Who's nose will grow the longest tonight?

[Tagger]

Mitt Romney: Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It's the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally, Israel. And so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Yawn. Bottle of Scotch. I speak the trooth

BTW - reread it without the chip on your shoulder and the happy juice. And for the SSBNx - the Virgina class has a 34' beam. The D5 is 44' in length. It won't fit. Even with a hump (a la Russian Deltas) which is not outside the realm of possibility it is too small of a hull. The Ohio is way old. Redesign might cost about as much as a clean sheet of paper. If you redesign a new missile to fit in a smaller Virginia style hull you double the costs and loose range.

I checked to see if I forgot a word, I didn't, I said after the Virginia program not after the Virginia itself.
They came in under budget, and under timeline on EVERY boat in Groton.

Bottle of Scotch? Hittin the juice won't do you any good, nothing to be that depressed by.

So which president were we under when we had the smallest fleet?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Tagger

Mitt Romney: Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It's the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally, Israel. And so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us.

look at a real map...he was talking about the Mediterranean Sea....obviously

Syria receiving Iranian arms 'almost daily' via Iraq - Thursday 20 September 2012

Syria receiving Iranian arms 'almost daily' via Iraq - Thursday 20 September 2012 | World news | guardian.co.uk

SYRIA has accelerated its supply of weapons, including advanced ballistic missiles, to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon in a move that could further inflame an already destabilised region.

With the help of experts from Iran and North Korea, Damascus is pressing ahead with its development of sophisticated missiles at a secret site nicknamed "missile city" built into Jabal Taqsis, a mountain near the opposition stronghold of Hama.

With financial and political support from Iran, the Syrians have also stepped up their military assistance to Hezbollah, which must now rank as the most powerful non-state military force in the world.



Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

[JohnR]

The Virginia PROGRAM is just that, a program. The Virginia hull won't work, the reactor too small to be used in a big hull.

Yes, Groton & EB do subs the best. Just as Bath Built is Best on surface ships. But remember, this is a Navy, not a jobs program.

[RIJIMMY]

i have no f'in clue what you people are talking about

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

i have no f'in clue what you people are talking about

It's OK - neither does Likwid but we are talking bayonets and horses.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnR

It's OK - neither does Likwid but we are talking bayonets and horses.

ouch, comparing me to Likwid is a little rough. Do you have to be so insulting?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

ouch, comparing me to Likwid is a little rough. Do you have to be so insulting?

[The Dad Fisherman]

You 2 need to step back and relax....enough of the name calling.....

[Saltheart]

The Navy thing in interesting if you look at the underlying strategies for our position in the world.

Right now everyone is talking tough about China do to the jobs lost. So part of the get tough on China rhetoric is the need to have a larger Navy to keep routes , etc open and free to all nations. If you believe this then we need a huge expansion of the Navy. Forget 313 ships. To do the Pacific (huge , huge body of water) we need 500+ ships.

Now realistically , I see things going differently than the current Presidential Debates , get tough on China talk. Yes there will be arguing about currency issues and possible restrictions on technology exports , etc. However , I see us totally abandoning the idea that we can keep that part of Asia under our sphere of military influence. China will someday have that part of the world under its sphere of influence. Its an unstoppable tide. Just as the Monroe Doctrine claimed the Americas for the US in terms of our sphere of influence based on logistics and seperation by the Oceans , China will eventually dominate the south and east coasts of Asia simply do to the obvious geography of the world. This would have happened hundreds of years ago had China not continued to be a third world , closed society until recently. You simple cannot project US influence across that part of Asia from across the worlds largest expanse of ocean against a rival with a land mass the size of our own , a Pacific coast as long or longer than our own and a population nearly triple our own.

IMO we need to stop thinking of China in hostile fashions and go back to thinking of them as a huge trade partner and potential military ally as they were in WW2. There is nothing we can do to prevent China from becoming a superpower and dominating that part of the world.

We'd be far better off doing all we can to further develop India as one of our strongest world allies. India will soon be the most populated country in the world. They are friendly to the US. They are in a crucial strategic geographical location. Next we should be beginning to make our presence known in Africa and do all we can to develop friendly allies there.

The overwhelming priority of foreign policy should be concentrating the bulk of our military planning and resources to combat radical Islam which I believe is our "to the death enemy" for the next 50 to 100 years. Most every other conflict we face are rooted in economics but the radical Islamists want to kill us. Its pretty easy to see there will be no negotiations with these radicals except for their attempts to pull the wool over our eyes to buy time to strengthen their position until they feel bold enough to break out and kill us and any other people who will not convert. Nothing in history has ever shown us that they will behave in any other way.

Anyway , as far as the debates go , I think Romney's camp had the strategy of specifically targeting the swing voters. By now those firmly committed to either side will not be changing their vote based on the third debate. The ones who can still be influenced are the middle of the roaders who in general are moderates. I believe Romney's stately performance was aimed at these moderate undecideds and I think it was a big success with that group. O---BAM-BAM-BAM-A simply appeared like an overbearing teen age bully. He kept interrupting Romney. Kept calling him a liar , had the body language of a bully and the facial expressions and foolish rhetoric of a condecending know it all. Yet behind all his bravado is an indefensable 4 years of doing no good for the country.


I think its going to be a very close race. I am thrilled there are no serious 3rd party candidates to steal significant votes from either side. I think there will be a winner who gathers a majority vote (not just a plurality) and I sure hope its a vote to change course for the country.

We'll find out in two weeks!

[JohnR]

Interesting points Mike.

Likwid - for your reading: Mitt Romney’s Big Plans for the U.S. Navy | Defense News | defensenews.com

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Hopefully it'll be close enough that we can discuss getting rid of the Electoral College. Then, we can finally have a time in this country where every person's vote actually counts.

I can see how it may have been necessary 225 years ago, but it's completely nonsense today. At least Maine and Nebraska have it partially corrected.

Every person's vote counts more with the electoral college than it would with a direct national vote--that is, if you believe in federalism. Your vote is far more effective at a state level than it would be at a national level. The smaller the number of total votes, the greater the weight of each vote. The Founders understood the dangers of a pure democracy. Their intention was optimal individual freedom. One of their greatest fears was the tyranny of the majority over the minority. That's why they vested most of the power in the States and the People. That's why they instituted a republic rather than a Democracy.

Federalism allows a great number of diverse localities each of which has a consensus by vote. The electoral college gives the consensus of each State the proportional power of votes, and thus commands the candidates to appeal to a wider variety of needs and wishes. The ability of those elected to the central government is restrained more by this electoral power of States rather than by politicians being able to appeal directly to each voter not on the basis of what is the wish of his community, but what is most profitable to him individually, thus more easily winning power by the old method of divide and conquer. Corruption and control is more possible when you can win by appealing directly to individual greed and skirting various community values and local powers. The consensus power of the States holds federal power in check, and prevents it from implementing that majoritarian power over individuals.

So much has already been done to erode Constitutional governance by transferring State and individual power to the central goverment that there is not much more that needs to be done to totally transform us into a society with a totally top down form of government which becomes the sovereign and we its underlings. The power of the States has been diminished to the status of vassals to a central directorate. The lion's share of taxes imposed on the citizens of the States goes to the Federal Government, leaving the States a comparatively meager share on which to operate. The Senate, which used to be appointed by the States, is by amendment elected directly, which often makes them representatives of the Federal Government through party affiliation more than representatives of the States except to be emissaries who beg for money from the central leviathan as a reward for doing its bidding. As the Federal government expands its unelected regulatory power, the need for States and local government becomes less necessary, and the Constitution no longer is able through this so-called progressive transformation to check that trajectory. If the electoral college is abolished, and the Federal government is directly elected by the people, and this central government has its now unlimited ability to tax and spend, and it has the power to create, without popular votes, especially without the diverse wishes of various States, any number of regulatory agencies that promulgate thousands of pages of regulations by which it administers the country, what is the need for States?

Curtis Gans, the director of the non-partisan Center for the Study of the American Electorate, commenting on the Electoral College wrote "The Electoral College stands as a bulwark for pluralism, federalism, coalition building and participation. It stands as a deterrant to unbridled majoritarianism, total dominance of the news media and money, and the nightmare of a national recount. Its ground rules need to be amended, but the essential institution should not be discarded."

[Saltheart]

I'll vote but doing so in RI is a waste. RI will elect or re-elect all the democrats by about 65-35 margins. The only time a republican gets elected is if he is a famous name who is actually a democrat but running as a republican cause someone else got the Dem party nomination. Its always this way. Probably always will be. The Democrats are the party of those with their hands out and RI has the highest percentage of gimme people in the USA. Oh well , its got a beautiful bay and shoreline and lots of great restaurants. What more could you ask for!