, a leading figure in the Navy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations
(and Vice-Admiral) Barry McCullough, is saying that the DDG-1000 "cannot
perform area air defense" at all. Never mind the SM-3; the ship isn't
designed to fire any kind of long-range air-defense missile, whatsoever.
It's presumably limited to the same last-ditch "point defense" systems
(think Phalanx guns and short-range interceptors, like the Evolved Sea
Sparrow Missiles) that cargo ships, aircraft carriers and even Coast
Guard cutters carry in case a missile slips past their screening Burkes.
Those point defenses can't intercept ballistic missiles at all -- and
when they destroy sea-skimming missiles, the debris can still strike and
severely damage the ship.

In other words, the world's most expensive surface warship can't
properly defend itself or other ships from an extremely widespread
threat. That, needless to say, is a problem. Not only is the DDG-1000
vulnerable to the ballistic anti-ship missiles that countries such as
China are developing, it wouldn't even be particularly effective at
protecting fleets against common weapons in the arsenals of everyone
from Russia to Iran. And it's not like this was some kind of new threat;
these missiles have been around, in one form or another, since World War II.

"We're the Navy...if there is a way to waste billions of your dollars,
we will find it."




--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

Anyone watching...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:09:53 -0400, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:38:46 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
One of the Reagan Admin's goals was to so overspend on the military and so
encumber the country with debt, necessary social programs would have to be
cut.
That was a *goal*?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Here is what I want to know - where is Code Pink? "Peace Mother"
Sheehan? I’m pretty sure there hasn't been any picketing of embassies
this week or sending human shields, or at least interrupting Duma
sessions with outraged shouting, pink costumes and peace symbols.

Come on - we're talking One World here - where are the protests? We
can't but they can?

Harry's thinking is exactly similar to Robert Scheer's - it's all a
neocon plot to elect McCain.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...EDCD129NI4.DTL

You mean the neocons who run McCain's campaign, or a different
collection of neocons?

McCain isn't going to be elected. Almost everytime he speaks, he reveals
how disconnected he is from reality. After the conventions, the Dems are
going to go for his throat and rip it right out of his body. He really
truly is nothing more than an extension of Bush.

That's why he's even in most polling or within the margin of error for
most polling techniques.

Obama isn't going to any "throat" - he's a cypher with pretty words
and even Democrats are begining to recognise that they've made a HUGE
mistake.

You need to broaden your reading list somewhat - it's pretty apparent
you've been reading the DNC daily talking point memo.

Oh, by the way - interesting article the other day about polling
results - in that whites ~~ THE HORROR ~~ may actually lie about
voting for a black man when polled. Which, according to the author of
the article, may portend a huge landslide - for McCain.

Written by a Democrat by the way - I'll find the link.

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:


If we want to "control" the Russkis (and the Venezuelans), then we need a
serious energy policy that results in our lowering our imports of oil by
substantial margins. If oil prices are determined by demand, then we
(meaning the western world) need to lower demand. Lower prices down to $30
a barrel, and the Russians will have no excess dollars with which to play
military expansionism.

How to start? Mandate auto mileage standards that require 90% of the fleet
to deliver 35 mpg within 10 years, tax incentives for disposing of gas
guzzlers, more and better public transportation, appliances, heating
devices, surcharges on private vehicles that burn more than a certain
amount of fuel, more nuclear power, more public ownership of energy
resources, et cetera.

Since we don't have an energy policy that is based upon using a lot less
oil, the world is at the mercy of any renegade that that has oil or the
money to buy whatever it wants.

Want to control China? STOP buying Chinese goods and stop borrowing money
from China. How to start? A 200% tariff on goods from China.




Those suggestions make sense. We also need to maintain a high level of
military capability in terms of people, equipment and resources.
Since WWII, the US has remained a superpower because of this and it's
economy benefits via jobs. Without a strong military structure, the US will
become another has been, militarily and economically. Jobs produce taxable
income as well as raising the overall standard of living.


Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

Indeed, a colossal waste of taxpayer money...a 600-ship Navy. Boys and
their toys.



That's an interesting statement, coming from you.

How about all the union civilian yardbird jobs lost due to a major reduction
in military spending?
Ship building, maintenance, repairs, upgrades.

How about the union jobs lost at Pratt and Whitney and GE because a
reduction by 75% of aircraft carriers results in far fewer aircraft and
their associated repairs and engine replacements?

How about the union jobs lost in avionics, navigation, weapons systems? I
know from my working experience that almost all of these programs have
multi-tiered participants in industry. Companies like Raytheon may be the
prime, but they issue millions, if not billions of subcontracts to smaller
companies (like the one I had) to supply services, equipment, etc. to
support their programs.

I also recall a serious concern about major military contractors like
Raytheon losing their technical and structured manufacturing capabilities
due to reductions in military spending on new systems. It came down to a
handful of major contractors who, if they were forced to lay off people
commensurate with Carter's reduction in military spending, becoming unable
to respond technically and manufacturing wise to future threats due to lost
talent and scrapped projects.

Reagan's policies helped prevent all the above.

Eisboch




We are a nation with a crumbling infrastructure. If we directed our
resources properly, there would be plenty of work for Americans with all
sorts of abilities, cerebral and physical, in every field. We need more
and better high speed rail, new and rebuilt bridges, water treatment
plants, energy production facilities, more economical air transport,
cars, whatever.

The problem with having a military capable of aggressive action is that
you sometimes get an idiot in the White House like Bush who wants to
play cowboy and use it. His father knew how to use a military
force...too bad the son didn't learn from his dad.





--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


McCain isn't going to be elected. Almost everytime he speaks, he reveals
how disconnected he is from reality. After the conventions, the Dems are
going to go for his throat and rip it right out of his body. He really
truly is nothing more than an extension of Bush.



I am not making any predictions, but I think you may be in for a surprise.

Many people, both Dems and Republicans, don't necessarily disagree with the
overall policies of Bush.
They just don't like Bush and the way he handles things. I have to agree
to a point. He's an arrogant SOB who doesn't understand diplomacy, here and
abroad. Someone with a similar world view, but a more refined approach may
be very desirable.

Nixon's "Silent Majority" still exists.

Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:09:53 -0400, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:38:46 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
One of the Reagan Admin's goals was to so overspend on the military and so
encumber the country with debt, necessary social programs would have to be
cut.
That was a *goal*?

Where do you come up with this stuff?
Here is what I want to know - where is Code Pink? "Peace Mother"
Sheehan? I’m pretty sure there hasn't been any picketing of embassies
this week or sending human shields, or at least interrupting Duma
sessions with outraged shouting, pink costumes and peace symbols.

Come on - we're talking One World here - where aI don't pre the protests? We
can't but they can?

Harry's thinking is exactly similar to Robert Scheer's - it's all a
neocon plot to elect McCain.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...EDCD129NI4.DTL
You mean the neocons who run McCain's campaign, or a different
collection of neocons?

McCain isn't going to be elected. Almost everytime he speaks, he reveals
how disconnected he is from reality. After the conventions, the Dems are
going to go for his throat and rip it right out of his body. He really
truly is nothing more than an extension of Bush.

That's why he's even in most polling or within the margin of error for
most polling techniques.

Obama isn't going to any "throat" - he's a cypher with pretty words
and even Democrats are begining to recognise that they've made a HUGE
mistake.

You need to broaden your reading list somewhat - it's pretty apparent
you've been reading the DNC daily talking point memo.

Oh, by the way - interesting article the other day about polling
results - in that whites ~~ THE HORROR ~~ may actually lie about
voting for a black man when polled. Which, according to the author of
the article, may portend a huge landslide - for McCain.

Written by a Democrat by the way - I'll find the link.


On a personal basis, I don't pay much attention to the "national" polls,
although Obama has an average of a five point lead in those. The
important polls are the state by state polls, and Obama is way, way
ahead in those.

If whites won't vote for a black because of the latter's color, then
there really is no excuse for this country's survival.





--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

Anyone watching...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


Retraining - we need to retrain all these painters, carpenters,
riggers, stage, crane operators, plumbers and make them all computer
engineers and technicians, doctors, lawyers and nurses.


or professional writers.

Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:15:24 -0400, hk wrote:


Two weeks ago, the Navy canceled plans to build the rest of its hulking
stealth destroyers. At first, it looked like the DDG-1000s'
$5-billion-a-copy price tag was to blame. Now, it appears the real
reason has slipped out: The Navy's most advanced warship is all but
defenseless against one of its best-known threats.

It's worse than that, there's a serious question of it's seaworthiness.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...00-destroyers-
be-unstable-03203/

Anyone watching...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Retraining - we need to retrain all these painters, carpenters,
riggers, stage, crane operators, plumbers and make them all computer
engineers and technicians, doctors, lawyers and nurses.


or professional writers.

Eisboch


*That* requires skill.



--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

Anyone watching...
 

wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:15:24 -0400, hk wrote:


Two weeks ago, the Navy canceled plans to build the rest of its hulking
stealth destroyers. At first, it looked like the DDG-1000s'
$5-billion-a-copy price tag was to blame. Now, it appears the real
reason has slipped out: The Navy's most advanced warship is all but
defenseless against one of its best-known threats.

It's worse than that, there's a serious question of it's seaworthiness.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...00-destroyers-
be-unstable-03203/



Ahhh...the military-industrial complex at its best. :)


--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

Anyone watching...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:16:23 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Oh, by the way - interesting article the other day about polling results
- in that whites ~~ THE HORROR ~~ may actually lie about voting for a
black man when polled. Which, according to the author of the article,
may portend a huge landslide - for McCain.

Demographics, lad, demographics. Republicans are a dying breed. Their
power base is white, particularly white male. In another twenty years,
whites will no longer be the majority in this country. Republicans
either expand their base to include females, Hispanics, blacks, or they
will become the permanent minority party.

http://people-press.org/report/124/republicans

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Retraining - we need to retrain all these painters, carpenters,
riggers, stage, crane operators, plumbers and make them all computer
engineers and technicians, doctors, lawyers and nurses.


or professional writers.

Eisboch
*That* requires skill.




I am living proof that *that* is not necessarily so. I am far from a
professional writer, yet we are still communicating.

Ok ... here's a bizarre outlook for you .....

One of the reasons that I don't think your concept of a social program based
utopia will work in the US is this:

Countries in Europe, the Middle East and Asia have long standing cultural
unity. What is good for one is likely to be good for all.
The US is based on cultural diversity. What works for one is not
necessarily good for their next door neighbor.

One of the reasons Japan felt confident to attack Pearl Harbor was because
they mistakenly believed that our diverse population could never unite
effectively and we would be thrown into internal chaos. Similarly, the
reactions to the attack of 9/11 demonstrated the type of unity this country
relies upon.

The US is unique in this regard, IMO.

Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:16:23 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Oh, by the way - interesting article the other day about polling results
- in that whites ~~ THE HORROR ~~ may actually lie about voting for a
black man when polled. Which, according to the author of the article,
may portend a huge landslide - for McCain.

Demographics, lad, demographics. Republicans are a dying breed. Their
power base is white, particularly white male. In another twenty years,
whites will no longer be the majority in this country. Republicans
either expand their base to include females, Hispanics, blacks, or they
will become the permanent minority party.

http://people-press.org/report/124/republicans



Or, even better, they'll just die out altogether.


--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

Anyone watching...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Retraining - we need to retrain all these painters, carpenters,
riggers, stage, crane operators, plumbers and make them all computer
engineers and technicians, doctors, lawyers and nurses.

or professional writers.

Eisboch
*That* requires skill.




I am living proof that *that* is not necessarily so. I am far from a
professional writer, yet we are still communicating.

Ok ... here's a bizarre outlook for you .....

One of the reasons that I don't think your concept of a social program based
utopia will work in the US is this:

Countries in Europe, the Middle East and Asia have long standing cultural
unity. What is good for one is likely to be good for all.
The US is based on cultural diversity. What works for one is not
necessarily good for their next door neighbor.

One of the reasons Japan felt confident to attack Pearl Harbor was because
they mistakenly believed that our diverse population could never unite
effectively and we would be thrown into internal chaos. Similarly, the
reactions to the attack of 9/11 demonstrated the type of unity this country
relies upon.

The US is unique in this regard, IMO.

Eisboch



I'm sorry, but I don't recall advocating a "social program based utopia."





--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..



I'm sorry, but I don't recall advocating a "social program based utopia."




Well, that's how this reader interprets your professional writing.

Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


I'm sorry, but I don't recall advocating a "social program based utopia."




Well, that's how this reader interprets your professional writing.

Eisboch




I believe in a strong social safety net that keeps people healthy and
provides for high level training so that everyone has access to
meaningful work that provides a decent living for a family. It's the
Norwegian approach, sort of.


--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


I'm sorry, but I don't recall advocating a "social program based
utopia."




Well, that's how this reader interprets your professional writing.

Eisboch




I believe in a strong social safety net that keeps people healthy and
provides for high level training so that everyone has access to meaningful
work that provides a decent living for a family. It's the Norwegian
approach, sort of.


That's what I thought.

Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


I believe in a strong social safety net that keeps people healthy and
provides for high level training so that everyone has access to meaningful
work that provides a decent living for a family. It's the Norwegian
approach, sort of.


Works well among the Norwegians. Throw a Swede into the mix and the whole
system goes to hell in a handbasket. :-)

Eisboch (a product of both a Swede and a Norwegian)

Anyone watching...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


I'm sorry, but I don't recall advocating a "social program based
utopia."



Well, that's how this reader interprets your professional writing.

Eisboch



I believe in a strong social safety net that keeps people healthy and
provides for high level training so that everyone has access to meaningful
work that provides a decent living for a family. It's the Norwegian
approach, sort of.


That's what I thought.

Eisboch



Indeed...I believe a healthy citizenry is a more productive citizenry,
and I believe it is a waste of valuable resources when people who want
to work cannot find jobs that provide a decent living for their families.

I also believe labor is just as valuable as capital.



--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


I'm sorry, but I don't recall advocating a "social program based
utopia."




Well, that's how this reader interprets your professional writing.

Eisboch




I believe in a strong social safety net that keeps people healthy and
provides for high level training so that everyone has access to meaningful
work that provides a decent living for a family. It's the Norwegian
approach, sort of.


--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain senior
moment?

Provides....provides....provides. Who is going to provide the money. There's
too many folks being provided for and a shortage of providers. Provide a
solution to that problem and you will be provided with all the riches you
dream of.

I wouldn't exactly call what you do meaningful work, would you?

Anyone watching...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:45:45 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:16:23 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Oh, by the way - interesting article the other day about polling results
- in that whites ~~ THE HORROR ~~ may actually lie about voting for a
black man when polled. Which, according to the author of the article,
may portend a huge landslide - for McCain.

Demographics, lad, demographics. Republicans are a dying breed. Their
power base is white, particularly white male. In another twenty years,
whites will no longer be the majority in this country. Republicans
either expand their base to include females, Hispanics, blacks, or they
will become the permanent minority party.

http://people-press.org/report/124/republicans

I was just busting Harry. :)

I agree - the Demographics are changing - and for the better I think
because a lot of hispanics are sympathetic to convervatives and blacks
are waking up to the base fact that TANSTAAFL is actually the way life
works.

It will be an interesting in the coming years.

Anyone watching...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:06:20 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:30:26 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
net...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.

Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm


Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by Carter
which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the seas by
members of Congress on both sides
.
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

Honest - I have not read Harry's reply yet.

I guarentee you he will say something along the lines of waste of
money, social issues and can't we all get along.

Filter him. You won't have the problem.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Anyone watching...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:36:15 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...


If Georgia and some of the other former Sov satellites were already in
NATO, and if Bush hadn't shot our diplomatic wad around the world. Russia
wouldn't have invaded.



Come on Harry. That is nothing but a grand assumption.

Here's the question, put more simply.

If a NATO member is attacked and invaded by Russia (or any other non-NATO
adversary), does the United States have an obligation to respond with
military action, if required?

Eisboch


Not unless NATO determines that military force is to be applied. That won't
happen until the last NATO country is standing.
--
** Good Day! **

John H