BillyVance 35 #1 December 27, 2005 Just having a little fun at Clinton's expense... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The US Navy welcomed the latest member of its fleet today. Pictured in the attachment, the USS William Jefferson Clinton CVS1 set sail today from its home port of Vancouver, BC. The ship is the first of its kind in the Navy and is a standing legacy to President Clinton and his foresight in military budget cuts. The ship is constructed nearly entirely from recycled aluminum and is completely solar powered with a top speed of 5 knots. It boasts an arsenal comprised of one F14 Tomcat or F18 Hornet aircraft, which although they cannot be launched or captured on the 100 foot flight deck, form a very menacing presence. As a standing order there are no firearms allowed on board. The 20 person crew is completely diversified and includes members of all races, creeds, sex, and sexual orientation. The ship's purpose is not defined so much as a unit of national defense - in fact in times of conflict its orders are to remain in hiding in Canada, but will be used extensively for social experimentation and whatever worthless jobs the ex-commander in chief and his wife can think of. It is largely rumored that the ship will also be the set for the upcoming season of MTV's "The Real World." "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pincheck 0 #2 December 27, 2005 would they not have been better of with a harrier for vertical takeoff Billy-Sonic Haggis Flickr-Fun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 December 27, 2005 I believe the Navy/Marine version of the F-22 is V/STOL. F-14 and 18s are so passe these days.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #4 December 27, 2005 QuoteI believe the Navy/Marine version of the F-22 is V/STOL. Yeah... But the Harrier offers 4 Warm-Air-Outlets for Hairdrying & Styling... Which is more ion keeping with this vessel's whole ethos. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #5 December 28, 2005 We must have purchased that Carrier from the Canadians Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #6 December 28, 2005 QuoteI believe the Navy/Marine version of the F-22 is V/STOL. Probably you were thinking F-35, there is no VSTOL version of the F-22 nor has the latter aircraft been approved for export yet (too much technology transfer) and it isn’t suitable for carrier deployments (the airframe isn’t robust enough for repeated deck landings without incurring permanent damage; any “tailhook” on the F-22 will be for emergency arrests on land only). The U.S. Navy version of the F-35 is optimized for catapult launches and it isn’t VSTOL (it lacks the vertical fan). The Marines and Air Force have each announced plans to acquire some VSTOL F-35s but now the Air Force is backtracking due to budgetary contraints. A separate navalized version of the F-35 has been designed with a VSTOL configuration but it’s an export version intended for the U.K. and some other nations that operate small “ski jump” type carriers similar to U.S. assault ships operated by the Marines. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #7 December 28, 2005 QuoteWe must have purchased that Carrier from the Canadians Canada's military is in shambles. They haven't had any aircraft carrier to sell after Trudeau set the spending trend there. I feel sorry for Canadian soldiers because they're tasked with peace keeping operations and they aren't given the proper tools. Large losses of Canadian soldiers, who are excellent warriors, were narrowly averted in Kosovo and Afghanistan only because other countries stepped in and covered them. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #8 December 28, 2005 Quote QuoteWe must have purchased that Carrier from the Canadians Canada's military is in shambles. They haven't had any aircraft carrier to sell after Trudeau set the spending trend there. I feel sorry for Canadian soldiers because they're tasked with peace keeping operations and they aren't given the proper tools. Large losses of Canadian soldiers, who are excellent warriors, were narrowly averted in Kosovo and Afghanistan only because other countries stepped in and covered them. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! How would aircraft carriers have helped Canada in Kosovo? I haven't noticed any major attacks on Canada in recent decades. Maybe they're doing something right. Being the world's biggest bully doesn't seem to be doing much for the US now, does it?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #9 December 28, 2005 QuoteHow would aircraft carriers have helped Canada in Kosovo? They could have given Canada organic tactical airpower and airlift capability instead of Canada having to rely on U.S. air support when Canadian troops got encircled and were nearly crushed, as has happened several times. Read for yourself: http://members.shaw.ca/canadaunderattack QuoteI haven't noticed any major attacks on Canada in recent decades. There have been major attacks on Canadian forces who were conducting peace keeping operations in various parts of the world and the troops were saved only because some other nation intervened. There have been major incursions into Canadian waters by other nations fleets poaching Canadian fisheries and the Canadians have been powerless to stop them. Canadian military personnel are routinely killed by their own equipment because the government of Canada hasn’t seen fit to provide adequate funding for maintaining the equipment. QuoteMaybe they're doing something right. Being the world's biggest bully doesn't seem to be doing much for the US now, does it? That’s your characterization of events and you are entitled to it. Most commentators I respect believe that if the U.S. returns to isolationism another power will fill the vacuum and the consequences for the world could be dire. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #10 December 28, 2005 If every nation that went on peacekeeping missions was required to have aircraft carriers, I suspect the number of volunteer nations would dwindle down to none. By your criteria, Ireland, Norway, and most of the other nations on this list would be excluded. I don't see that as being very helpful.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #11 December 28, 2005 Your original question to which I responded was “How would aircraft carriers have helped Canada in Kosovo?” Now you’re restating the aircraft carrier question in terms of being a requirement for participation in peace keeping operations, which you are free to do. Just don’t attempt to attribute your criterion to me please. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #12 December 28, 2005 Kallend, Just making alittle joke with our friends, I think there still our friends from the north. They don't spend very much on their military and depend on the US mainly for their National Defence all though we and everyone else that has a sub runs freely under the Northern Ice Cap. Canada is in no position to defend or inforce their territory rights due to lack of funding. I will say however I've heard from some of my friends that serve in our military the Canadian Soldier is very well trained and a good asset to have in a fight. They just don't have the same support from their government that our men and women have from ours. (Yea I know, the old line that we don't have enough up armer, we did'nt get this until some suit in DC said give it to them....) spare me the details.. Your statement about being a bully im sure is in reference to the USA. I believe that reflects your feelings concerning our Nation and maybe our military. I don't think your son is a bully, but only serving his country in a nobel cause of freedom. A bully deserves to get their asses kicked, and SH has had his ass handed to him by young men and women willing to protect both our asses. So show some respect for your country and lets stand together hand and hand with a hot cup of CoCo and some marshmellows and count our blessings. I'll even invite some long time friends of yours, Gravitydude and Rushmc, who I'm beginning to believe is a Radio guy posing as a skydiver Rushmc i.e. Rush, I must ponder this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #13 December 28, 2005 QuoteKallend, Just making alittle joke with our friends, I think there still our friends from the north. They don't spend very much on their military and depend on the US mainly for their National Defence all though we and everyone else that has a sub runs freely under the Northern Ice Cap. Canada is in no position to defend or inforce their territory rights due to lack of funding. I will say however I've heard from some of my friends that serve in our military the Canadian Soldier is very well trained and a good asset to have in a fight. They just don't have the same support from their government that our men and women have from ours. (Yea I know, the old line that we don't have enough up armer, we did'nt get this until some suit in DC said give it to them....) spare me the details.. Your statement about being a bully im sure is in reference to the USA. I believe that reflects your feelings concerning our Nation and maybe our military. I don't think your son is a bully, but only serving his country in a nobel cause of freedom. A bully deserves to get their asses kicked, and SH has had his ass handed to him by young men and women willing to protect both our asses. So show some respect for your country and lets stand together hand and hand with a hot cup of CoCo and some marshmellows and count our blessings. I'll even invite some long time friends of yours, Gravitydude and Rushmc, who I'm beginning to believe is a Radio guy posing as a skydiver Rushmc i.e. Rush, I must ponder this. The US outspends the next 13 nations COMBINED in military spending. The US has 43% of the entire world's military spending. Explain how that has made us more secure, when we still feel the need to search old ladies getting on planes, tap citizens' phones without warrant, imprison citizens without trial, run secret prisons, etc., etc. all in the name of national security. Military spending in 2004 ($ Billions, and percent of total) Country Dollars (billions) Percentage of total United States 399.1 43% Russia* 65.2 7% China* 56 6% United Kingdom 49 5% Japan 45.1 5% France 40 4% Germany 29.7 3% Saudi Arabia 19.3 2% India 19.1 2% Italy 17.5 2% South Korea 16.4 2% Australia 11.7 1% Turkey* 11.7 1% Israel* 10.8 1% Canada 10.1 1% Spain* 9.9 1% Brazil 9.2 1% Netherlands 7.6 1% Taiwan 7.5 1% Greece* 7.2 1% Indonesia* 6.4 1% Sweden 5.9 1% North Korea* 5.5 1% Ukraine* 5.5 1% Singapore 5 1% Poland 4.4 0% Norway 4.2 0% Kuwait 4 0% Iran 3.5 0% Belgium 3.3 0% Pakistan 3.3 0% Colombia* 3.2 0% Portugal* 3.2 0% Vietnam 3.2 0% Denmark 2.9 0% Mexico 2.8 0% Egypt* 2.7 0% Czech Republic 1.9 0% Hungary 1.7 0% Syria 1.6 0% Argentina 1.6 0% Rumania** 1.5 0% Cuba* 1.2 0% Philippines 0.8 0% Libya* 0.7 0% Serbia-Montenegro 0.7 0% Slovakia** 0.7 0% Bulgaria** 0.6 0% Slovenia** 0.5 0% Sudan* 0.5 0% Lithuania** 0.3 0% Luxembourg 0.3 0% Estonia** 0.2 0% Latvia** 0.2 0%... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #14 December 28, 2005 QuoteJust making alittle joke with our friends, I think there still our friends from the north. They don't spend very much on their military and depend on the US mainly for their National Defence all though we and everyone else that has a sub runs freely under the Northern Ice Cap. I agree that we do not spend enough money on our military. No debate. but, we also have to keep things in perspective. Do you have any idea what an incredibly expansive area we are talking about? What incredible resources would have to be used to completely seal that area? The financial cost of that could never be bared by only 30 million people....keep in mind how much smaller our population (and therefore also tax base) is....yet our land mass is certainly much bigger.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #15 December 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteJust making alittle joke with our friends, I think there still our friends from the north. They don't spend very much on their military and depend on the US mainly for their National Defence all though we and everyone else that has a sub runs freely under the Northern Ice Cap. I agree that we do not spend enough money on our military. No debate. but, we also have to keep things in perspective. Do you have any idea what an incredibly expansive area we are talking about? What incredible resources would have to be used to completely seal that area? The financial cost of that could never be bared by only 30 million people....keep in mind how much smaller our population (and therefore also tax base) is....yet our land mass is certainly much bigger.... Who are you defending against? Which nation is a threat to you? Remember 1812?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adriandavies 0 #16 December 28, 2005 'A separate navalized version of the F-35 has been designed with a VSTOL configuration but it’s an export version intended for the U.K. and some other nations that operate small “ski jump” type carriers similar to U.S. assault ships operated by the Marines.' ...better tell that to the designers of our new aircraft carriers then cos these are designed for catapult launches with verical landings! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pincheck 0 #17 December 28, 2005 see this is what happens when you turn your back in this forum there is a punchup going on behind your back when you mention arms in here there is no room for jokes ok who got my beer Billy-Sonic Haggis Flickr-Fun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #18 December 28, 2005 Quote...better tell that to the designers of our new aircraft carriers then cos these are designed for catapult launches with verical landings! The new U.K. carriers are being designed with ski ramp launch and not catapults. “No catapult or arresters will be fitted in the initial build but the carrier will be built to accommodate a future back-fit. The carrier will be fitted with a steam catapult or electromagnetic launch system and arrester gear, if the option to convert the carrier to the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant proceeds.” See http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/. FYI the U.K. MOD is notorious for never following up with planned retrofits. In respect of the U.K. version F-35, “[t]he JSF is being built in three variants: a conventional take-off and landing aircraft (CTOL) for the US Air Force; a carrier based variant (CV) for the US Navy; and a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the US Marine Corps and the Royal Navy.” Although the design for new U.S. carriers hasn’t been finalized the U.S. Navy has no plans to acquire a VSTOL version of the F-35. See above. Exactly which country do you hale from? Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #19 December 28, 2005 QuoteThe US outspends the next 13 nations COMBINED in military spending. The US has 43% of the entire world's military spending. We spend more on our military because (1) we _can_ spend more to pursue our perceived national self interests, (2) our national ethos would rather build expensive machines and not witness large numbers of our warrior class get destroyed for political expediency, (3) whenever humans devise new tools, including novel instruments of national power, there is natural impetus by those in control to utilize them, (4) our business and political leaders sense the personal opportunities a grotesquely bloated military budget presents, (5) our political processes were designed to be inefficient, (6) if we withdraw as the central driving force in world political economy other powers will fill the void we leave quite possibly to our detriment, and (7) scarcity exists in the world and we need to deal with “bad” actors in order to stay relatively rich and influential. QuoteExplain how that has made us more secure, when we still feel the need to search old ladies getting on planes, tap citizens' phones without warrant, imprison citizens without trial, run secret prisons, etc., etc. all in the name of national security. Since 1945 none of the countries you listed has attacked the mainland U.S. despite the almost desparate desire on the part of some of their leadership to attack us, as shown by the historical record, because these leaders have feared the likely overwhelming U.S. military response against them. Unfortunately this means that some countries will attempt to bring us down by proxy in furtherance of their own perceived self interests and we will continue to be confronted with asymmetric warfare because that’s all that weak powers can manage. We employed asymmetric warfare when our nation was relatively weak but we’ve never been very successful at countering it, hopefully we are improving in our ability to address this form of challenge while at the same time we eventually tackle the greater challenges presented by human nature and scarcity. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #20 December 28, 2005 Quote FYI the U.K. MOD is notorious for never following up with planned retrofits. Of course not, they can't afford it, being only 4th in the world in defense spending.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #21 December 28, 2005 Eisenhower said it better, in his farewell address. www.eisenhower.archives.gov/farewell.htm... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #22 December 28, 2005 Yep. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #23 December 29, 2005 QuoteWho are you defending against? Some of this is tongue in cheek, but you have to admit, it would make a great movie! Kinda like 'Red Dawn'? (picture a timeline here) Democratic president takes office, and immediately pulls back all OCONUS troops. Military is essentially disbanded, relying solely on Navy to protect our borders. Intelligence funding is cut shortly after. The U.S. falls into an economic depression. Middle East destabilizes, SH freed during insurgent raid, and regains power. Iraq ceases all oil shipments to US. Kuwait is invaded a second time, to punish it's support of past U.S. interests. Tensions continue to build between Iran and Iraq. Oil prices sky rocket. After U.S. troops leave S. Korea, N. Korea promptly invades. Fearing U.S. retaliation, Korea eagerly invades Japan to prevent it from becoming a staging ground for future U.S. operations. France and Spain, upset over EU's 'pro U.S.' policies, withdrawl from the EU. Political unrest between northern and southern Europe leads to economic decline and both 'sides' begin military buildup. Extremists in France and Spain begin military buildup, and form an alliance. The EU responds with equal buildup of troops. Extremist groups in France/Spain responsible for bombings in Germany. Germany responds with massive missile strikes into France. France/Spain begin talks with Soviet Union. Communist Soviet Union gains economic foothold and once again becomes a superpower as industry moves to SU in response to increased U.S. manufacturing costs. Cuban economy is spurred by trade with Soviets and missiles are once again placed in Cuba. Mexican ties with U.S. are strained as U.S. economy falls to same level as Mexico. Soviets come to Mexico's rescue by providing economic relief in exchange for military bases along U.S. border, claiming the military presense is only for drug interdiction missions.. Fearing a Republican president will win office, Alaska is invaded and Soviet troops cross the U.S. - Mexico border. With all sources of oil controlled by Soviets, cities surrender to occupying forces in exchange for oil and food. Small pockets of skydivers, armed to the teeth, are the only resistance remaining. Kallend's is jailed by occupying forces for being 'vocal'. He's heard in prison saying, 'Why did we allow the situation to escalate to this point? Why didn't we take action at the first sign of trouble, instead of waiting until we were invaded'. Jeff ps- remember, somewhat tongue in cheek!Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #24 December 29, 2005 Don't give up your day job.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #25 December 29, 2005 Just trying to keep with the initial intent of this thread - humor! Jeff ps- did it hurt when they surgically removed your sense of humor? Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
