• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

1/5 th of the USN surface warships depart the Mediterranean Sea.

notquiteright said:
Yanno Oscar- President Obama nor any of his defense team consulted me so I could ask... how ever while the cons are quick to speak the double talk of the white devil... watched an old Burt Lancaster movie yesterday... what are you trying to say... is obama taking us into WWIII or an empty gesture...

My thought something between the two.
Click to expand...

so you admit you have no idea what "the mission" actually is...but you can say with confidence:

notquiteright said:
I do believe the US Navy has enough missiles in the area to accomplish the mission.
Click to expand...

how can you believe the Navy has enough missiles in the area to accomplish the mission....if you don't even know what the mission is?
 
Deuce said:
He's calling you Admiral while simultaneously questioning a decision that was probably made at the highest levels of the navy.
Click to expand...

Apache is one of those guys who knows more than the Joint Chiefs or any mere Admiral. He actually believes that Obama sits in a little room and decides which ships go where. Obama is an obsession with him.
 
OscarB63 said:
so you admit you have no idea what "the mission" actually is...but you can say with confidence:



how can you believe the Navy has enough missiles in the area to accomplish the mission....if you don't even know what the mission is?
Click to expand...

I thought the mission was relatively easy to understand. To show the butcher Assad that launching chemical weapons has consequences. What is it about that that you don't understand?
 
Redress said:
They are not. Entirely different guidance system. Once again, your ignorance is showing. Force size is going up, not down, missiles are not what you think...total failure on your part.
Click to expand...

You're so gullible Redress. I suppose I should have entered a smiley.

Most people are aware that the guidance system used today on Tomahawks are different than used during the Clinton era and that Clinton never asked Congress to replace the hundreds of Tomahawks he used during his eight years as Cn'C just like why we ran out of .50 cal. machingun ammunition during the Iraq war. Clinton didn't replace the ammunition that was being used during eight years of training.
 
Wiggen said:
I thought the mission was relatively easy to understand. To show the butcher Assad that launching chemical weapons has consequences. What is it about that that you don't understand?
Click to expand...

and just "HOW" are we going to do that? and just "HOW MANY" missiles is that going to take?
 
APACHERAT said:
I know it's been done before but why don't we do it any more ? There are two reasons. It takes a large area to maneuver and carry out carrier flight operations. SOP is to put the carrier into the wind. The Navy still hasn't figured out how to control the direction of the wind. The Persian Gulf like the Red Sea are too small to carry out full carrier operations. But the biggest problem was all of the dust and sand that commonly is blowing across the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. It just does too much damage to our aircraft and our ships electronics.
Click to expand...

And I would have said because we are no longer conducting close air support in Iraq the carriers no longer play in the Persian Gulf. No mission, close to too many enemies and too crowded so another Vincennces incident could occur or another suicide boat on a screening vessel of the carrier group.

Wear and tear and the additional cost sounds like a pansy excuse- you know- you keep claiming cost over rides defense in the liberal world.... :roll:

Seems all your running around with your hair on fire is for nought. You have no clue how many subs are with-in striking range- you seem to think the russian ships are super sub hunters when our subs are so quiet so compare them to listening for a flashlight.

I remember the cold war days- any rumor of a Soviet anything sent the Defense Industry into a frenzy, Congress demanding a 'gap' must be closed when the real story was the noisy, leaky, inaccurate, soviet ships/tanks/aircraft were behind what we already had in inventory.

My first hand knowledge of the wolf crying Cons came with the T62 MBT the Warsaw Pact had. Oh what big,bad armored vehicles they were!

Until the Israelis blew them apart by the dozens with Centurion and M60 tanks- tanks we already had on the front line... :roll:
 
OscarB63 said:
and just "HOW" are we going to do that? and just "HOW MANY" missiles is that going to take?
Click to expand...
That's easy, a token gesture could be accomplished by just one Destroyer? Am I right?
 
OscarB63 said:
so you admit you have no idea what "the mission" actually is...but you can say with confidence: how can you believe the Navy has enough missiles in the area to accomplish the mission....if you don't even know what the mission is?
Click to expand...

More Con quibble. It will be a LIMITED strike. Yes I do believe the US Navy has enough missiles on hand for that. If you need numbers they have at least 50 missiles and that is enough for a LIMITED strike. :roll:
 
AngryOldGuy said:
That's easy, a token gesture could be accomplished by just one Destroyer? Am I right?
Click to expand...

sure..but is a token gesture really going to "show the butcher Assad that launching chemical weapons has consequences"????
 
Redress said:
You can conduct carrier operations in both. I have done so. Also, do you know how long it takes a carrier group to traverse the Red Sea an d Suez Canal? Hint: It isn't long.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that last week that Egyptian Islamist tried to attack a cargo ship transiting the Suez Canal ? If they would have succeeded in sinking that ship, the canal would be out of business for months, maybe for years. Europe would be screwed big time.

Last week the international maritime industry said they are looking at using the Arctic as a route from getting ships from the Pacific to Europe if the worse case scenario happens.
 
notquiteright said:
More Con quibble. It will be a LIMITED strike. Yes I do believe the US Navy has enough missiles on hand for that. If you need numbers they have at least 50 missiles and that is enough for a LIMITED strike. :roll:
Click to expand...

so now...suddenly.... you "know" the mission will be a LIMITED strike? talk about quibble.
 
APACHERAT said:
How much does it cost to do so ?

Satellites are in a fixed orbit. They are never sitting in one place or are they moving at 20 or 30 nautical miles per hour. So you wouldn't be able to track a CSG 24/7. Ships can change course easily. Satellites take some time to accomplish changing an orbit of a satellite. There positioning can be changed but it's not as easy as you think. You can't change a satellite equatorial orbit to a polar orbit.

Since satellites can only cover a fraction of the oceans, America, NATO, China, Russia have maritime patrol aircraft that go out searching for the other guys ships. It's a big ocean out there and if all of the U.S. Navy ships were to all be tied up together, what are you looking at, less than a couple of square miles in 7,848,000 sq. mi. of oceans.
Click to expand...

Satellites have these high tech devices called camera's. They can zoom in and out. Coverage depends on level of zoom. You do not need a whole lot of zoom to follow a carrier battle group.
 
OscarB63 said:
so now...suddenly.... you "know" the mission will be a LIMITED strike? talk about quibble.
Click to expand...

another Con game- I know what has been said...limited strike, not invasion, not attempt to enforce no-fly zones. So yes you spew more Con quibble
 
APACHERAT said:
I know it's been done before but why don't we do it any more ?

There are two reasons. It takes a large area to maneuver and carry out carrier flight operations. SOP is to put the carrier into the wind. The Navy still hasn't figured out how to control the direction of the wind. The Persian Gulf like the Red Sea are too small to carry out full carrier operations.

But the biggest problem was all of the dust and sand that commonly is blowing across the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. It just does too much damage to our aircraft and our ships electronics.
Click to expand...

Oh...my...god...

Hint: a moving carrier makes wind and compensates for a lack of wind or wind in the wrong direction by doing things like accelerating. You can conduct fullscale carrier ops in both the Red Sea and the Gulf.
 
APACHERAT said:
You're so gullible Redress. I suppose I should have entered a smiley.

Most people are aware that the guidance system used today on Tomahawks are different than used during the Clinton era and that Clinton never asked Congress to replace the hundreds of Tomahawks he used during his eight years as Cn'C just like why we ran out of .50 cal. machingun ammunition during the Iraq war. Clinton didn't replace the ammunition that was being used during eight years of training.
Click to expand...

So you continue your ignorance just because learning would mean knowing things uncomfortable to you.
 
APACHERAT said:
Are you aware that last week that Egyptian Islamist tried to attack a cargo ship transiting the Suez Canal ? If they would have succeeded in sinking that ship, the canal would be out of business for months, maybe for years. Europe would be screwed big time.

Last week the international maritime industry said they are looking at using the Arctic as a route from getting ships from the Pacific to Europe if the worse case scenario happens.
Click to expand...

Did you know that Egyptian Islamists are not going to sink any of the ships in a Carrier Battle Group?
 
Has any one else noticed how desperately Aperachat is trying to divert from the fact that the premise of his thread proved to be bull****?
 
notquiteright said:
I remember the cold war days- any rumor of a Soviet anything sent the Defense Industry into a frenzy, Congress demanding a 'gap' must be closed when the real story was the noisy, leaky, inaccurate, soviet ships/tanks/aircraft were behind what we already had in inventory.

My first hand knowledge of the wolf crying Cons came with the T62 MBT the Warsaw Pact had. Oh what big,bad armored vehicles they were!
Click to expand...

Those damn JFK liberals screaming about a gap and that they were tougher against communist expansion than the Republicans. That's how JFK got elected along with the help of a number of cemetaries in Cook County, Il.

Your correct, many of those JFK liberals would become neo-cons during the 1970's.
 
notquiteright said:
another Con game- I know what has been said...limited strike, not invasion, not attempt to enforce no-fly zones. So yes you spew more Con quibble
Click to expand...

so , like I said, we simply lob in a dozen or so cruise missiles and call it a day. no backlash, no escalation, no nothing. Syria and their supporters just lay there and take it like a cheap hooker?

my 2 cents... either you do nothing or you do something big enough to convince everyone that you are not bull****ting around. a half-assed "token" strike isn't going to accomplish anything except piss people off.
 
We could likely fire a missile from Florida and have it hit Syria. They don't need to be in the Mediterranean for us to hit them. However, if they wan to hit us, they need to be there.

Aircraft carrier in the Red Sea where the planes could fly over Saudi Arabia and Israel to get to Syria, and our ally Turkey is pretty darn close too.

So the upshot is - a bunch of ships that probably won't be involved are not sitting waiting for Syria to attack them, meanwhile not reducing our capabilities.
 
Redress said:
Did you know that Egyptian Islamists are not going to sink any of the ships in a Carrier Battle Group?
Click to expand...

They don't need to sink any U.S. Navy ships, all they need to do is sink any merchant ship in the Suez Canal to #### everything up more than it already is.

It was Obama who abandoned the Middle East and North Africa with his lead from behind. It was Obama who supported the Arab Spring. It was all of Obama's failed foreign policies why the Middle East is a complete basket case today.
 
APACHERAT said:
Those damn JFK liberals screaming about a gap and that they were tougher against communist expansion than the Republicans. That's how JFK got elected along with the help of a number of cemetaries in Cook County, Il.

Your correct, many of those JFK liberals would become neo-cons during the 1970's.
Click to expand...

Oh how you love to re-write history! More like the Congress critters who had big defense industries in their districts... :roll:

And I realize you have a poor grasp of who became Neo-cons but they were the Cons of the democratic party, not the liberals...

But you want us to believe the GOP didn't have a bushel basket of 'gap-screamers'???

Shirley you jest....
 
OscarB63 said:
so , like I said, we simply lob in a dozen or so cruise missiles and call it a day. no backlash, no escalation, no nothing. Syria and their supporters just lay there and take it like a cheap hooker? my 2 cents... either you do nothing or you do something big enough to convince everyone that you are not bull****ting around. a half-assed "token" strike isn't going to accomplish anything except piss people off.
Click to expand...

You are going back to what we already discussed- a sort of Con broken record.

Syria isn't in a position to do anything to us... no move is without risk and we sadly forgot when backing corrupt regimes in the ME before 9-11.

Right now we are not taking sides in this civil war, we are punishing one side for using Chemical weapons. You keep trying to say we have to invade or just sit and watch... that is your opinion... have at it...
 
Redress said:
Here, let me help you out:

View attachment 67153151

As you can see, Syria is right near the Red Sea. Please stop making yourself look silly.
Click to expand...


So what will the flight path be from the Red Sea to Syria? Who is letting us fly over their country?
 
notquiteright said:
You are going back to what we already discussed- a sort of Con broken record.

Syria isn't in a position to do anything to us... no move is without risk and we sadly forgot when backing corrupt regimes in the ME before 9-11.

Right now we are not taking sides in this civil war, we are punishing one side for using Chemical weapons. You keep trying to say we have to invade or just sit and watch... that is your opinion... have at it...
Click to expand...

I have never said we have to invade.

your boy, Obama, said
We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that's a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons
Click to expand...

a token/limited strike with a handful of cruise missiles is NOT enormous consequences
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom