Hands up, everyone who thinks Iraqâs a quagmire. Not the Iraqi people: According to the latest polls, 70 percent think âlife is good,â and 69 percent are optimistic that things will get even better in the year ahead. For purposes of comparison, they took a similar poll in Europe a while back: In France, 29 percent said they were optimistic about the future; in Germany, 15 percent. Sixty-three percent of Iraqis say they feel âvery safeâ in their own neighborhoods, which is more than the residents of Clichy-sous-Bois can say.
Well, OK, those cheerful Iraqis are probably Shiites and Kurds and whatnot. How about the Sunnis? For a small minority group that held a disproportionate and repressive grip on power for decades, theyâve been getting a more solicitous press from Western âliberalsâ than the white Rhodesians or South Africaâs National party ever got. But it turns out, after their strategically disastrous decision to stay home in last Januaryâs vote, the Sunnis are participating in Iraqâs democratic process ... .
Oh, OK, so the Shiites and Kurds and Sunnis are feeling chipper, but in the broader Middle East the disastrous neocon invasion has inflamed moderate Arab opinion against America. Well, itâs true the explosive Arab street finally exploded the other day â with 200,000 Jordanians protesting in Amman, waving angry banners and yelling, âBurn in hell, Rumsfeld,â and, âYou are a coward, Bush.â Whoops, my mistake: They were yelling, âBurn in hell, Zarqawi,â and, âYou are a coward, Zarqawi.â If you want to hear someone yelling, âYou are a coward, Bush,â youâve got to go to Cindy Sheehanâs stakeout. And, in fairness to the network news divisions, it may be because so many of their camera crews have taken up permanent residence at the otherwise underpopulated Camp Cindy that they were unable to cover what was the largest demonstration against terrorism ever seen on the streets of the Middle East.
Oh, well. So the Shiites and Kurds and Sunni Iraqis and the Arab street are all on board, but come on, what about the insurgents? Everybody knows theyâre winning ... but, er, apparently they donât. The Baathist diehard insurgents have split from the foreign al-Qaida insurgents. While the latter denounced the Iraqi election as âa Satanic project,â the Saddamite remnants urged Sunnis to participate and said theyâd protect polling stations from attacks by the foreign terrorists so that citizens could vote for their approved candidates (the leftover bits of Uday and Qusay, now running on the Psychotic Dictatorship Nostalgia Party ticket). This division between the foreign nutcakes and the domestic nutcakes is the biggest strategic split over the insurgency since Joe Lieberman respectfully distanced himself from Nancy Pelosi.
On the other hand, this does belatedly prove the anti-war crowdâs long-held view that Saddamâs secular Baathists and Osamaâs theocrat terrorists would never collaborate, even if it took until last month for the participants themselves to get wise to it. And, alas, unlike the Dems with Hillary, in the Sunni Triangle thereâs no Sunni triangulator to craft a more nuanced position to hold both the Lieberbaathist and Pelosama wings together.
So the Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, the Arab street, and the Baath party have figured Iraqi democracyâs winning. That leaves al-Qaida. Well, not exactly: Ayman Zawahiri, the No. 2 honcho in al-Qaida while theyâre maintaining the polite fiction that bin Ladenâs still functioning, recently rapped terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ... called on him to cut out killings that âthe masses do not understand or approve.â ...
So the Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, the Arab street, the Baath party and bin Ladenâs deputy think the insurgencyâs a bust. Hands up, who thinks itâs winning?
...
It was famously said that the Vietnam War was lost on television. In this instance, the Iraq Warâs being lost only on television. In Iraq, itâs a tremendous victory. Indeed, it has the potential to be one of the most consequential, transformative victories of the modern age; but even if it doesnât ever fulfill that potential, itâs still a huge success.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/16/2005 06:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They are winning, we are losing! Howard Dean said so! So it must be true! Its turning into a quagmire,
we are on the brink of disaster! And to make it worse I hear interest rates are going to go up.
It's the corporations!
Quagmire!
Quagmire!
(fades to black)
#2
Good for the Iraqi's. I congratulate them on their vote yesterday. If millions of them can get out to vote, then an equal number of them should take up the cause of defending their emerging
democracy without U.S. assistance. It is time for them to take up the cause, because if they care so much about its' implementation, they should be able to squash the insurgents.
The bottom line is that despite what President Bush and his supporters would have you believe,
not a single thing going on in Iraq is going to stop another terrorist attack on the domestic
U.S.
The primary reasons for Bush invading Iraq have been proven to be false. No "huge caches of wmd's or a reconstituted nuclear program" have been found, Sadaam Hussien was never a "imminent threat" to the U.S., there was absolutely no link
between Hussien, Al Qaeda and the events of 9-11-01, and finally the U.S. is not "safer" because of his removal.
Now is the time for the Iraqi's to stand up and take the reigns of leadership and defense of their country as the U.S. military stands down in a gradual redeployment of forces.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 10:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Thanks, Left Angle. We haven't heard any of that before around here. Appreciate the enlightenment.
My post wasnt meant as enlightenment, just a call to repubs/cons to deal with "reality" and quit buying into Bush/Rove bs propaganda on "staying the course" and "critism of the my Iraq policies is detrimental to troop moral".
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 10:52 Comments ||
Top||
#8
LA, you just congratulated the Iraqis on their election. Apparently the ability for the Iraqis to vote just materialized out of nowhere. Saddam resigned his dictatorship and went off to peacefully tend his rosebushes and go out on the former heads of state speaking tour.
Frankly, I could care less about what is going on in Iraq. If they care so much about democracy then they should have gotten rid of Hussien long ago before U.S. intervention. It has no connection to what happened on 9-11-01. Nor is anything going on over there is going to stop a domestic terrorist attack on the U.S. If you buy into Bush/Rove propaganda on that then you do have a problem with "reality".
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Yeah, that's why Al-Queda is ignoring the whole setup as being immaterial to its JihadiJoe vision.
Why don't you go back to grovelling at the feet of Patsy the Racist Filth-Pig Buchanan, LeftBrainless?
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
12/16/2005 11:52 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It has no connection to what happened on 9-11-01.
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
Seven years from 1996 coincides with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the first Persian Gulf War. bin Laden was ticked that the US had bases in his 'holy' litter box, Saudi Arabia, from which we maintained the no-fly zones. One of the direct results of OIF was that the US was able to move its forces out of the Magic Kingdumb.
We addressed the root causes, just as the moonbats demanded.
#12
The primary reasons for Bush invading Iraq have been proven to be false. No "huge caches of wmd's or a reconstituted nuclear program" have been found, Sadaam Hussien was never a "imminent threat" to the U.S., there was absolutely no link
between Hussien, Al Qaeda and the events of 9-11-01, and finally the U.S. is not "safer" because of his removal.
The 911 Commission disagrees with the last part of your statement. Saddam's military was issued gear to protect them from chemical and bio-weapons so that, in and of itself, disagrees with your assertions. The existance of the terrorist training facility, complete with the fuselage of a 747 aircraft, at Salman Pak disagrees with your assertions.
In short, it would appear that all of your assertions can be shown to be factually false including the existance of wmd in Iraq prior to the war (multiple sources say that it was trucked over the border into Syria) with the sole exception that no wmd were found in Iraq (to date) and even that is factually incorrect. It would be more correct to state that no large quiantities of wmd were found in Iraq as there have been some finds, but these have been small and they have been quickly covered up by the leftist media outlets in order to give their (and your) slanted bias against Republicans in general more weight.
Your reality is obviously what you have make it. I feel sorry for you because of that.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#14
No, LeftBrainless, that would assume that a non-parroted sentience exists between your ears.
"The existance of the terrorist training facility, complete with the fuselage of a 747 aircraft, at Salman Pak disagrees with your assertions."
FOTSGreg,
You're dealing with the spiritual child of Walter Duranty and David Irving. Facts mean nothing to those determined to glorify totalitarian tyranny at the cost of moral self-castration.
"He who makes a beast of himself
gets rid of the pain of being a man."-
Dr. Johnson
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
12/16/2005 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Bush never claimed Saddam was an imminent threat. In fact he went out of his way to say he wasn't.
Bush did say that we should act before Saddam became an imminent threat.
Just like you would try to disable a killer before he points his gun at your (or your child's) head.
And hell Saddam had practically an entire year to pack up his labs and shit and ship them elsewhere. We do know he did, at one time, have a chemical warfare program - go ask the Kurds.
#1 Batthist/al Q/ & assoiates gettin they're ass kicked in Iraq big time.
#2 Afghanistan great progress.
#3 General WOT, going pretty well.
#3 MSM getting they're ass kicked on a regular basis.
#4 Dhimmicrats and their fellow treason travelers: I believe were making progress, much work left to do.
Posted by: Red Dog ||
12/16/2005 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Maybe we should all be like Pres Bush: If you dont like "reality" create YOUR OWN!!!
LOL Posted by Left Angle
The primary reasons for Bush invading Iraq have been proven to be false. No "huge caches of wmd's or a reconstituted nuclear program" have been found, Sadaam Hussien was never a "imminent threat" to the U.S., there was absolutely no link
between Hussien, Al Qaeda and the events of 9-11-01, and finally the U.S. is not "safer" because of his removal. Posted by: Left Angle
Seems you are creating your own reality here. Bush was very specific that we should not wait until the threat becomes immenant, he never said the threat was imminet yet you repeat this strawman as if its reality.
WMD was one of 14 reasons the Congress voted on. The fact that it was emphasised by Powell and the press does not make it the main reason nor does it invalidate the other 13 reasons.
And lastly Bush never made the connection between Iraq and Al Queda although there is books worth of evidence that such a connection existed.
Perhaps you shouldn't be throwing stones until you've checked up on all your facts first.
#18
Blah, Blah Blah..same ole weak assed rnc talking points...
Why not explain why the majority of the U.S. public isnt buying into the Bush/Rove propaganda. In case you havent noticed most if not all of the major polls show americans have turned against
Bush's phony war in Iraq. You true believer repub/con believers keep attaching yourselves to a sinking ship. It's fun to watch.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Facts!!!!! What facts???? LA are you in the military?? Do you have any intelligence background?? you need to check your FACTS before you blurt a bunch of left wing CRAP!!
I asked you a question earlier and you never answered. So, I will ask you once more:
Do you believe that the U.S. military should stay in Iraq indefinitely and how do you define "victory" there that will allow redeployment of U.S. forces?
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Indefinately is a long time but I wouldn't mind having a base there as long as we've had them in Germany and Japan assuming the Iraqi's are willing.
A victory in Iraq is the point when the Iraq's take over the patrols and our bases are used primarily as air support/fire support or as a defense against neighbors.
#23
Why not explain why the majority of the U.S. public isnt buying into the Bush/Rove propaganda. In case you havent noticed most if not all of the major polls show americans have turned against Bush's phony war in Iraq. You true believer repub/con believers keep attaching yourselves to a sinking ship. It's fun to watch.
Last time I heard talk like this was right before the "democrats" lost an election.
What I dont like is when Bush talks about
"staying the course" & "victory" he is being
very vague.
Does he actually believe that the american public will put up with the tremendous cost $$$, continued casualties/deaths of U.S. military indefinitely? I believe he does and if he continues along this road he and his political party are destined to pay a huge price.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Hey we must of had some good news thew trolls are back :)
#26
"Hey we must of had some good news thew trolls are back."
Precisely, the Iraqis are farther along with rebuilding their government and military than the West Germans were at the same point in time after WWII.
Jerks like LeftSquirt are like spoiled brats who want to stick their heads in the sand and go back to a 9/10 ostrich mentality. They've got no "nuanced" understanding of the over-arching Islamofascist mentality and no patience for the fact that Al Queda won't blow up and disappear like a James Bond movie villan's HQ even if we confirmably kill Osama.
Childish, through and through.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
12/16/2005 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Ernest Brown:
I asked you a perfectly legitimate question above and you refuse to answer it.
If you are so smart and "nuanced" as you say, why dont you answer a simple question to prove it?
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#28
"Frankly, I could care less about what is going on in Iraq."
Obviously.
"You true believer repub/con believers keep attaching yourselves to a sinking ship. It's fun to watch."
There is a major political party imploding before our eyes, but it ain't the Repubs. It is satisfying in a way, for those of us who believe their position on Iraq has been close to treasonous in many respects (i.e. Ted Kennedy et al), to see them reap the rewards of their actions. It isn't fun in the long run, tho, cuz we need two functioning parties, not just one.
#30
"The bottom line is that despite what President Bush and his supporters would have you believe,
not a single thing going on in Iraq is going to stop another terrorist attack on the domestic
U.S."
LA, you have to be a frickin' stupid MF to think that killing 10's of thousands of Al Qaeda in Iraq has not made us safer. Frankly our efforts in Iraq have been the best possible thing we could have ever done. These terrorists have streamed into Iraq from all over the arab world, europe, asia etc. to fight us there. What's your plan smart guy? Go into Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Chechnya? I could list off dozens of countries that have had AQ terrorists leave to fight us in Iraq. You think eliminating these guys from the planet hasn't made us safer. You are an outright nut job! Frankly, not only being a very wise military action, this Iraq war has been the biggest humanitarian effort in the history of the world. Other countries are thanking us behind closed doors for getting these AQ terrs off their streets.
Yeah and you have to be one brainwashed ignorant mf to believe that all the insurgents are members of Al Qaeda, which is far from the truth.
Just a note of "reality" to you.
The FBI and the CIA testified before Congress last year that terrorist cells are in the U.S.
as we speak.
Also the U.S. has pourous open borders in which
millions of illegal aliens are pouring into this country yearly. Do YOU know what there motives are for being here? Hell no I dont feel safer.
Only a complete idiot would think otherwise.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/16/2005 17:06 Comments ||
Top||
#32
you'd feel safer if a Donk was in power, wouldn't ya? Like Bill and Hill's secure nation. LA is nothing but a partisan liar and coward, don't feed it
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/16/2005 17:28 Comments ||
Top||
#33
Left Angle you say, "Only a complete idiot would think otherwise."
Well, first of all, you don't know me, so you don't know that I'm not a complete idiot, and you just called me one. I'm not. And I do think otherwise. You just blew your entire data for your talking points with that statement. Good debate is fun, name calling, well, maybe that is just for complete idiots.
#34
LA, you stupid, ignorant, fuck, in case you hadn't notice we are winning the WOT. And at a, relatively speaking, minimal (through high) cost.
(That is realtive to any other war in the history of the world - any death is tragic and a high cost.)
Reality is that it is not a quagmire. It is not a Vietnam. No matter how much Katic Curic, and the rest of the MSM wishes it would be. I hate to tell you this but this isn't 1969 where the media controlled all that you see and hear. People can investigate themselves. People (who are actually there) can bypass the MSM filters (only bad news allowed!) and publish their own articles.
What do you expect the Polls to say when the terorist's allies (the MSM and the Left) have been only broadcasting the negative for a couple of years now. When was the last report on the network news of the new schools, hospitals, and infrastructure -- yet they harp on a 1 night incident at a prison by some malcontent idiots for over a year.
Yes there are probaly sleeper cells in the USA. They haven't been too effective have they? That is what the Patriot Act provision are for. The same act the LEFT is trying its damnest to gut to help *their* side defeat american so they can rise to power.
As for illegal ALIENS (I refuse to give them the title 'immigrants') - well that is one thing we can agree on - we need to seal our borders against *all* illegal entry - and kick out all illegal ALIENS (not to mention deny citizenship to those born of an illegal ALIEN parent. Mexican, American, English, Martian, and any others. There is a proper legal process for immigrating to the United States.
1. Any of several small, mostly carnivorous New World mammals of the genus Mephitis and related genera, having a bushy tail and black fur with white markings and ejecting a foul-smelling oily liquid from glands near the anus when frightened or in danger. Also called polecat.
2. Slang.
1. A person regarded as obnoxious or despicable.
2. A person whose company is avoided.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., recently proposed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill in an attempt to plug loopholes in already existing anti-torture laws. The amendment, which President Bush opposes, is a good idea for America â but not necessarily for the reasons cited by most critics of the administration.
Contrary to popular belief, throughout history torture has brought results â either to gain critical, sometimes lifesaving intelligence or more gratuitously to obtain embarrassing confessions from terrified captives.
...
There is also a danger that once we try to quantify precisely what constitutes torture, we could, in the ensuing utopian debate, define anything from sleep deprivation to loud noise as unacceptable. Indeed, we might achieve the unintended effect of only creating disdain for our moral pretensions from incarcerated terrorists. They would have no worries of suffering pain but plenty of new demands on their legalistic hosts, from ethnically correct meals to proper protocols in handling their Korans.
So we might as well admit that by foreswearing the use of torture, we will probably be at a disadvantage in obtaining key information and perhaps endanger American lives here at home. (And, ironically, those who now allege that we are too rough will no doubt decry "faulty intelligence" and "incompetence" should there be another terrorist attack on an American city.) Our restraint will not ensure any better treatment for our own captured soldiers. Nor will our allies or the United Nations appreciate American forbearance. The terrorists themselves will probably treat our magnanimity with disdain, as if we were weak rather than good. Go read the whole article.
Posted by: ed ||
12/16/2005 14:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Remember being a kid? There you were - standing firm and resolute in the kitchen - pleading with your parents to let you stay up past your bedtime. It simply wasn't fair! It even felt a bit tyrannical! "Who are these people to tell me where I am supposed to be and what I am supposed to do at this hour?!?"
(Unbeknownst to you, you may have had a very strong equal rights case on your hands.)
Begrudgingly, however, you eventually shut your yapper and went to bed. Why? Deep in your heart, you probably felt that it was for the best. And looking back - especially those of you who now have your own whiny children - you now know that to be true: Your parents got some peace and quiet and you got the rest you so desperately needed.
Where are we going with this? Well, politics, in many ways, is a child's game: We must play well with our peers, pay attention and listen to others.
So when considering the recent debate sparked by 36 law schools that argued in front of the Supreme Court that they should not lose federal funding if they choose not to allow U.S. military recruiters on campus, perhaps it's time that we remember the above childhood lesson:
Sometimes, what's best for the greater good isn't perfect when looked at through a more narrow lens.
The schools argue that losing funding over barring recruiters from campus would violate their First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and association because the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward homosexuals is discriminatory and they want nothing of the sort on their campuses.
Technically speaking, these law schools are correct: "Don't ask, don't tell" discriminates against homosexuals.
But we must see the forest through the trees. A half-century of American dominance as a superpower has led many to believe that our greatness is a given. But as our military falters, so, too, crumbles all that it hoists on its mighty shoulders. The lifeblood of that military is its troops and, as we find our military strained and overtasked - due to both Bush administration policies and for demographic trends well in place before 2000 - only the most foolish among us would prevent it from meeting target recruitment levels.
Additionally, the military is frequently granted special rights, privileges and exemptions in numerous areas and its adoption of the legally shaky "don't ask, don't tell" policy is another example of an acceptable concession.
But, for argument's sake, let's assume that our military had more enlistees than it could handle; the law school's case still falls flat.
Let's again return to some childish lessons.
If you want your allowance, there are a few simple rules that must be followed.
As a child, you were given an allowance pending certain chores that you accomplished: taking out the trash, cleaning the dishes, putting away your clothes. Higher education institutions receive roughly $35 billion in federal assistance each year. No one is arguing that these 36 law schools can't do whatever they'd like on campus - determine which employers can recruit, choose which faculty members get hired, argue against government policy, determine course syllabi, pick which band gets to play first at Spring Fling, etc. But, as Chief Justice John Roberts told the schools eager to ban military recruiters, "You are perfectly free to do that, if you don't take the money."
Government constantly demands certain obligations in exchange for funds and, when it comes to higher education, the federal government asks for very little in return for the not-so-little sum of $35 billion.
The law school's case also carries with it a very slippery slope. Justice Antonin Scalia raised the salient point of whether these same schools should be allowed to ban recruiters if, say, they were recruiting for a war that university faculty disliked. And what do these schools say to the military's policy of keeping women out of combat? Isn't that discriminatory as well? Justice Stephen Breyer even posited that the law schools' argument could be extended to allow "the worst segregationists you can imagine" to keep blacks from campus.
Lastly, let us not forget this childhood lesson:
Education is the most important thing.
What these law schools - raising lawyers, no less! - should keep in mind is that the greatness of the First Amendment is that it protects all speech ... high and lowbrow. And these law schools do a disservice to their students by not allowing a diverse group of voices, opinions and viewpoints on campus. The military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy deserves a good, passionate debate. While on campus, recruiters should sit down and discuss their experiences with students.
Students should ask lots of questions. Teachers should provide some legal context to the issue. What better learning experience is there? Colleges should not simply expose their students to the voices that they like best.
A few side points:
- The military should realize that, as society continues its evolution toward more inclusivism, any discriminatory policy - which military leaders argue increases troop morale - will ultimately backfire and both decrease morale and hurt troop recruitment. It should use this occasion to reassess its policies.
- The law schools would better serve their purposes - and their students - by going straight to the heart of this issue and fighting the actual policy of "don't ask, don't tell," instead of fighting this secondary battle. Doing so would make this particular issue of military recruitment on campuses a moot point while simultaneously making the military a more inclusive place.
In the end, this issue will undoubtedly leave some people very unhappy. So perhaps it is here that the best childhood lesson applies:
Life isn't always fair.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/16/2005 06:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The amazing thing is that the lawyers, the law schools themselves, seek to undermine the very basis of their existence, the law. The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress stipulates - The Congress shall have Powerâ¦
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Congress does this through Title 10 United States Code - Armed Forces. Subsection of which has these two punitive articles [Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X]:
Art. 125. Sodomy
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
And
Art. 78. Accessory after the fact
Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Article 78 is the lawful basis for âDonât ask, donât tellâ, because under military law unlike civilian law, if you know, you must tell. Itâs not policy. It is the law.
Itâs Congressâ law. Its in that portion of the Constitution for a reason [look up Oliver Cromwell for background]. If the advocates want it changed, go to Congress. The last thing anyone wants, who has a decent understanding of history, is to separate the military from obeying the law of the people.
The schools have accorded themselves in a manner of a two bit street hustler pushing a game of three card monty. There is no intellect here. There is just the cited immature I wahahna, I wahahna, I wahahna wrapped in the most egregious example of legal obscurantism
#2
The policy in place works very well and lends itself to the military culture. I spent twenty years in the Air Force and I can't remember a single time I had to announce or profess my sexual preference to my troops or to my supervisors (FYI, I am a flaming heterosexual). I am sure of only one person that was gay during my 20 years (because she told me) and there probably were others but I couldnât care less. I only cared that they did their job and did it well. Whatever they decided to do on their own time behind closed doors didnât concern me. To make a long story short (lol) the donât ask/donât tell works. I suspect the gay lobby wants is some protected status within the military and that is counter to military culture.
#4
I heard some of the arguments before the Court the other day listening to National People's Radio in the car. The lawyer for the schools came off as a whiney child while one of the Justices (Roberts, iirc) kept asking short pointed questions like jabs to the nose. I was laughing out loud.
To paraphrase the discussion:
Roberts: If you don't like it, don't take the money.
Lawyer: We want the money. We just don't want anyone telling us what to do. Besides, the Army sucks.
Roberts: You can still say the Army sucks.
Lawyer: Yeah, but no one will believe us.
Roberts: That's because you took the money.
( laughter throughout courtroom )
At the height of its 19th Century power, the British Navy would, as necessary, comandeer private ships for military purposes. Even as late as WWII, the US Navy would, as circumstances warranted, do the same.
But today, with the impending retirement of the battleship, and the DD(X) destroyer many years away, a significant gap in naval firepower will exist for several dangerous years.
Perhaps it is time for private enterprise to step forward and fill the gap.
That is, some wealthy individual could have a private battleship built, with the express purpose of renting it to the Navy if and when they just had to have such a ship.
Reasonably armored, and with a fast and powerful engine, a private battleship acts solely as a platform for 16" guns. It would not have to stay at sea when not being rented, and it does not have to contend with the possibility of fighting other battleships. It is strictly to attack targets on land with effective, long-range firepower.
Such a ship would weigh far less, not needing heavily armored turrets. It wouldn't need the exceptional electronics and guided missiles and other such bells & whistles that the US Navy insists having on in its ships.
In fact, its mission would be simple. Just steam to a destination, then fire "x" number of 16" rounds at designated targets, then go home. Other than that, protected against exocet-style missiles and able to stand off small raiders, it would be an unimpressive, low-tech ship.
With modern design, it is likely that its 16" guns and their ammo would be significanly improved over their WWII counterparts. Of course, the ammo would be retained in government custody until needed.
The cost of such ship could perhaps be as little as $100 Million. Its value would be so great that even in peacetime, they could rent it for $100 Million a mission. 100% return on its second mission.
Navy procurement rules be damned. The owner could build the ship to any specifications he liked. And if the Navy didn't like the finished product, no problem. The owner could wait until the Navy's priorities changed, and they desperately needed what he had to rent.
#1
I like this idea, but not necessarily the implementation.
A very large amount of the heavy lifting of shore bombardment during WW2 was done by light cruisers, such as the St. Louis. (Which had Fifteen six inch guns).
There's no reason you couldn't take the gun slated for the DD-X and put three or four of them on a Burke hull without the Aegis if you wanted to. Keep the hanger for use with drones and maybe a helicopter. It could provide a lot of the same ship-to-shore firepower as the DD-X without costing nearly as much.
(Say, put one six-inch gun where the forward 5" is, keep the forward missile battery for a dozen ESSM and assorted self-defense capability, and put two six inch guns where the aft missile battery goes.)
Also, another ship class that did a lot of the heavy lifting in WW2 were landing ships armed with rockets. You can read about them here:
These were a hell of a lot cheaper than a battleship but still very effective.
It wouldn't have the same sort of rocket, but I think you could do something similar to this by coming up with a navalized version of the MLRS and sticking them on an LCS hull.
Let's see... an LCS hull costs about 100 million dollars, including some self-defensive systems.
The MLRS truck launcher costs the army about 2 million dollars. It won't need a truck, but you will need a turret system, so let's say it costs about the same to put it on the ship, and that you would have about eight on a ship. Launcher module cost then becomes about 16 million dollars.
Cost thus far: 116 million.
The unguided version of the rocket costs $ 32,000.00 and the guided version costs $ 40,000.00. Let's say that half the launchers are the unguided version and half the guided, and there's one set of reloads per launcher:
#3
Phil: good in concept, impossible in the real world. The basic idea is to do an end-around the bloated, corrupt and inefficient Navy procurement system. No private individual could possibly create such a ship as you propose without massive interference from the powers that be, for the same reasons that battleships are being eliminated -- they stand in the way of the DD(X).
The trick is to make a warship that would *never* be a Navy warship. Incapable of doing anything other than act as a gun platform. Perhaps even looking more like a cargo ship than a warship. Externally, a rust bucket.
Of course, inside it would have to have a very strong skeleton and hull, a deep water capable engine and potent stabilizers. It might not even have a closed turret, but one open to the air, like the hangar of an aircraft carrier, to vent its smoke.
It would spend almost its entire life in drydock, unless a panicked US Marine Corps or Army was desperate for a gun platform that the Navy no longer had. A good possibility, considering how much territory a 24-mile range of such guns would include. Unless of course, you used slightly more modern guns with a greater range.
I might add that, assuming it worked, the Navy would be deeply humiliated, shown to be grossly unprepared for its mission. But I'm sure this would not factor in to the Marine Corps or the Army's decision to rent such a ship.
#4
Why a turret? The AGS will use a PGM, so why does it need a turret? It won't be getting into gun battles with other ships, just supplying high volume gun fire that F/A 18s can't. Set it up below decks with a fixed angle and let the projectile guidance system do the fine tuning. If it is really necessary, set it up just below decks so that it can be elevated. To turn it, turn the ship. That's the low cost solution. Make it up in volume.
#5
Buy a scrap hull that still floats - warship, cargo, passenger, doesn't matter. Mount whatever firepower you want - probably have to buy from North Korea since you won't get permits from US. Rig for propulsion by ocean-going tug.
Total cost - $20 MM plus contract fee for tug at time of use.
#7
Gromky they are obsolete in terms of being the main naval force, but you're dead wrong when it comes to amphib ops and support inland, especially against hardened targets.
In the current (mostly unopposed) naval environment, the battlewagons can trhow more ordnance fruther and on harder targets tha any platform we have in support of the Marines ashore.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
