CDZ Can You Answer These Questions?

[yiostheoy]

You know, I'm kinda wondering how he's not only going to manage to build another bunch of ships, but my main concern is will he make the same mistake that Reagan made when he called for a 500 ship Navy, but failed to increase the recruiting numbers. There was a time when ships were going on a full deployment at only 80 to 85 percent manning, which meant a LOT of extra work and watches.

And no, carriers don't carry around 2000 people for the the crew, the number of ships crew is more like 3000, and when the Airwing gets onboard, the number of people increases to around 6000. Was stationed onboard the USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER and the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON while I was with VFA-131.

So, one carrier is gonna require about 6,000 more people in the Navy, and then when you factor in the support ships that go with the carrier, you can increase that number by another 4000 people.

And that's for just ONE battle group.

And how is he gonna pay for the ships and crew if he's going to cut everyone's tax bill?

DJT is following a page out of the Reagan playbook -- called "Defense Buildup".

In Reagan's case the boogieman was Moscow.

Presently it is Beijing and Pyongyang.

 

[yiostheoy]

if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]

How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?

It worked very well so long as the Romans were actively involved in their conquests. However, as the Roman Senate became ever more corrupt, and the citizenry went ever more on the Dole, then, and only then did the Roman Republic first, then Empire collapse. And they lasted for centuries longer than the USA has. So I would say they did pretty damned good.

The known world and actual population was a fraction then of what it is today. Thus less complications for the Roman government to deal with. Thus "centuries" of a successful Empire. Travel for armies was grueling and swift today and war machinery and weaponry was antiques compared to today, thus again centuries of world control. I argue today's world moves at warp speed compared to the Roman Empire days, but the same conditions of government corruption and the citizenry is ever more on the dole.

The Romans did not have a navy.

They were strictly a land power like Napoleon and/or Hitler.

 

[yiostheoy]

if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]

How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?

It worked very well so long as the Romans were actively involved in their conquests. However, as the Roman Senate became ever more corrupt, and the citizenry went ever more on the Dole, then, and only then did the Roman Republic first, then Empire collapse. And they lasted for centuries longer than the USA has. So I would say they did pretty damned good.

The known world and actual population was a fraction then of what it is today. Thus less complications for the Roman government to deal with. Thus "centuries" of a successful Empire. Travel for armies was grueling and swift today and war machinery and weaponry was antiques compared to today, thus again centuries of world control. I argue today's world moves at warp speed compared to the Roman Empire days, but the same conditions of government corruption and the citizenry is ever more on the dole.

Yeah, sure. Considering they were walking everywhere, with all of the attendant delays in getting info from one side of the Empire to the other renders your statement false. When one reads Roman history it becomes quite apparent that when the Republic wasn't corrupt, it was grand. When it became corrupt it decayed very rapidly. That is what caused the birth of the Empire. As an Empire when they had good emperors they did very well, when they had loons they collapsed. But all through that was when the citizenry was involved they did well, when the citizenry were not involved, they fell apart. Kind of like our country today.

The key will be INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS !!!

That's yet another DJT program besides "Military Buildup".

 

[yiostheoy]

DJT needs to do everything he can think of to get jobs for the poor white trash who voted for him in the swing states so that by 2020 he can say "are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" And these people have kids that can join the Navy.

- Military buildup

- Infrastructure improvement

- Deregulation

- Tax cuts

How do you spell "deficit spending" again ?!

 

[westwall]

if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]

How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?

It worked very well so long as the Romans were actively involved in their conquests. However, as the Roman Senate became ever more corrupt, and the citizenry went ever more on the Dole, then, and only then did the Roman Republic first, then Empire collapse. And they lasted for centuries longer than the USA has. So I would say they did pretty damned good.

You're joking right...

Military spending IS one of the reasons why the Roman Empire collapsed. They relied too much on military advancement and as such, technological and infrastructural advancement fell into virtual ruin. Now this isn't the only reason, there are much more. But don't give us that bullcrap about how Roman was victorious because they were "actively involved in their conquests." Your comment reeks of fascism. Try again.

I'm not joking at all. The Roman infrastructure was well maintained until the citizenry got lazy. Don't believe me, look it up. Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Livy, Tacitus, Sallust, they are all excellent sources for what life was like under the Roman Senate, and later under the Emperor's. I will grant you that when the emperor was a loon, they tended to write around the lunacy, but the later historians weren't afraid to write about the excesses of the earlier leaders.

 

[westwall]

if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend....Bet you didn't know that did you?

That is utter nonsense. You really need to either read more or get out more. I don't know which...

• Liechtenstein has not had standing army since around the time of the U.S. Civil War. That didn't and still doesn't stop many of the world's richest people from banking there.
  
• Monaco stopped making military expenditures in the 1600s. The country doesn't even levy an income tax. It's among the most fun places on the planet to live or visit. The country hosts a biennial race that may well be the best adult party-weekend I've ever come by...intensity makes it like a "Spring Break" for grown-ups. It's nonstop socializing, partying, gambling, drinking, etc. for the whole weekend everywhere one goes, and every so often a bunch of cars going really fast pass by where one is partying.
• Highly strategic Panama also has no standing military. I don't see any one chomping at the bit to take over the country, thus control of the canal.
• Vatican City also has no military forces, though Popes used to have their own armies.
• Iceland has no army and yet it occupies a highly strategic position in the North Atlantic.
• Costa Rica, Haiti, and several other nations decided to stop having a military as a way to prevent coups.
• Andorra technically has an army, but its members do nothing but march about looking dashing as they perform a variety of ceremonial duties.

Of course, one thing a country with no military cannot do is boss everyone else around. Instead they have to sincerely be good at "playing well with others." Oh, my, what a novel concept....

All of the countries you list relied on the bigger country's that surround them, to protect them. Just sayin....

 

[yiostheoy]

if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]

How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?

It worked very well so long as the Romans were actively involved in their conquests. However, as the Roman Senate became ever more corrupt, and the citizenry went ever more on the Dole, then, and only then did the Roman Republic first, then Empire collapse. And they lasted for centuries longer than the USA has. So I would say they did pretty damned good.

You're joking right...

Military spending IS one of the reasons why the Roman Empire collapsed. They relied too much on military advancement and as such, technological and infrastructural advancement fell into virtual ruin. Now this isn't the only reason, there are much more. But don't give us that bullcrap about how Roman was victorious because they were "actively involved in their conquests." Your comment reeks of fascism. Try again.

I'm not joking at all. The Roman infrastructure was well maintained until the citizenry got lazy. Don't believe me, look it up. Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Livy, Tacitus, Sallust, they are all excellent sources for what life was like under the Roman Senate, and later under the Emperor's. I will grant you that when the emperor was a loon, they tended to write around the lunacy, but the later historians weren't afraid to write about the excesses of the earlier leaders.

Good morning Mr. westwall !!

How are you this fine morning ?!

I studied ancient Greek history in depth with primary sources such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Diodorus -- all Greeks.

I do not have the energy to do the same thing with the Romans.

I am Greek. You must be Italian. I get the ancestry thing.

Thank you for not thread banning me.

 

[westwall]

if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]

How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?

It worked very well so long as the Romans were actively involved in their conquests. However, as the Roman Senate became ever more corrupt, and the citizenry went ever more on the Dole, then, and only then did the Roman Republic first, then Empire collapse. And they lasted for centuries longer than the USA has. So I would say they did pretty damned good.

The known world and actual population was a fraction then of what it is today. Thus less complications for the Roman government to deal with. Thus "centuries" of a successful Empire. Travel for armies was grueling and swift today and war machinery and weaponry was antiques compared to today, thus again centuries of world control. I argue today's world moves at warp speed compared to the Roman Empire days, but the same conditions of government corruption and the citizenry is ever more on the dole.

The Romans did not have a navy.

They were strictly a land power like Napoleon and/or Hitler.

Ummmm, you might want to actually read some history there, sport. 330 top of the line warships, and the 140,000 men who crewed them would constitute a navy if I'm not mistaken. Pompey amassed a fleet of 500 ships to deal with the scourge of pirates and quite literally swept the ENTIRE Mediterranean and Black Sea's of every pirate there was.


"ECNOMUS
The Battle of Ecnomus, in 256 BCE off the southern coast of Sicily, was one of, if not the, largest sea battles in ancient times, and it would show that Mylae had been no fluke. The Romans, buoyed by their first success, had expanded their fleet so that they now had 330 quinqueremes with a total of 140,000 men ready for battle. The Carthaginians set sail with 350 ships, and the two massive fleets met off the coast of Sicily. The Romans organised themselves into four squadrons arranged in a wedge shape. The Carthaginians sought to entice the front two Roman squadrons away from the rear two and catch them in a pincer movement. However, whether through a lack of manoeuvrability or proper communication of intentions, the Carthaginian fleet instead attacked the Roman rear transport squadron whilst the front two Roman squadrons caused havoc inside the Carthaginian centre. In the close-quarter fighting, seamanship counted for little and the corvii for everything. Once again, victory was Rome's. Carthage lost 100 ships to a mere 24 Roman losses."


Roman Naval Warfare

 

[westwall]

if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]

How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?

It worked very well so long as the Romans were actively involved in their conquests. However, as the Roman Senate became ever more corrupt, and the citizenry went ever more on the Dole, then, and only then did the Roman Republic first, then Empire collapse. And they lasted for centuries longer than the USA has. So I would say they did pretty damned good.

You're joking right...

Military spending IS one of the reasons why the Roman Empire collapsed. They relied too much on military advancement and as such, technological and infrastructural advancement fell into virtual ruin. Now this isn't the only reason, there are much more. But don't give us that bullcrap about how Roman was victorious because they were "actively involved in their conquests." Your comment reeks of fascism. Try again.

I'm not joking at all. The Roman infrastructure was well maintained until the citizenry got lazy. Don't believe me, look it up. Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Livy, Tacitus, Sallust, they are all excellent sources for what life was like under the Roman Senate, and later under the Emperor's. I will grant you that when the emperor was a loon, they tended to write around the lunacy, but the later historians weren't afraid to write about the excesses of the earlier leaders.

Good morning Mr. westwall !!

How are you this fine morning ?!

I studied ancient Greek history in depth with primary sources such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Diodorus -- all Greeks.

I do not have the energy to do the same thing with the Romans.

I am Greek. You must be Italian. I get the ancestry thing.

Thank you for not thread banning me.

I'm of English and Scottish extraction, with some native American tossed in for good measure. There are plenty of modern histories that use the primary historians for source material. Easy reading, and some of it is quite amusing. Harold Lamb for instance is an excellent read.

 

[yiostheoy]

My military science thesis paper was on the development of ancient Greek land and sea power.

I traced the superiority of Greek infantry tactics over Persian infantry and archery.

This was followed by the superiority of Greek cavalry over Persian chariots.

However when the Greeks met the Indians in India they had never seen a war elephant before, and these war elephants were like tanks in WW1 and WW2, and even today.

At sea the Greeks were unvanquished. Their only mistake was not unifying themselves into an empire state like the Romans did.

The Greeks were too stubbornly independent. They did not believe in empires.

It was the Greek's downfall. The Romans easily outnumbered and conquered them -- all except Sparta.

They left Sparta isolated. Eventually Sparta became a Roman tourist destination.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

You know, I'm kinda wondering how he's not only going to manage to build another bunch of ships, but my main concern is will he make the same mistake that Reagan made when he called for a 500 ship Navy, but failed to increase the recruiting numbers. There was a time when ships were going on a full deployment at only 80 to 85 percent manning, which meant a LOT of extra work and watches.

And no, carriers don't carry around 2000 people for the the crew, the number of ships crew is more like 3000, and when the Airwing gets onboard, the number of people increases to around 6000. Was stationed onboard the USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER and the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON while I was with VFA-131.

So, one carrier is gonna require about 6,000 more people in the Navy, and then when you factor in the support ships that go with the carrier, you can increase that number by another 4000 people.

And that's for just ONE battle group.

And how is he gonna pay for the ships and crew if he's going to cut everyone's tax bill?

Start taking away welfare on demand, like they did with the Contract with America(Newt's bill) and then the schmucks have to find a job.

 

[yiostheoy]

if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]

How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?

It worked very well so long as the Romans were actively involved in their conquests. However, as the Roman Senate became ever more corrupt, and the citizenry went ever more on the Dole, then, and only then did the Roman Republic first, then Empire collapse. And they lasted for centuries longer than the USA has. So I would say they did pretty damned good.

The known world and actual population was a fraction then of what it is today. Thus less complications for the Roman government to deal with. Thus "centuries" of a successful Empire. Travel for armies was grueling and swift today and war machinery and weaponry was antiques compared to today, thus again centuries of world control. I argue today's world moves at warp speed compared to the Roman Empire days, but the same conditions of government corruption and the citizenry is ever more on the dole.

The Romans did not have a navy.

They were strictly a land power like Napoleon and/or Hitler.

Ummmm, you might want to actually read some history there, sport. 330 top of the line warships, and the 140,000 men who crewed them would constitute a navy if I'm not mistaken. Pompey amassed a fleet of 500 ships to deal with the scourge of pirates and quite literally swept the ENTIRE Mediterranean and Black Sea's of every pirate there was.


"ECNOMUS
The Battle of Ecnomus, in 256 BCE off the southern coast of Sicily, was one of, if not the, largest sea battles in ancient times, and it would show that Mylae had been no fluke. The Romans, buoyed by their first success, had expanded their fleet so that they now had 330 quinqueremes with a total of 140,000 men ready for battle. The Carthaginians set sail with 350 ships, and the two massive fleets met off the coast of Sicily. The Romans organised themselves into four squadrons arranged in a wedge shape. The Carthaginians sought to entice the front two Roman squadrons away from the rear two and catch them in a pincer movement. However, whether through a lack of manoeuvrability or proper communication of intentions, the Carthaginian fleet instead attacked the Roman rear transport squadron whilst the front two Roman squadrons caused havoc inside the Carthaginian centre. In the close-quarter fighting, seamanship counted for little and the corvii for everything. Once again, victory was Rome's. Carthage lost 100 ships to a mere 24 Roman losses."


Roman Naval Warfare

OK I stand corrected. The Romans came late to naval warfare and once they had conquered the entire Mediterranean they abandoned it again.

The Mare Terranium became a huge Roman lake.

Other than trade ships they had no need for warships.

 

[westwall]

My military science thesis paper was on the development of ancient Greek land and sea power.

I traced the superiority of Greek infantry tactics over Persian infantry and archery.

This was followed by the superiority of Greek cavalry over Persian chariots.

However when the Greeks met the Indians in India they had never seen a war elephant before, and these war elephants were like tanks in WW1 and WW2, and even today.

At sea the Greeks were unvanquished. Their only mistake was not unifying themselves into an empire state like the Romans did.

The Greeks were too stubbornly independent. They did not believe in empires.

It was the Greek's downfall. The Romans easily outnumbered and conquered them -- all except Sparta.

They left Sparta isolated. Eventually Sparta became a Roman tourist destination.

I think you're forgetting the Battle of Leuctra where Thebes defeated the Spartans. But that's merely a guess.

 

[yiostheoy]

How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?

It worked very well so long as the Romans were actively involved in their conquests. However, as the Roman Senate became ever more corrupt, and the citizenry went ever more on the Dole, then, and only then did the Roman Republic first, then Empire collapse. And they lasted for centuries longer than the USA has. So I would say they did pretty damned good.

You're joking right...

Military spending IS one of the reasons why the Roman Empire collapsed. They relied too much on military advancement and as such, technological and infrastructural advancement fell into virtual ruin. Now this isn't the only reason, there are much more. But don't give us that bullcrap about how Roman was victorious because they were "actively involved in their conquests." Your comment reeks of fascism. Try again.

I'm not joking at all. The Roman infrastructure was well maintained until the citizenry got lazy. Don't believe me, look it up. Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Livy, Tacitus, Sallust, they are all excellent sources for what life was like under the Roman Senate, and later under the Emperor's. I will grant you that when the emperor was a loon, they tended to write around the lunacy, but the later historians weren't afraid to write about the excesses of the earlier leaders.

Good morning Mr. westwall !!

How are you this fine morning ?!

I studied ancient Greek history in depth with primary sources such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Diodorus -- all Greeks.

I do not have the energy to do the same thing with the Romans.

I am Greek. You must be Italian. I get the ancestry thing.

Thank you for not thread banning me.

I'm of English and Scottish extraction, with some native American tossed in for good measure. There are plenty of modern histories that use the primary historians for source material. Easy reading, and some of it is quite amusing. Harold Lamb for instance is an excellent read.

There is probably plenty of Viking blood in you then too.

 

[yiostheoy]

My military science thesis paper was on the development of ancient Greek land and sea power.

I traced the superiority of Greek infantry tactics over Persian infantry and archery.

This was followed by the superiority of Greek cavalry over Persian chariots.

However when the Greeks met the Indians in India they had never seen a war elephant before, and these war elephants were like tanks in WW1 and WW2, and even today.

At sea the Greeks were unvanquished. Their only mistake was not unifying themselves into an empire state like the Romans did.

The Greeks were too stubbornly independent. They did not believe in empires.

It was the Greek's downfall. The Romans easily outnumbered and conquered them -- all except Sparta.

They left Sparta isolated. Eventually Sparta became a Roman tourist destination.

I think you're forgetting the Battle of Leuctra where Thebes defeated the Spartans. But that's merely a guess.

Oh I know that the Spartans were defeated by the Thebans.

The Macedonians left the Spartans alone however, right after the Macedonians burned Thebes to the ground and enslaved all their people.

 

[westwall]

It worked very well so long as the Romans were actively involved in their conquests. However, as the Roman Senate became ever more corrupt, and the citizenry went ever more on the Dole, then, and only then did the Roman Republic first, then Empire collapse. And they lasted for centuries longer than the USA has. So I would say they did pretty damned good.

You're joking right...

Military spending IS one of the reasons why the Roman Empire collapsed. They relied too much on military advancement and as such, technological and infrastructural advancement fell into virtual ruin. Now this isn't the only reason, there are much more. But don't give us that bullcrap about how Roman was victorious because they were "actively involved in their conquests." Your comment reeks of fascism. Try again.

I'm not joking at all. The Roman infrastructure was well maintained until the citizenry got lazy. Don't believe me, look it up. Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Livy, Tacitus, Sallust, they are all excellent sources for what life was like under the Roman Senate, and later under the Emperor's. I will grant you that when the emperor was a loon, they tended to write around the lunacy, but the later historians weren't afraid to write about the excesses of the earlier leaders.

Good morning Mr. westwall !!

How are you this fine morning ?!

I studied ancient Greek history in depth with primary sources such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Diodorus -- all Greeks.

I do not have the energy to do the same thing with the Romans.

I am Greek. You must be Italian. I get the ancestry thing.

Thank you for not thread banning me.

I'm of English and Scottish extraction, with some native American tossed in for good measure. There are plenty of modern histories that use the primary historians for source material. Easy reading, and some of it is quite amusing. Harold Lamb for instance is an excellent read.

There is probably plenty of Viking blood in you then too.

No doubt more than a bit.

 

[yiostheoy]

My sister took the Ancestry-dot-com DNA test and we are 25% Greek, 50% German, and 25% Danish/Viking.

So the Vike's got around back in those times.

 

[westwall]

My sister took the Ancestry-dot-com DNA test and we are 25% Greek, 50% German, and 25% Danish/Viking.

So the Vike's got around back in those times.

The Vikings formed the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire so yeah, they did.

 

[usmbguest5318]

if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend....Bet you didn't know that did you?

That is utter nonsense. You really need to either read more or get out more. I don't know which...

• Liechtenstein has not had standing army since around the time of the U.S. Civil War. That didn't and still doesn't stop many of the world's richest people from banking there.
  
• Monaco stopped making military expenditures in the 1600s. The country doesn't even levy an income tax. It's among the most fun places on the planet to live or visit. The country hosts a biennial race that may well be the best adult party-weekend I've ever come by...intensity makes it like a "Spring Break" for grown-ups. It's nonstop socializing, partying, gambling, drinking, etc. for the whole weekend everywhere one goes, and every so often a bunch of cars going really fast pass by where one is partying.
• Highly strategic Panama also has no standing military. I don't see any one chomping at the bit to take over the country, thus control of the canal.
• Vatican City also has no military forces, though Popes used to have their own armies.
• Iceland has no army and yet it occupies a highly strategic position in the North Atlantic.
• Costa Rica, Haiti, and several other nations decided to stop having a military as a way to prevent coups.
• Andorra technically has an army, but its members do nothing but march about looking dashing as they perform a variety of ceremonial duties.

Of course, one thing a country with no military cannot do is boss everyone else around. Instead they have to sincerely be good at "playing well with others." Oh, my, what a novel concept....

All of the countries you list relied on the bigger country's that surround them, to protect them. Just sayin....

Be that as it may, the categorical syllogism (in "if, then, else" form) presented was, "if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend." Accordingly, the thing that must be shown to be true is that a country not having a military of its own is equivalent to having no country. That some other nation provides the defense does not show that to be so. Indeed, it shows the syllogism to be false, not true, because nothing in the syllogism stipulates that the "owner" of the country be the only one to provide the defense or to deem the country worth defending.

 

[Robo]

...Why does America have and keep consistently in commission 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and sometimes just 10 in commission...?...What in hell is “conservative” about a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers?

You're absolutely right, Why!

[the understanding being here is that you're posing rhetorical questions and you're not interested in gaining new information because you've already made up your mind about this...]

It looks to me that there are no rational answers in opposition to the OP here. I'm not at all surprised. 4 other political forums can't either.

--

...Why does America have and keep consistently in commission 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and sometimes just 10 in commission...?...What in hell is “conservative” about a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers?

You're absolutely right, Why!

[the understanding being here is that you're posing rhetorical questions and you're not interested in gaining new information because you've already made up your mind about this...]

It looks to me that there are no rational answers in opposition to the OP here. I'm not at all surprised. 4 other political forums can't either.

--------------------------------------- whats RATIONAL ?? Do you think that we all go by your definition of Rational eh ?? Rational is a matter of Opinion and you just don't like some peoples Opinions Robo .

Rational is opinion that actually answers the questions in a manner that makes common sense.