USS Ronald Reagan Commissioning Tomorrow 1831
wessman writes "Being an employee at Northrop Grumman's Newport News shipyard, I cannot help but be proud to see one of our products commissioned by the U.S. Navy, especially considering how long it takes to build a $5 billion Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. And I'm sure the other 18,000 workers here feel the same way. The ship is being commissioned Saturday, July 12 at the Norfolk naval base. It is obviously the most technically advanced carrier in the fleet, taking the term "hardware" to new levels. Pick a local story. From the Hampton Roads Daily Press: Anchors Aweigh, Changes Abound Aboard Carrier, Some Wanted CVN-76 Named after Daredevil Flier, 20,000 Expected for Reagan's Rite, USS Constellation Retiring Too Soon?. From the Virginia Pilot: The Carrier Reagan - Ahead of Its Class, Carrier Construction is All in the Family, Former President's Son Michael Reagan Excited about Commissioning."
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
He was a president, and whatever his domestic failings, he does get the credit for ending the Cold War without WWIII.
Plus, I suspect that the darn things are just named after the president when they were first proposed.
Cue... (Score:2, Insightful)
Here we go again. Why is it that ANY time anything tangentially related to a republican, american, "threat to humanity" or anything else from the USA appears on
News for nerds? Stuff that matters? (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:One question. (Score:-1, Insightful)
Get it?! The ship is named after Ronald Reagan and he has alzheimers so he has memory loss.
h0h0h0, alzheimers is so funny, nobody I love is suffering from it so it's sooo funny. h0 h0 h0
jackass
Cool beans. (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I think its great that we continue to push the edge of technology in warfare. It allows us to keep wars down to as short a time as possible. And, the shorter the duration of wars, the less people killed by them. The better the tech, ideally the fewer civilian deaths also.
Re:News for nerds? Stuff that matters? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the meantime, his name on the most advanced aircraft carrier on the planet will do nicely.
Re:One question. (Score:2, Insightful)
He was refering to Iran Contra
If your going to call someone a dumbass, I sugest you get your facts right. Then again, based on the average age of the posters here, you probably don't remember Iran Contra, never mind Watergate (which was Nixon FYI). And yes, I remember both
Oversensitive (Score:2, Insightful)
Regardless the tragedy that alzheimers is, and it most definitely is... The joke is still funny.
lighten up.
It's expensive being policeman to the world (Score:3, Insightful)
An interesting question is whether we can shrink the size of the supporting battlegroup around a carrier in these times of reduced naval competition.
Independant of pointless pissing contests about politics, Reagan was a notable president. I'd fully expect there to be a significant ship named after Clinton some time in the future.
-dB
Yay! (Score:1, Insightful)
Just what the world needs, another huge aircraft carrier designed to fight communi- er, drug carte- no wait... Who are the current boogeymen for the US right now? Oh yeah, terrorists! Yep, we need that $5 billion chunk of steel to blow up Kore... No wait, already blown up... Well, apart from North Korea, when is it their turn again, anways? Panama? No wait, also blown to bits already... Same for Iraq...
Ah hell, just wait for the next financial scandal, Bush will then pick a random country, declare them to be part of the axis of evil, demand UN inspections, claim they already got evidence anyways, pull Mr Blair's strings a bit more, send over this new carrier to drop an ammount on ammo worth more then the GNP of the receiving country and feel good about it! Afterwards, let Mr Blair take the heat for false evidence and scare any Americans who dare to raise a voice against the war into submission. Oh and: PROFIT!
Simply wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
It is simply wrong, indeed, dangerous, to name anything after a living personage, especially a politician. And double especially a President.
This is cult-of-personality gone extreme. It's a small step from this to granting titles to retired Presidents, to granting titles to current Presidents. Rather than an occasion for a solemn acknowledgement of a person's contributions -- as validated by the sweep of history -- we get partisanship, triumphialism, and politicking.
It might sound morbid but they should have waited until he was dead.
Carriers A Dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
What always impressed me about carriers- beyond the obvious, was that all that high tech is backed up by very simple means of getting the job done.
I worked in the V-2 division, arresting gear. We had electric motors that set the weight on an arresting gear engine for each trap. But each of those motors had a crank and they could be set by hand if power was not available.
Sound powered phones are still another slick- no power needed tool that impress the heck out of me.
But what everyone should remember - the single thing that make carriers so effective- are the people that run it.
.
Re:How appropriate... (Score:2, Insightful)
That being said, I think the recent foreign policy is what needs to be questioned, not the USS Ronald Reagan.
Re:should come in handy (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it would have been so much better for the world if the US had just turned a blind eye to the Soviet Union's goals of conquering Europe.
Considering the US has the most power, it's not surprising that we are involved in most of the war actions. The difference is that the US never starts anything, we just usually end up finishing them. And "start" does NOT necessarily mean dropping the first bomb.
As for me, I'm proud to live in a country that gives a damn and is willing to do something to back it up.
"Peace Through Strength" -- Ronald Reagan.
Re:Misnamed, I think (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How appropriate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe it or not it takes more than a few days to plan and build one of these things. We were still in an economic boom (bubble, but who knew) at the time.
Plus, these things don't last forever and you don't wait until one of your existing carriers is toast to start thinking of buying another one. The defense of the country is an ongoing investment.
Ronald Reagan's pro-spending, pro-big-government, anti-labor policies are undoubtedly going to lead my beloved country to her death.
Wow, you take the cake. A liberal that can blame today's problems on a president from two decades ago. Nevermind that social spending far exceeds military spending, but blame the military spending for the deficit. Whatever.
Re:Star Wars (Score:1, Insightful)
Wake up and get your head out of your ass. The world is not nearly as simplistic as you bleeding-heart liberals seem to think.
Re:Simply wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Though, there is a least one precedent, the George Bush Intercontinetal Airport [houstonairportsystem.org] in Houston.
Re:Simply wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
There's quite a bit that's been named after him.
Rude (Score:5, Insightful)
But, Mr Reagan was an exceptionally decent human being, who cared deeply about the welfare of his nation, and for 8 years did the best he knew how to make this world a better place. That is more than can be said for many Presidents.
He is also a human being, and deserving of more respect than that.
MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:1, Insightful)
1) This is the worst kind of political flamebait.
2) Nowhere is the post does it say anything about America being a "peace loving" nation or how wonderful it is to be American, or anything like that (because quite frankly, it wouldn't be tolerated on slashdot).
3) This is totally offtopic, because:
Unlike China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc... the decision to go to war is not made by the Military, it's made by a civilian. Implying that building a new aircraft carrier promotes war is like saying that putting on a seat belt promotes car accidents.
If you want to have a political discussion about America's foreign policy in the post WWII era, fine. But do it in the comments for an article that is actually relevant to what you want to rant about.
You said it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah, forgot the [/sarcasm]
Heh, a coworker once called me a socialist for saying that Reagan wasn't the greatest president that ever lived. So I guess if you don't like Reagan, you must be a socialist! I love the logic of Republicans.
Re:U-S-A! U-S-A! (Score:3, Insightful)
But to be fair, we can't really expect Americans to put down their weapons and clean up their own backyards. It's far easier and more profitable to continue on the current path of economic supremacy via military supremacy. Not to mention the fact that both major parties are merely slightly different shades of black. The US 'democracy' is a sad joke of an auction. Both parties for example supported the 10-year + trade sanctions on the Iraqi people which prevented them from buying food and basic medial supplies. And I didn't see the opposition questioning Baby Bush's famed evidence of "Weapons of Mass Destruction (tm)' or any other part of the criminal endeavour. The puppets can't take all the blame, though. How about the media? Just heard that your real-life story of 'saving private ryan' had been 'modified' to suit the political aims of the CIA - ie instead of reporting that the girl was injured in a car accident, the story was spread that she was taken by Iraqi soldiers while fighting them off, and had to be rescued. But what good is news without a little stretching of the facts?
So yeah. Go USA! Lead us into yet another slaughter of innocents. And this time with shiny new aircraft carriers. That'll teach 'em to defend their rights, homeland and children!
WTF is this world coming to? No wonder people turn to drugs...
Re:Friggin Troll or what? Bush is a Fascist Pig! (Score:1, Insightful)
Feel free to leave any time. Fact is, I'll help you pack. Even offer to drive you to the airport.
I love you people who have nothing but contempt for this country. Where but you to live anywhere else.
Re:One question. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you are a humorless bastard, who rages every time someone offends your delicate sensitivities, or maybe you just like to laugh like l33t Santa, I don't know.
You should realize that different people deal with tragedy, danger, unfortunate circumstance, and fear in different ways.
Sorry, but I don't see you weeping for starving kids, earthquake deaths, epidemics in 3rd world countries, Billy skinning his knee, or the loss of the best paper airplane ever. All those things are tragedy to someone.
You want to be a selfish bitch about how you're the only one suffering in the world. Guess what? You're not. Grow up and deal. Unless you're a midget...then, just deal.
Re:How appropriate... (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but remember that the concept of trickle-down economics was invented in the Reagan era as a faux-conservative justification for massive deficit spending. The idea was that heavy government purchasing would boost the economy without involving direct meddling. I guess it worked, sort of, at least better than whatever the Commies were doing (not that this wsa difficult) but it did lead us with that pesky deficit.
Reagan did also slash quite a bit of government spending in other areas, but he certainly didn't set much of an example for fiscal moderation. It remains to be seen whether Bush will surpass Reagan's record of bloat (or Clinton's record of lying. . . heh).
As far as Vietnam is concerned, remember that Reagan first became politically prominent campaigning for Goldwater, who didn't think JFK was tough enough. And NASA isn't exactly cheap, but it's nowhere in the neighborhood of military spending over the past few decades.
Re:Simply wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for naming airports and ships after great people, but to go from the Lincoln and Washington to the Reagan and Bush is entirely too political.
Re:One question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Reagan's first words on hearing about it were, and I quote: Ah, shit. Followed up, I believe, by: Those fools.
If Reagan had any shortcoming, it was that he put too much faith in the goodness and integrity of the people he appointed.
Re:Friggin Troll or what? Bush is a Fascist Pig! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, smart thinking. That Jefferson didn't like the British taxes? Then he should have left! The Northern states didn't like the South keeping slaves? They should all have left! Yeah, right on!
Re:Friggin Troll or what? Bush is a Fascist Pig! (Score:1, Insightful)
It comes from a long history, and a the strong historical bonds that our country has with the French, from whom we have gotten much of our military doctrine, and cultural attitudes in general.
Re:Answers for Hippies (Score:5, Insightful)
Woah, listen to the economics professor everyone. You have a point, but you could have got the same benefit to the economy by building a $5 billion gigantic rotating barbie doll. Just how big a barbie could you build with $5 billion. I don't know, but I bet I could figure it out with $1 million. Plus, this would provide lasting employment because you would need to make clothes for it. Include tourist money and we have a winner.
Sick jokes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Its odd that so many liberals, so eager to tell everyone who compassionate they are, are so quick to make jokes about such topics.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
So I guess it's doing just fine.
More concerning is the massive amount of consumer debt that we have piled up over the last 15 years.
How 'bout letting us know which country you are from so we can ask you some smarmy, ill-informed questions?
Re:How appropriate... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:News for nerds? Stuff that matters? (Score:1, Insightful)
This is why we have subject lines.
I wasn't interested in the story about Sun's investments in SCO. But nobody forced me to read it and I found no reason to complain to anyone that I wasn't interested.
Re:Star Wars (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Friggin Troll or what? Bush is a Fascist Pig! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but at least I didn't post as an Anonymous Coward.
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
How??? (Score:2, Insightful)
They have...in training (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the problem with nuclear submarines - they're too loud to hear purely electrical ones. I believe it put some impetous into the Seawolf project.
Re:Way too many articles (Score:3, Insightful)
But the 12 aircraft carriers are fucking awesome to have when it comes time to destroy some country for allowing the a terrorist mastermind to operate there in freedom.
What could France have done, say, if 9/11 had happened there? Nothing. What could Germany have done? Nothing. And that's why France and Germany kow-tow to terrorists and extremists, because they no ability to do anything if anyone attacks them, so they must roll over like dogs and pray that terrorists bother someone else.
Maybe that's a good short term strategy, but in the long term, our French and German friends may be wishing they had more offensive weapons some day.
In other words, our offensive weapons enable the citizens of the US to live in a country where we can live on our feet, not our knees.
I'm not saying our strategy is perfect, or that there isn't a better one, just that I'd rather have 12 aircraft carriers than try to rely on the good will of Osama Bin Laden.
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:3, Insightful)
You're full of shit ..
The vote is made by representatives of the people, who rely on the military to advise them on situations. Hence Bush and other military leaders telling us "weapons of mass destruction" etc. to have congress agree to go to war. As far as killing people goes, rules of engagement are pretty clear.
If the aircraft carrier wasn't designed for war and destruction then what was it made for. If the thing is never used it will be a "waste" of money, so of course it promotes war.
As far as your points go...
1.) And yours isn't?
2.) Since when is it required that you love america? Since when is america "peace loving" all I hear on the news is how we're killing people in Iraq. Anymore it's just body counts, they stopped even bothering with the pesky names.
3.) answered above.
I think this is very relevant, just you want to automatically disagree with anyone who thinks there's an alternative to blowing someone away.
Re:I wonder (Score:1, Insightful)
Death of Carrier Reported Prematurely (Score:5, Insightful)
You are echoing a 1950's argument. With nukes [insert technology here] is obsolete. Yet Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Irag again were all conventional and carriers were invaluable. Also consider Cold War and other near-shooting incidents where carriers helped keep things calm, Cuban Missle Crisis for example. One of the various flaws in the argument you echo is that nukes are not like any other weapon. There is an extreme reluctance to use them. Use some conventional weapon on our carrier and we respond with conventional weapons on your military. Use nuclear weapon on our carrier and we respond with nukes on all your industrial and population centers, make an example of you. The preceeding Cold War policy has not been renounced as far as I know.
The US has to be prepared to fight a wide range of wars and carriers are invaluable in many scenarios. Many technologies, some quite ancient, are still valuable in this nuclear age. The spear for example. During the Iraq war I recall Marines clearing some marshy area with dense vegetation, bayonets fixed on their M16s.
Re:Simply wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Who knows. But it's exactly this sort of naming convention that will seriously embarrass the US sooner or later. Imagine a vessel named after a President who later turns out to have stolen millions, or the sort of fuss that'll be kicked up when one's sent to a country that the CinC it's named after had attacked several years earlier?
How good would it look if their was an aircraft carrier called the USS Richard Nixon?
Re:How appropriate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Star Wars (Score:3, Insightful)
I read this in about 3 seconds. That would indicate that about a million kids die from bad water every hour, and 1.5 billion -all the children in the world - die from poor water every year. You just made that up, didn't you?
As much as I would also like to see better living conditions in the third world, it appears to me (and most economists who have studied the problem) that what they need the most is not piles of money coming from the US and Europe.
It is not at all the case that the developing countries that get the most money also develop the fastest. Rather, it seems like those who successfully allow for greater economic freedom and fight corruption do the best in improving living conditions.
To help people in the third world we would thus do best to encourage that sort of development in their governments. This can be done with a carrot and a stick. USS Reagan is a stick.
Tor
Re:Rude (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wonder (Score:2, Insightful)
- Millions of 'ordinary' famalies (including my own) lost homes and small businesses such thanks to 'trickle down' economics
- Iran contra
- Star Wars (a massive waste)
- 'The evil empire'
- Iran hostage crisis
- Grenada
- Central America
- The (lost and wasteful) war on drugs
- The biggest deficit in U.S. history
Yah, great years those were. And to think we have to possibly endure another 4 years of Noecon/Reaganites makes me wanna puke. If you're rich and Christian, then these guys are your best friends. Why else would one of the biggest tax breaks ever go to the top 1% and not the middle class and poor.
Re:How appropriate... (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, Kennedy lowered taxes on the rich [netfirms.com] from 94% to 70% (he had asked for 65%, but Congress gave him 70%). He stated: "It is a paradoxical truth, that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates".
Kennedy cut taxes on the rich more than Reagan or Bush and seems to be as much a source of "supply side economics" as anyone else. Yet for some reason the Democrats think JFK was a god. Strange contradiction.
You had... Carter
Carter seems to be a fine man, the kind of guy I'd love to have as a neighbor. But what exactly would you have Bush duplicate of his presidency? The high inflation or would it be the oil crisis?
You had... Clinton
Again, what would you duplicate here? Raising taxes? Raising spending? Military intervention in countries that have nothing to do with our national interest? Sticking smoking devices into young interns? What exactly should Bush duplicate from Clinton's presidency?
Contrary to the social spending, cutting the military spending will *not* make your population's life worse than it is now
So giving money to people instead of having them work and produce something is going to make life better? Maybe for a few for a short amount of time, but that's not a system that can work in the long-term. Forcing the successful and productive to subsidize the unproductive and, sometimes, downright lazy is NOT fair and is NOT in the national interest in the long-term.
I would note that we have not significantly improved the sitution of the poor even after decades of wealth distribution. If the situation before and after are pretty much the same and the only difference is that we've increased the debt, what exactly was the point?
unless you insisit on giving more importance to some corrupt senators and the military-industrial magnates.
Not everyone that works in the defense industry is a "magnate" and the defense industry does provide jobs to MANY engineers that contribute to the tax base as well as lead to technological improvements, both military and otherwise. Military spending is the closest thing this country has to a pure R&D investment in technology.
As such, it is normal to blame the waste and not the needed.
Which is the bigger waste, defending our country or giving money to people that are unproductive? I'd even be willing to subsidize sending poorer people to universities so that they have the opportunity to contribute more to society and the economy. But wealth redistribution? That's a waste of time and money, especially when an organization as inefficient as the government is in charge of it.
Re:You said it! (Score:3, Insightful)
What would you suggest? Government-sponsored surgically overlaying condoms on your penis, so when you go bang a hooker, you won't get AIDS?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Industrial base (Score:5, Insightful)
Recently?
Liberia.
Within the last few years?
Mozambique (Operation Atlas Response).
Timor (USGET and UNTAET).
Venezuala (Operation Fundamental Response).
Turkey (Operation Avid Response).
Kosovar (Operation Allied Harbour).
Central America (Operation Strong Support).
Kenya & Tanzania (Operation Resolute Response).
That just takes us back 5 years to the middle of 1998. Do some research of your own.
Re:You said it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How appropriate... (Score:3, Insightful)
He increased the federal budget by more than anyone before him, in both real dollar and percentage terms. So either he was pro-big-government, or incredibly incompetent.
New Rule: If you claim to be against big government while increasing government spending, you shall be laughed at. And if you claim it because you are simultaneously cutting taxes, while further claiming to be fiscally responsible, you shall be pelted with dung.
Re:Friggin Troll or what? Bush is a Fascist Pig! (Score:2, Insightful)
Pointing out that the emporer has no clothes does not cause him to become naked.
Re:Simply wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
well, not exactly [navsource.org]
USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71) [navsource.org]
USS FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (CVB-42) [navsource.org]
USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75) [navsource.org]
USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69) [navsource.org]
USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CVA-67) [navsource.org]
but I agree with the point that this seems premature (but aren't _all_ naval ship namings politically motivated?)
Re:Friggin Troll or what? Bush is a Fascist Pig! (Score:2, Insightful)
"The main point here is that criticism going on mostly these days is not in good faith. It is made in bad faith to score political or other points. And that does reflect badly on the opposition. It shows that you are not a patriot, but an opportunist."
I'm astounded by this, and for once I really hope this is a troll.
So in the USA you have the freedom to say whatever you like - but if you don't follow the party line you get labelled "unpatriotic" (or maybe "communist", "one of them, not one of us", or even "a supporter of terrorism") ?
How did the USA come into existence ? Hmmmmm, let me think. Wasn't it something to do with people questioning those who governed them at the time ? Were the founding fathers "patriots" or "opportunists" ?
If I thought all Americans thought like you, my opinion of America would be greatly diminished. Fortunately, I know they don't (and it isn't).
And what is the point of an "opposition" if they are not allowed to oppose ? An unopposed government - is that the sort of government you really want ?
Re:I guess you have no memory of (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess you have no memory of REAGAN ACTUALLY SAYING THAT DURING IRAN-CONTRA.
Honestly, would it hurt to have a passing familiarity with the subject before bitching and moaning about "political flamebait"?
I recall that incident perfectly well, thank you. Reagan was clearly lying and making an ass of himself. Again, I'm not complaining because I love Reagan.
I'm "bitching and moaning," as you put it, because Michael either a.) just couldn't restrain himself from throwing a political jab into the story subhead or b.) thought a joke about Reagan's very well publicized descent into Alzheimer's-induced dementia would be oh so funny. Yayyyy michael.
Either way, my original point stands - I think the whole story was only posted as political flamebait, with Michael clearly stoking the fire. I don't care if you like Reagan or hate him, I just don't want any more of this junk on Slashdot.
Yes I know I can put Michael Sims' stories in my killfile, but he does post actual news stories as well, so I don't want to block those out. All I'm asking for is Taco, Hemos or somebody there to just tell Michael to cut the blatant flamebait shit out. If he wants to troll, do it in the comments section, not the story. The last time I checked, political flamebait was not Slashdot's mission.
Re:more than meets the eye (Score:2, Insightful)
It's been done. GPS-guided artillery shells are old hat.
In fact, there's been a lot of work done on the idea of bringing back shore bombardment. A chemically powered cannon can lob a dumb shell some thirty miles, which is pretty good. But there are some serious downsides. First, it can *only* send it thirty miles, which isn't far enough. Second, the shells aren't guided. Third, filling the ship's magazine with gunpowder and explosive shells is problematic. The gunpowder takes up space, and the ship's magazine tends to explode very dramatically if hit by enemy fire.
Replace the chemically powered cannon with an electromagnetic cannon powered by a nuclear reactor. Replace the dumb HE shells with GPS-guided KE shells. Replace the gunpowder with... well, with *nothing*.
The result is a cheaper, safer solution to strategic precision bombing, especially on a small scale. If we can get the cannons to the point where they can put steel on the ground 200 miles away, you'll see the return of the battleship as a meaningful force in armed conflict.
One of the dumber things I've read, and I read /. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think that nuclear bombs make other weapons obsolete, then your plan for the liberation of Baghdad probably would have involved "liberating" everyone from their flesh.
Re:Friggin Troll or what? Bush is a Fascist Pig! (Score:3, Insightful)
Correction:
...and if (God forbid!) you'd actually like to do something about the problems you see in the country you love, you're a terrorist.
Re:Way too many articles (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm... Do you get any news in that fantasy you live in? France has ongoing problems with Islamic terrorists within their own borders, which they frequently arrest people in connection with. I believe Germany was our biggest ally in the war on terror, until Bush tried to claim that Iraq was supporting terrorists. Germany busted up quite a few terrorist cells for us!
Besides, individually they don't need big offensive militaries, because if they ever really needed help, half the word would come to their aid. Also the French military is far from small (was either 2nd or 3rd largest ally in terms of troops and equipment in GWI) and have highly capable and respected special forces that have been active in Africa recently.
How many air craft carriers does it take to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan? None of the terrorist have large conventional military that would take more than 1 or 2 carriers to get rid of... Don't even start on Iraq wrt this. If we had any actual reason to be afraid, I am quite sure we would have convinced more than just the Brits to come along on our little misadventure. This is why we had strong support in Afghanistan, there was evidence and a source of a continuing threat. Iraq was made up, or at the least mis-represented...
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
Iran Hostage crisis ---> Started under Carter. Ended under Reagan.
Star Wars ---> Dreamed up in the 70's continues today. Even Clinton continued to fund it.
Grenada ---> Warehouses full of Soviet weapons seized just before the 'rebellion' was to start. Talk to 82nd airborne vets about what they found and saw before you think it was a joke.
War on drugs ---> Bush Sr., Nancy was "Just say No to drugs." Not to mention drug use DID decline through the end of the 80's and early 90's. The war is 'lost' because we (people and government) lost focus not because it could not be won.
Central America ---> What part? And no fair bringing up Nicaragua. You already have Iran-Contra on the list. And if you thing the Sandinistas were better than the Contras you're frikin' nuts.
Iran-Contra ---> I will not make excuses for going behind congress' back to get things done. But I do understand the desire to provide continous support to allies that congress was not doing.
BTW, I make less than $65K a year and I've benefitted from every Bush Jr. tax cut. Similarly, I was hindered by every Clinton tax increase. Does that make me part of the richest 1%?
Seems appropriate (Score:1, Insightful)
Think about it:
- Khomeini released the hostages the DAY Reagan was sworn in. Jimmy has 15 months to get something done, and all we heard about was savage rabbits and foreign policy consultations with Amy.
- RWR announced SDI (Directed Energy Weapon, anyone?), which ultimately bankrupted the USSR and sank the Evil Empire.
- RWR deployed IRBMs into Europe, over the objections of the local communist claques, refused to compromise with Gorby, and again, forced the USSR into bankruptcy.
- When RWR came in, Tactical Air Command was cannibalizing aircraft to keep smaller and smaller numbers of aircraft flying. during RWR's presidency, mission-available rates in TAC were in the region of 90%, plus.
- RWR slashed tax rates, starting an economic boom that continues to this day, putting America at the top of the world's economic heap. He might have PROPOSED spendeing increases, but actual spending as ENACTED by the Congress always exceeded what RWR had requested. Anyway, I'm glad the Congress over-spent so badly. The country got such a shock at seeing how badly Democrats would gorge themselves on taxpayers, the country recoiled in horror towards the Republican party. The end result is that the next Democrat president, the Rapist-in-Chief, was economically more like an Eisenhower Republican than a Democrat.
- RWR bombed Libya and invaded Grenada, showing the world (a) the time you could mess with Americans was over, and (b) that further communist expansion in the world was no longer acceptable. It wasn't until the Rapist-in-Chief seduced America's women for eight years that the Islamofascists decided we were back to the days of Carteresque decadence and they could once again start slaughtering Americans. Just in time for another Republican president to save us.
Basically, RWR ended the policy of containing evil in favor of a policy of active engagement against it, ended the notion that you could tax youself into prosperity, and gave Americans new faith in themselves after the series of body blows inflicted by Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter.
Of course, the left will never forgive him for defeating communism. Since members of the left, being mostly unemployed or underemployed in academia, have the time to slander him endlessly, I expect that in years to come we'll be unable to distinguish Reagan from Adolf Hitler, so vicious will the leftist attacks be.
Still. Tough, lads, you lost. I suggest you accept reality, breath a sigh of relief that the gulag doesn't loom, and thank God RWR was once President.
Re:Friggin Troll or what? Bush is a Fascist Pig! (Score:3, Insightful)
His point is that all most of the Democrats are doing right now regarding President Bush and the war in Iraq is picking nits in a completely partisan attempt to make him look bad, not a patriotic attempt to do what is right for this country. Not all Democrats, actually, Hillary Clinton recently came forward in support of the war (and Bill had a couple of strongly worded speeches about Iraq's WMD program in the late 90's).
I agree that it is usually silly to label someone anti-American just because they have opposing views, unless those views are in direct opposition to the U.S. constitution that we are sworn to uphold (like income tax, gun control, etc. heheheh)
Re:You said it! (Score:3, Insightful)
As my mother taught me, and I really took it to hard (and have scars to prove it) -- "There is no right or wrong in life, only consequences."
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple demographics. Post baby-boom generation, there were far fewer babies born in the late 60s and early 70s. Hence, there were more McJobs availble for each teenager, and fewer teens to hang out all bored and looking for escape through chemical manipulation of their bodies.
And that assumes that you think declining drug use is necessarily a good thing, especially if the decline is due to a coercive "war". You'll find plenty of folks to dispute that notion.
Evidence? You are welcome to disagree with communism in general, but if you look at the everyday lives of average people, the Sandanistas provided relatively well for their citizens.
With allies like the Contras, who needs enemas?
Re:Lets see about your list (Score:3, Insightful)
Star Wars was one of the biggest reasons that the cold war is over. Reagan's emphasis on it was more of a poker-style bluff than anything else, and it worked like a charm. Gorbechev was scared to death that his missiles would be rendered useless, and suddenly the US would have all of the power. Thats why he agreed to the INF treaty in 1987. Smart move by Reagan.
However, the concept of missile defense is still attractive, that is why money is still spent on it. Who knews if it will ever work, but its worth a try.
Interesting Reagan Quote about technology (Score:5, Insightful)
In June 1989, Ronald Reagan said, "Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders.
[1] http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.
Re:Answers for Hippies (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but there are other positive effects of defense spending. First, and most obvious, is defense. To be fair though our military spending is far more than is necessary for defense, so what is it about? And does this particular purchase have no more net benefit to us than a gigantic rotating barbie doll. The critics would argue that our military spending is about world domination and empire and that no, it is not worth it. Sometimes that ciriticism is probably fair but it is very simplistic. Through our spectacular wealth and the historical accidents of WWII and the cold war we have ended up with global military domination - at each stage responding to real threats and not (initially) seeking any kind of empire. Along the way we have granted a very large portion of the world security guarantees and ended up with all those nations as our military dependents. At this point most of our allies spend very little on their own defense. In Europe they think they have made war obsolete by creating a stifling network of rules, aggreements, conventions and that all problems can be solved by a weekend summit in Bern. It rarely occurs to them that part of the reason this regime of paper rules works is because it is (inadvertantly) enforced by those much maligned American aircraft carriers. We are living in Pax Americana, we *are* the worlds policemen and have been since the end of WWII. There are dozens of conflicts today and dozens more that could develop tommorrow that would likely escalate into full blown wars if it were not for the ability of the US to project it's military power *via aircraft carriers* to intervene in those conflicts. Global trade and international noms are maintained to a large degree by those 12 aircraft carriers. If instead we had 12 gigantic rotating Barbies we would have the same immediate economic benefit but would in the not very long run we would suffer spectacular economic losses from the instablity caused by the power vaccuum. Our ability and our willingness to "project force" is a very large factor in the thinking China regarding Tiawan, N. Korea regarding S. Korea. It weighs even more heaviliy on various Middle Eastern dictatorships eying their neighbors rich oil fields and already committed to either fascist Pan-Arab nationalism or theocratic Islamism and with no compunctions against achieving either Arab or Muslim "unity" at the point of a gun.
Whenever people opposed to US military spending point out how very much more we spend than the rest of the world they seem to think that if the US stopped spending that much everything else would stay static. Sadly I think this quite niave. Right now S. Korea & Tiawan spend a great deal on defense but they *would* spend a great deal more if they knew we wouldn't or couldn't help them. Japan spends *very* little on defense considering she is next door to two military dictatorships, one with hegemonic ambitions and the other quite mad - what would be the result of the remilitarized Japan? How would those historically hostile, paranoid and ambitious dictatorships respond if Japan (noting that we are several carriers short and incapable of any significant aid) decides to double or triple military spending, institutes a draft or starts a crash nuclear program? How would all that movement effect other regional powers? The only reason S. Korea and Japan don't have nukes is because we do. The only reason they spend relatively little on defense, considering the threats they face, is because we do. The same is true (though perhaps less dramatically so) across the rest of the world.
Re:Interesting Reagan Quote about technology (Score:5, Insightful)
In every summit Gorbi and Reagan had Gorbi pushed to end Star Wars, even coming to the brink of war over it. Reagan never relented and continued to push the technology. He had the forsight to know that overcoming evil, poverty and every other ill on this Earth involved investment in technology.
Re:I wonder (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure nobody would care if all Christians would just mind their own business and not try to force their beliefs on others. I for one am tired of the "street preaching" of the more fundamentalist sects (Mormons, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, the Fire of God church and so on...).
The "religious right" political movement which lobbies government in order to further an ultra-conservative agenda is another reason why some people think there is something wrong with Christians.
Personally, I think that a religious faith based on self-denial in order for future reward (in the afterlife - when I'm dead) is just unappealing. Christian doctrine encourages the denial of some of the greatest aspects of the human experience. And that just sucks.
Re:How appropriate... (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's a start [bushnews.com]
Call it a biased site, but it references articles and quotes. This is out of date too; the really interesting lies are just starting to be revealed. You'll forgive me if I consider lies which end thousands of lives more reprehensible than lies about a blow job. Though I'm sure Clinton had plenty of lies about Iraq (the Bushes weren't the only ones to kill Iraqis with bombings and sanctions), Kosovo, etc, and I'm outraged by those too, this never seems to be what people are outraged about when they talk about Bill Clinton lying. However, with the Bush administration currently managing Afghanistan and Iraq at bombpoint, and seriously considering opening up franchises in even more countries, the hands of this administration are very bloody.
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
Well simply, the US doesn't want Aircraft carriers with dumb little ramps at the end. Besides if your going to build one you might as well build one to handle all ones needs. We do have ships that are platforms for verticle takeoff vehicles.
The brits can get away with the small ships since they largely use Harriers (sp). The also don't have the amount not even have the size of planes the US launches off their carriers.
There is little that is bad about the big carriers, unless your going sight seeing in a small harbor. Fuel isn't much an issue, so it takes an extra few pounds of uranium every 20 years, not a big deal. Also the military gets there money no matter what they do. If they didn't spend it on a carrier it would go to other weapons, it's not going to get used for anything else if they don't use it.
USS Bill Clinton (Score:2, Insightful)
Bill Clinton doesn't deserve an ounce of credit for the boom that happened on his watch.
Well, yes of course. That's because he's a democrat.
We all know that if he had been a Republican presiding over such a boom, there would be a national airport and numerous federal buildings named after him by now.
Re:more than meets the eye (Score:2, Insightful)
Another thing; why on earth would a conventional gun need a nuclear reactor to support it?
No, the AC who also responded was correct, Directed Energy is not just a fancy term for a simple explosive or kinetic energy shell. DE implies a laser or other EM type weapon. It couldn't it could even be properly applied to a railgun
Re:Reasonable? (Score:3, Insightful)
So the choices are with us or against us.
And who said extermism was bad thing...
Bah.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry to be a realist, but people have been misbeahving since the dawn of time. Sometimes the only thing that works to avoid violence is the threat that you will get beat up more then your opponent.
Re:Not dead yet (Score:2, Insightful)
We are witnessing a revival of fascism in the United States.
Whoa there, Sonny! Your tin foil hat seems to have slipped off!
I strongly suggest you research exactly what facism is, then compare it to the entire history of the United States. If you can honestly conclude that there are any realistic similarities, please conduct yourself to the nearest mental hospital or University of California campus.
Re:Not dead yet (Score:5, Insightful)
1] "Like passing the largest tax cuts in history despite the Democrats controling the house AND the Senate".
BUZZ - Wrong. Reagan got control of the house for the first two years of the presidency, and - because of the presence of a highly conservative Democratic caucus from the south, he had effective control of the Senate. Oh, and in addition to "passing the largest tax cuts in history" (on the rich - naturally), he also passed the largest tax increase in history (on the poor). This is something a lot of anti-tax conservatives seem to pass over when reciting the faith.
"Reagan got more judicial nominees in than any president in history."
- TRUE, but meaningless. The country is bigger, so we have more judge positions to fill. You could also credit this to cooperation from Democrats, but the truth is that the GOP has been nearly as cooperative for Democratic appointments (sorry liberals). Between modern presidents, Clinton appointed 357 (or 44%), Reagan appointed 378. On a percentage basis though, no one beats George Washington - who appointed 100% of the judges in the country.
"He was the first president to put his foot down and stop the USSR."
- BZZZT. Wrong. That honor goes to Truman. In fact - there's this little "Doctrine" named after Truman having to do with the USSR, but I don't expect a typical dittohead to know that. They're so ignorant, they can hardly find the planet they're standing on.
You see, every President opposed the USSR. The only difference is the strategy they took: carrot, stick, or carrot and stick. From a global political perspective, it seems pretty obvious that none of these made much difference. It was the system of free trade and free expression that won over the long haul, not any macho posturing from a politician.
However, if you're determined to find a "sole cause", you would do worse that look at Japan. When that little upstart started beating the U.S. at its own game, suddenly the third world saw a model they could emulate, and the Russians began to loose faith. When Taiwan almost passed the GDP of the entirety of mainland China, even the Maoists did too.
It's a funny thing. McCarthy and the other 50s conservatives felt they had to emulate some of the methods of the USSR to destroy it. They had less faith in capatalism than many extremely liberal countries, including Sweeden - who proudly call themselves "socialist" even to this day.
Re:USS Jimmy Carter (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the issue raised, part of the point is that a freedom-based capitalist country is so damned economically powerful (that is the true fear of many, not that it's "inferior" to communim or socialism or whatever, but that it's too powerful) that we could easily afford the debt in ratchetting up the conventional arms race. As big as our debt was, it was still just a fraction, per capita, of many western European countries, none of which had a productivity anywhere near ours. (And the shabby secret is that many liberals, while denouncing our debt, actually subscribed to the philosophy that we should, i.e. could, match those Europeans, running the debt up much, much further, buying social programs for the purpose of buying votes. A sickening, evolution-like philosophy.)
And had that happened, we wouldn't be talking about a next generation carrier in 10 years sporting directed energy weapons. (And, as a similar economic reality, we wouldn't be whining about high drug costs because we'd be mired in mid '80's level drug technology, maybe 1990. Woo Hoo. Free 1987 drugs!)
Greed combined with the freedom to not have your stuff taken, literally, by thugs, powers things along much more rapidly. That, alone, allows technological advancement so fast that to do anything else would be immoral and reprehensible.
Political "science" -- the only science that thinks it moral to force experiments on the test subjects. Murderous experiments. How about just leaving people the hell alone? There's a damned novel idea!
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it started [thirdworldtraveler.com] in 1953 when Eisenhower ordered the CIA to overthrow the popularly elected (as in a real democratic election) prime minister of Iran, Mossadegh, by pushing Reza Pahlava, the Shah, to expel him. Riots ensued, the Shah fled, the CIA put the riots down, brought the Shaw back, and trained SAVAK; who went on to earn Amnesty International's award for "worst human rights record on the planet" in 1976. That's the year Carter was elected, he didn't take office 'till 77. I'm not sure how you can imply he was responsible for the revolt in 79 to overthrow a brutal and repressive regime.
As for Reagan's illustrious involvement in the hostage crisis: He traded weapons to the Ayatollah Khomeini, the forces of darkness, to secure their release. Even Reagan admitted [grolier.com] it. A very clever move, now known as the October Surprise, which was significant in defeating Carter.
"When President Reagan first issued his challenge to America's scientific community to find a defense against ballistic missiles..." [heritage.org] Clinton did continue funding, but then Clinton governed as a moderate republican, unfortunately.
Greneda was no joke for the Grenadines. They had made the mistake of electing Maurice Bishop who, alas, was mildly socialist. CIA destabilization began shortly thereafter under Carter in '79, actually, but given the animosity and outright betrayal of Carter by the UberRight in the defense organization (Ollie et al, see above), it's not clear he knew anything about it. Given that Grenada was a managed news event, you should be careful of any "news" you read about it, and the dangerous weapons they had [guardian.co.uk]. Remember pfc Lynch's "Rescue." [guardian.co.uk]
US prohibition has quite a long history, all of it embarrassing. Reagan did declare the "War on Drugs," [serendipity.li] but what that really meant, and continues to mean is difficult to ascertain. One thing is for sure, it is not about helping people. [uni-bremen.de] Mentioning Gary Webb's [pbs.org] careful and exceptionally well documented journalism runs contrary to the charade, but the evidence is strong [webcom.com] that under Reagan the CIA was supporting the sale of cocaine in the US to fund the Contras after congress confronted the CIA's arms sales underwritten funding.
The difference is the Sandinistas were the popularly elected government and the Contras were the private army of Samoza, evacuated, rearmed, retrained, and reinserted
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
A carrier's survivability is based around the inability of any aggressor to get within two hundred miles of it.
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
Big carrier has ability to deliver a strike and defend itself at the same time. Small carriers can't defend itself and strike simultaneously. Bigger carriers can launch bigger fixed wings aircraft like E-2C Hawkeye and therefore could detect tactical missiles launch or approach. Big aircrafts have air patrols and can launch more aircraft for intercepting approaching targets. They also have EA-6B Prowlers to jam enemy radar emissions. If you are talking about something as HMS Invincible - they have 9 or 15 Harriers (depending on source) and helicopters. Their main role is to defend fleet, nothing else. And British going to build CVF which could launch about 40 aircraft...
There is French Charles de Gaulle carrier which operates about 40 Rafales and three E-2C. It is a new one - comissioned in 2000. The problem is - if you want to strike something - you never have enough aircraft and 80 aircraft (Nimitz-class carrier) much better than 40.
The fact that our (US) military does not pay that much attention to survivability of ships is a sign of a trend: we are now focused on smacking around those weaker than ourselves (Iraq, Afghanistan) rather than fighting an even battle (WW2).
You know - carriers never go alone. There are carrier battle groups including AEGIS cruisers, destroers, submarines. The carriers are defended and could defend themselves. The singler player which could try to harm US carriers - Soviet Union was not able to do anything serious about it.
Re:I wonder (Score:2, Insightful)