Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"Assume"....its an interesting word

Whoa... sorry seb, I missed this...

*cracks knuckles*

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There was not a "true" attempt to make this bipartisan... in fact, they didn't need to as they had carte blanche.

"They didn't need to" is not the same thing as "they didn't try". For instance, for the invasion of Iraq Bush didn't need the support of any allies, as the US military was more than capable of undertaking the attack by itself. But you'd be a nut to pretend there wasn't a lot of effort made to bring in other countries, with wildly varying levels of success.

There was a large number of outreaches made, at first to the Republicans as a whole, then to specific more moderate Republicans, and finally again to those more moderate Republicans as a possible way of stepping around the Blue Dogs that were threatening to stop the process.

Seb... I avidly paid attention to this as I'm in the Healthcare industry... so, I know what happened. I feel like you're getting filtered information from your standpoint.

Irregardless... the whole fething bill was UNPOPULAR. Shouldn't the Democrats have been more sensitive to the electorate?

And yes, the ACA bill was passed unconventionally (aka, rammed down our throats).

But, if you want to bring in Wyden-Ryan plan, that Medicare cut is the same, but the mechanism to achieve those cuts are drastically different.

No, the $700 billion medicare cut is related to specific cost savings initiatives. You go on to describe the general mechanisms of each bill, not the specific cost savings measures that plan to make $700 billion in savings.

The $700 billion figure is actually about one third no longer overpaying on Medicare advantage, one third reduced hospital payments (which the hospitals have agreed to, knowing the large decrease in paying customer due to ACA's insurance coverage expansion will more than make up the shortfall), and one third for a bunch of minor changes, like no longer needing as much funding for hospitals who see more uninsured patients.

Every single one of those policies is kept within Ryan's budget. Every one.

So what? It was an honest attempt to have a coversation... the Democratic Senate refuse to engage on the Republican on this topic.

The Wyden-Ryan plan preserves the ACA health bill's targets for future Medicare spending, but employs an entirely different mechanism: premium support and competitive bidding. Seniors would enjoy exactly the same benefits that they do now, but along with the traditional Medicare program, they would enjoy the option of choosing among a selection of government-approved private insurance plans.

And given medicare advantage presently pays out premiums at about 117% of what it'd cost to directly provide coverage... then a scheme that thinks it'll solve healthcare with an expanded medicare advantage model is just nutty.

That implies that the government can direct provided coverage "better and cheaper"... and no, I don't think they can.

I'd say if the government really want to get involved in providing healthcare, then they need to go all the way ala the Canadian/NHS model. This half-ass way they're doing now is only making it more complex and yes, more expensive.

-Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan

Vouchers! Because Medicare Advantage isn't wasting enough money!

 Jihadin wrote:
You all know the bayonet is still heavily used right? Wait....since "The Chosen One" said it went the way of the horses it must be true. You believers are funny. It still an issue item

So are horses. But the quantity in which they're used no longer defines the effectiveness of a military.

I refuse to believe you couldn't understand the analogy Obama made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

Obama said. “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."

We've same amount of bayonets and the same amount of horses. Granted horse cavalry is no longer around and the only unit that uses horses are the Old Guard for military funeral.

"He said fewer, but we've still got some."

fething seriously? You're just straight up going to pretend you don't understand that fewer doesn't mean none, and then go on to ignore that the point of the analogy is that old metrics of military strength (how many bayonets, or total ship count) has nothing to do with how many bayonets there actually are?

You're just going to pretend you don't understand that stuff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:
Let's also pretend D-USA tha he was referring to the actual number of horse and bayonets. He was attempting to imply these were absent or nearly absent or obsolete.

No, he was saying they are no longer a useful metric of army strength. There was a time, about 200 years ago, when the number of riflemen (and their bayonets) you could put on the field was a pretty straight up declaration of your military strength. The side that could put 200,000 troops in the field wasn't automatically stronger than the side deploying 100,000, but it was a serious factor.

That isn't the case now. In the second Gulf War Iraq had greater troop strength than the Coalition, but it didn't mean half of one gak, because technologically superior weapons platforms matter so much more.

So trying to make an argument that the US navy is less powerful because it has less ships is exactly the same logic. It's the failed logic that let Britain pretend it was still a dominant naval power in 1938, even though it had failed to replace older ships, and was now in an age when improving manufacturing meant 10 year old ships were much less potent than modern vessels.


This is not a thing that should have to be explained. Seriously. I know you want to cheer for your side and boo the other side, but an important part of doing that and not looking silly is picking your battles. Obama had a good line. Concede that, and change tack to argue the point in another way. But trying to pretend you don't understand Obama's one-liner is just a failing strategy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Oh come on, MGS.

With all the beatings that Romney has taken for goofy things he's said I think Barack can spend a little time in the barrel.

Yeah, for when he does goof. But I don't see any point in playing stupid games that pretend 'few = none'.

Besides, if you look at some of our strategic rivals they're still building ships. It's not crazy to think that larger fleets could become relevant again.

And are they spamming low tech boats, or looking to build high end, high quality boats?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Seb... I avidly paid attention to this as I'm in the Healthcare industry... so, I know what happened. I feel like you're getting filtered information from your standpoint.

Irregardless... the whole fething bill was UNPOPULAR. Shouldn't the Democrats have been more sensitive to the electorate?

And yes, the ACA bill was passed unconventionally (aka, rammed down our throats).

It is unpopular, yes. But are you now conceding there were bipartisan efforts made?

So what? It was an honest attempt to have a coversation... the Democratic Senate refuse to engage on the Republican on this topic.

So do you now concede the $700 billion figure, and the same logic for each, is contained in both the ACA and the Ryan bill?

That implies that the government can direct provided coverage "better and cheaper"... and no, I don't think they can.

It does. The reasons for this are complex and market specific, but it remains true. Medicare Advantage costs 117% of what it would cost to directly provide those services.

There's nothing implied there. Just a straight up statement that is true. You either accept that knowledge, and figure out how it works with everything else you believe, or you play pretend games with stuff you'd rather believe.

I'd say if the government really want to get involved in providing healthcare, then they need to go all the way ala the Canadian/NHS model. This half-ass way they're doing now is only making it more complex and yes, more expensive.

It'd be nice if you could expand out to a base level system like NHS. One good thing that's come from all this debate is that it seems all the myths about treatment in the Canadian and UK systems have finally been killed - people are recognising it is cheaper and provides an equivalent level of coverage.

Yeah... it's evil... giving control to the consumer... they don't know what they're doing, so, better let the lizard overlord make that decision for them.

No. I've said for a long time one of the fundamental problems with US health is that the consumer doesn't get to pick his own healthcare, his employer picks it. It'd be great to reform that.

And while there are strong advantages to consumer choice, there is no point pretending it is the all wonderful answer to everything, in every market. And in this case, for market specific reasons, consumer choice has considerable limitations.

Edit: and to prove the point I said about your filtered information... this is telling... Obama is extremely popular outside of the US:

If the regular voters see this... I can see them voting for Romney out of spite.

That's little to do with filtered information. Honestly, there's little mainstream coverage of your politics here, and what there is mostly just apes the generally content free nonsense of your mainstream media.

It's more that the US is on the far right of politics, and so we're pretty much always going to prefer the more left wing candidate, who lines up more closely with our own politics.

So... we'll see in a couple of weeks what the American voters think... right? You down for a friendly wager?

Alrighty. Obama wins and you have to have Che Guevara as your avatar, for a month

 Peregrine wrote:
The chances of a successful invasion of the US in the 1940s were exactly zero. Our navy was important, but as a tool for power projection and invading foreign countries, not for defense.

Waterborne invasion is not the only possible threat posed by the sea. The metric is not, "Either you are being invaded by an amphibious assault force, or everything is fine." Churchill famously said that the only thing that truly frightened him during the war was the U-boat menace. U-boats made poor amphibious landing craft, so why would that be the case?

Except let's say in that analogy fire extinguishers cost you a million dollars each, and the chances of a fire are reduced to less than the chances of your house being destroyed by an asteroid impact. Do you still feel that it's worth having them?

If I'd gone through several fires before, and recognized that there was a chance fire could break out again, yes.

We use them for a hell of a lot of ways of fighting foreign wars, never for defense.

Well, that's not true at all.

 Seaward wrote:
Waterborne invasion is not the only possible threat posed by the sea. The metric is not, "Either you are being invaded by an amphibious assault force, or everything is fine." Churchill famously said that the only thing that truly frightened him during the war was the U-boat menace. U-boats made poor amphibious landing craft, so why would that be the case?

Churchill said a lot of things. After the Fall of France, he spent several sleepless nights before telling his son whilst he shaved 'I have seen a way out of this, we must involve America' (or something like that, I'm paraphrasing - point is, Churchill was quite rightly gaking his pants after France collapsed in six weeks).

Also, the USA is not the UK. Unlike them, putting submarines on the coast won't threaten starvation. Now, I don't agree with much of what Perergine has said in this thread, but claiming the US navy is somehow there to defend the mainland, and not purely an implement of force projection is just wrong.

 sebster wrote:
Also, the USA is not the UK. Unlike them, putting submarines on the coast won't threaten starvation. Now, I don't agree with much of what Perergine has said in this thread, but claiming the US navy is somehow there to defend the mainland, and not purely an implement of force projection is just wrong.

No, it isn't. And we can compare credentials on this topic anytime you like. Or, like Auston did earlier with Peregrine, I can simply ask how much time you spent up in Newport.

The US Navy exists for a lot of things. Force projection is among them. Protection of seaborne American commerce is another. Protection of the United States is another.

The Navy's a key part of the missile defense tracking, and interceptor components in addition to what Seaward's already listed.

 Seaward wrote:
The US Navy exists for a lot of things. Force projection is among them. Protection of seaborne American commerce is another. Protection of the United States is another.

Yeah. Seriously. $600 billion a year to stop pirates. That's totally a key operational goal of the modern US navy. Way to be completely sensible there.

Protection of US assets and business interests overseas... totally. I mean this isn't a moral complaint or anything, I think if you're going to have international commerce then the ability to ensure that economic commitments and resources overseas are defendable is not just reasonable, but exactly what a country should invest in. And that means force projection, which today means carrier groups capable of going anywhere in the world and dominating the skies.

So why the stupid nonsense about pirates? Just call it what it is.

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
The US Navy exists for a lot of things. Force projection is among them. Protection of seaborne American commerce is another. Protection of the United States is another.

Yeah. Seriously. $600 billion a year to stop pirates. That's totally a key operational goal of the modern US navy. Way to be completely sensible there.

Protection of US assets and business interests overseas... totally. I mean this isn't a moral complaint or anything, I think if you're going to have international commerce then the ability to ensure that economic commitments and resources overseas are defendable is not just reasonable, but exactly what a country should invest in. And that means force projection, which today means carrier groups capable of going anywhere in the world and dominating the skies.

So why the stupid nonsense about pirates? Just call it what it is.

When did I say anything about pirates?

Commerce raiding is a component of warfare that's been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

 Seaward wrote:
When did I say anything about pirates?

Commerce raiding is a component of warfare that's been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

So, exactly which countries are a plausible commerce raiding threat (that is, plausible outside of paranoid right-wing fantasy land)? When you're preparing your answer, please also explain the benefits of launching a commerce raiding attack and how they outweigh the fact that the US response to a commerce raiding attack, even without a navy, would most likely involve stealth bomber strikes obliterating every single navy base the country has.

 sebster wrote:
Protection of US assets and business interests overseas... totally. I mean this isn't a moral complaint or anything, I think if you're going to have international commerce then the ability to ensure that economic commitments and resources overseas are defendable is not just reasonable, but exactly what a country should invest in. And that means force projection, which today means carrier groups capable of going anywhere in the world and dominating the skies.

It's amazing how countries that aren't the US are able to have international commerce without building a navy bigger than every other navy in the world combined...

 Peregrine wrote:
So, exactly which countries are a plausible commerce raiding threat (that is, plausible outside of paranoid right-wing fantasy land)? When you're preparing your answer, please also explain the benefits of launching a commerce raiding attack and how they outweigh the fact that the US response to a commerce raiding attack, even without a navy, would most likely involve stealth bomber strikes obliterating every single navy base the country has.

At the moment? Zero.

If we got rid of the navy, as sebster is advocating due to it being in his mind exclusively a force projection platform That becomes a very long list.

 sebster wrote:
It's amazing how countries that aren't the US are able to have international commerce without building a navy bigger than every other navy in the world combined...

They do have navies, however, which might suggest those navies are useful for things other than force projection, which is the point currently being argued.

 Seaward wrote:
If we got rid of the navy, as sebster is advocating due to it being in his mind exclusively a force projection platform That becomes a very long list.

Did you miss the part where even without a navy the retaliation for a commerce raiding campaign would be way more than any plausible gain? Generally in the real world (instead of paranoid right-wing fantasy world) people have reasons for doing things besides "just because we can blow it up", and I have yet to see a plausible explanation of what exactly the point of a commerce raiding campaign would be.

And did you also miss the part where US commerce doesn't generally travel under armed naval escort at all times, which means that any hypothetical opponent willing to accept the inevitable retaliation could sink as many US ships as they like no matter how big a navy you have?

 sebster wrote:
They do have navies, however, which might suggest those navies are useful for things other than force projection, which is the point currently being argued.

Sure, but tiny navies in comparison, and yet they somehow manage to get the job done. Let's be honest here, it isn't about commerce protection, it's about maintaining the ability to fight foreign wars.

 Peregrine wrote:

Did you miss the part where even without a navy the retaliation for a commerce raiding campaign would be way more than any plausible gain?

Yes. I don't consider it a valid point. We bombed the everloving hell out of German naval bases during World War II, but their commerce raiding wasn't thoroughly put down until our navy - and the Brits' of course - developed the proper tactics and countermeasures.

Generally in the real world (instead of paranoid right-wing fantasy world) people have reasons for doing things besides "just because we can blow it up", and I have yet to see a plausible explanation of what exactly the point of a commerce raiding campaign would be.

Ah, I see. You're confused as to the point of commerce raiding. Well, fortunately, its purpose hasn't changed since it was invented. It's got two primary ones: to deny the enemy necessary war materiel, and to cause discontent among the civilian populace.

And did you also miss the part where US commerce doesn't generally travel under armed naval escort at all times, which means that any hypothetical opponent willing to accept the inevitable retaliation could sink as many US ships as they like no matter how big a navy you have?

It does not at the moment, no, as we are not currently at war with anybody who has a seaworthy navy.

I'm starting to understand the dimensions of the problem, though; you believe that because we are not currently, as in right this second, fighting a conventional war, we will never do so again. That prediction's been made...well, let's say at least a couple times before, and it's always been wrong.

Sure, but tiny navies in comparison, and yet they somehow manage to get the job done. Let's be honest here, it isn't about commerce protection, it's about maintaining the ability to fight foreign wars.

Actually, it's about a lot of things. Force projection, absolutely. The ability to fight a two-front war, or two wars at once, by all means. That one we still view as pretty important, simply because we've had to do it before.

 Seaward wrote:
Yes. I don't consider it a valid point. We bombed the everloving hell out of German naval bases during World War II, but their commerce raiding wasn't thoroughly put down until our navy - and the Brits' of course - developed the proper tactics and countermeasures.

So, exactly which country is going to be determined enough to fight to the death even after the loss of their entire land-based military in retaliation for their acts of war against us?

Ah, I see. You're confused as to the point of commerce raiding. Well, fortunately, its purpose hasn't changed since it was invented. It's got two primary ones: to deny the enemy necessary war materiel, and to cause discontent among the civilian populace.

I know the point of commerce raiding. What I'm asking is who wants to do that and what does it gain them. Outside of paranoid right-wing fantasy land countries don't just suddenly decide to deny war materiel and cause discontent among the civilians just because it would be funny.

It does not at the moment, no, as we are not currently at war with anybody who has a seaworthy navy.

So what exactly is your plausible scenario where we have a declared war long enough for the escorts to reach their destination and arrange the convoys?

I'm starting to understand the dimensions of the problem, though; you believe that because we are not currently, as in right this second, fighting a conventional war, we will never do so again. That prediction's been made...well, let's say at least a couple times before, and it's always been wrong.

Except it's been made in a world without nuclear weapons, where it was actually possible to fight a total war. In the modern world any kind of invasion or occupation of the US would be impossible, and there's no plausible benefit to launching a suicidal commerce raiding campaign when the only thing you can accomplish long-term is to ensure the destruction of your military.

Actually, it's about a lot of things. Force projection, absolutely. The ability to fight a two-front war, or two wars at once, by all means. That one we still view as pretty important, simply because we've had to do it before.

Finally you admit it. Now can we finally get back to discussing whether we can afford that capability? I'm well aware that it's nice to have the ability to fight two simultaneous foreign wars, but when you have a finite supply of money you don't get to have everything you want.

Considering how easy it is to stop all wars I am amazed that we are still fighting them.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, exactly which country is going to be determined enough to fight to the death even after the loss of their entire land-based military in retaliation for their acts of war against us?

How are they suddenly losing their entire land-based military? Stealth bombers again?

I know the point of commerce raiding. What I'm asking is who wants to do that and what does it gain them. Outside of paranoid right-wing fantasy land countries don't just suddenly decide to deny war materiel and cause discontent among the civilians just because it would be funny.

So you believe all conventional war is over with? There will never be another one, ever?

Interesting.

So what exactly is your plausible scenario where we have a declared war long enough for the escorts to reach their destination and arrange the convoys?

Ah, see, now you've keyed on a reason we have ships all over the globe.

Except it's been made in a world without nuclear weapons, where it was actually possible to fight a total war. In the modern world any kind of invasion or occupation of the US would be impossible, and there's no plausible benefit to launching a suicidal commerce raiding campaign when the only thing you can accomplish long-term is to ensure the destruction of your military.

We'll see, I suppose. Nukes are far from the first weapon to be declared the warfare-ender.

Finally you admit it. Now can we finally get back to discussing whether we can afford that capability? I'm well aware that it's nice to have the ability to fight two simultaneous foreign wars, but when you have a finite supply of money you don't get to have everything you want.

Admit what? I've said from the start that the navy serves a lot of different purposes.

As for whether or not we can afford it? Yes, we can.

The nice part about his scenario is that all it takes for our system to be worthless is for another country to build their own ABS and then we are back to square zero. They can launch at us all they want because they don't have to worry about any of our missiles hiting them on the return, suddenly conventional warfare is back! (let's just pretent it ever went away...)

 d-usa wrote:
The nice part about his scenario is that all it takes for our system to be worthless is for another country to build their own ABS and then we are back to square zero. They can launch at us all they want because they don't have to worry about any of our missiles hiting them on the return, suddenly conventional warfare is back! (let's just pretent it ever went away...)

Except that's not true at all. ABM stops the rogue nation scenario, which is the context in which it was mentioned. For example, Iran or North Korea simply don't have any realistic chance of saturating a full-scale ABM system and getting something through. Russia or the US, on the other hand, have so many nukes that ABM ceases to be reliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
How are they suddenly losing their entire land-based military? Stealth bombers again?

Exactly. It's kind of hard to have a military when you can be bombed at will.

So you believe all conventional war is over with? There will never be another one, ever?

Of course not. However, war is much more likely to continue to take the form of a major power trampling some smaller country that nobody cares about, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. A full-scale war between major power is almost inconceivable.

Ah, see, now you've keyed on a reason we have ships all over the globe.

That's not an answer to the question.

We'll see, I suppose. Nukes are far from the first weapon to be declared the warfare-ender.

They are, however, the first weapon that is actually capable of ending human civilization as we know it if they're used.

As for whether or not we can afford it? Yes, we can.

The current obscene level of debt disagrees with you. Or are you one of those people who wants to increase military spending, cut taxes, and magically balance the budget at the same time? Or should we just continue to spend more than we make because having lots of guns is really important?

d-usa wrote:Considering how easy it is to stop all wars I am amazed that we are still fighting them.

You peace loving hippie.

You are joking right?

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
How are they suddenly losing their entire land-based military? Stealth bombers again?

Exactly. It's kind of hard to have a military when you can be bombed at will.

I'm not going to respond to this just yet, I want to make sure you're actually saying...well, what you're actually saying here: the navy is useless, because stealth bombers can take out everyone's standing military. That's what you're saying, right?

Of course not. However, war is much more likely to continue to take the form of a major power trampling some smaller country that nobody cares about, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. A full-scale war between major power is almost inconceivable.

Again, history's replete with examples of folks saying that about...pretty much every major conflict.

That's not an answer to the question.

Yes, it is.

The current obscene level of debt disagrees with you. Or are you one of those people who wants to increase military spending, cut taxes, and magically balance the budget at the same time? Or should we just continue to spend more than we make because having lots of guns is really important?

I'm fine with military spending where it currently is, give or take 5%. I'd like my taxes to be cut, absolutely. As far as balancing the budget, well...the military ain't the only thing the federal government spends lots of money on.

 AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:Considering how easy it is to stop all wars I am amazed that we are still fighting them.

You peace loving hippie.

You are joking right?

Well, I was mostly talking about the argument being made about how conventional war doesn't exist anymore and we should just make ourselves magically protected from nukes and just threaten everybody else with ours so that they will never attack us again.

Ah the Peregrine Doctrine.


But cmon it kind of sounds like something you would say...

 AustonT wrote:
Ah the Peregrine Doctrine.


But cmon it kind of sounds like something you would say...

I would love for the USA to never ever fight a war of aggression and all of us to live together in happy harmony.

But to take away our defense and ability to protect ourselves? That is just stupid.

Military is an area where lots of money can be saved, but we should not cripple it.

 d-usa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Ah the Peregrine Doctrine.


But cmon it kind of sounds like something you would say...

I would love for the USA to never ever fight a war of aggression and all of us to live together in happy harmony.

See?!

Military is an area where lots of money can be saved, but we should not cripple it.

I heartily agree with this, probably not in the same way or for the same reasons, but nonetheless agreement is found.

Slightly OT, but one or two questions to ask.

Jihadin, what in the name of Dakka is and I quote " goat rope session?"

It was a quote you used earlier. Made me laugh, so I'm going to put it in my signature, as well as MeanGreenStompa's "horse gak" in response to another poster. Good reply.

Crazy Americans...

Ok, so let's take a step back. Peregrine, you're saying that the US navy is largely irrelevant? Ok. And that you have a great system for stopping nukes with a failure rate so low that it's practically 0%? Fair enough. So, the following is perhaps a little unlikely, but not impossible.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that China builds one of these systems and all nukes against it are worthless. And let's say that now it decides that the US, with its lack of a navy and all, is actually pretty weak. It's got all those land-based missiles, and that massive army, sure, so they're not going to take over america. They've just decided to take over the rest of the world because now they're the number one global superpower and now that they have far more money than the US, so their sales to the US are falling. As any economical expert will tell you is a possibility in the future. Perhaps not a certainty, but if America's imports are greater than its exports for too long, it will lose a certain amount of its money. And now China would like to make sure it keeps its power by taking over the world, otherwise it risks going the way of the USA, and of the UK before that, and (a little) in the way of Japan when it started becoming quite powerful. And now Brazil's becoming stronger due to its large quantities of minerals and people, and China wants to remain strong. So it invades everywhere. The US still has a strong enough army to stop the Chinese. But without a navy it can't effectively mobilise its army, and thus can't do very much. See how important a navy might have been in this situation?


Eh, I'm probably about to find out that there's a million and one holes in what I've just written, given that I'm neither a general nor an economist, nor a politician. The point I'm trying to get across, though, is that a navy, however small, might just come in handy in both sides have said anti-nuke systems, given that if this is the case, we are once again forced into the stalemate of a normal war rather than a nuclear one, and in a normal war having a navy is generally rather useful.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Slightly OT, but one or two questions to ask.

Jihadin, what in the name of Dakka is and I quote " goat rope session?"

It was a quote you used earlier. Made me laugh, so I'm going to put it in my signature, as well as MeanGreenStompa's "horse gak" in response to another poster. Good reply.

Crazy Americans...

Notoriously humourus.


You can stop at 1:30
They do this at a bar near my in laws place on Fridays...and at my in laws place.

I laughed so much I'm not sure if my pants are still dry!!!

Are Americans aware of the negative stereotypes about them that are popular in Europe or do they say feth it, let's rope a goat!! Funny stuff.

 d-usa wrote:
They could have rammed through a bill with a public option in the first month.

That wouldn't have worked. It didn't have enough gimme's in it for Pelosi's liking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
To those with the gall to actually post here that we still use horses and bayonets in the military. The point raised by the president was that we no longer need a vast fleet of warships, that aircraft and aircraft carriers changed the entire course of naval warfare in the second half of WW2 and that large fleets have not been relevant since.


Also, stop being pedants.

You're being a bit of the pedant yourself. We had the largest fleet in the history of mankind in WWII, based around said aircraft carriers.

Both arguments are stupid. We need just need satellites equipped with mass drivers, and Captain America.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I laughed so much I'm not sure if my pants are still dry!!!

Are Americans aware of the negative stereotypes about them that are popular in Europe or do they say feth it, let's rope a goat!! Funny stuff.

Did you consider the possibility that people who rope goats, ranch kids and cowboys, don't give a gak what anyone in Europe thinks?