[$h@key J0nEZ]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

The recession started in 2007. Want to know what else happened in 2007? The Colts won the Superbowl. Therefore the Colts are responsible for the recession. "I'm not providing anymore evidence for the blatantly obvious" and I'm not going to provide any experts that believe this. "If you can't put two and two together to figure this out, then I can't help you."

Seewhatididthere? I'm not bothering because you have yet to make a real argument. Not because I don't have balls (also what are we? 12?).

Somebody is in denial.

[SupraSuper]

Last nights debate was a smackdown of epic proportions. Obama is going to win Ohio and it's all over from there.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by $h@key J0nEZ

Somebody is in denial.

Still waiting on any legitimate argument, evidence, or academic support.

[Umami]

[Bloodeagle]

Thailand bought a carrier from Spain? The UK carriers look homely.

[jamest91]

Originally Posted by SupraSuper

Last nights debate was a smackdown of epic proportions. Obama is going to win Ohio and it's all over from there.

I actually thought it was either a tie or slight win for Romney, but mainly a tie. I am able to see past Obama's propaganda speech and tone though so it's easier for me to not sway to his side so easily.

[$h@key J0nEZ]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Still waiting on any legitimate argument, evidence, or academic support.

lol, not worth it

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by $h@key J0nEZ

lol, not worth it

Do you try to troll or are you legitimately that dumb? What do you think would happen when you make an absurd claim with no backing, evidence, or even reasons why?

[Matt.is.back2011]

He lives in Georgia; I don't think having reasons & rationale for one's beliefs is a strong prerequesite in most instances.

[barrel roll]

There is something off about the graphic...

Problem 1- the first column of US "carriers" are amphibious assault ships. Gator Freightors.

I know Russia recently sold an OLD carrier to China which they just overhauled... but Russia's numbers... I have to call a few people.

[jamest91]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

There is something off about the graphic...

Problem 1- the first column of US "carriers" are amphibious assault ships. Gator Freightors.

I know Russia recently sold an OLD carrier to China which they just overhauled... but Russia's numbers... I have to call a few people.

However the point of the graphic still makes its point that the US Navy could blow any other navy out of the water regardless of what ships are put in the graphic.

[Matt.is.back2011]

Originally Posted by jamest91

However the point of the graphic still makes its point that the US Navy could blow any other navy out of the water regardless of what ships are put in the graphic.

Which is why we need to invest another 2 trillion into the military.

Romney2012.

[jamest91]

Originally Posted by Matt.is.back2011

Which is why we need to invest another 2 trillion into the military.

Romney2012.

Or we could cut defense spending and add numerous amounts of people to the unemployment rate, also allowing other superpowers to catch up to the US in military advancement.

Obama2012.

[Matt.is.back2011]

Originally Posted by jamest91

Or we could cut defense spending and add numerous amounts of people to the unemployment rate, also allowing other superpowers to catch up to the US in military advancement.

Obama2012.

The military is oversaturated as it is, given your original post. Let them try to find work like the rest of us.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by jamest91

Or we could cut defense spending and add numerous amounts of people to the unemployment rate, also allowing other superpowers to catch up to the US in military advancement.

Obama2012.

What happened to that small businesses are job creators talking point? Dropping it for the bigger government bit?

Even with the cuts no one can match our military.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

There is something off about the graphic...

Problem 1- the first column of US "carriers" are amphibious assault ships. Gator Freightors.

I know Russia recently sold an OLD carrier to China which they just overhauled... but Russia's numbers... I have to call a few people.

I'm not sure your first contention really matters as long as they count amphibious assault ships from other nations. Several of the "carriers" on the list don't look they could launch anything but helos and VTOL planes anyway.

The Russia thing surprised me as well but wikipedia agreed so I went with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Soviet _Union

[$h@key J0nEZ]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Do you try to troll or are you legitimately that dumb? What do you think would happen when you make an absurd claim with no backing, evidence, or even reasons why?

What's wrong? Can't handle a taste of your own medicine?

Originally Posted by Matt.is.back2011

He lives in Georgia; I don't think having reasons & rationale for one's beliefs is a strong prerequesite in most instances.

Ohio lololololololoololololol

Originally Posted by Umami

I'm not sure your first contention really matters as long as they count amphibious assault ships from other nations. Several of the "carriers" on the list don't look they could launch anything but helos and VTOL planes anyway.

The Russia thing surprised me as well but wikipedia agreed so I went with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Soviet _Union

I'd like to see a comparison of various countries subs that are armed with nukes.

[custar]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

There is something off about the graphic...

Problem 1- the first column of US "carriers" are amphibious assault ships. Gator Freightors.

Carriers mostly in name. They carry Harriers and heli's, not a full panoply of strike aircraft, and do not have the same mission as CVA's. But why let that get in the way of a graphic.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-...t-carriers.asp

We spend a lot on the military because we have gone the tech route; we have invested heavily in aircraft armor (including APC's). I was surprised to see how far behind we actually are in artillery. Granted, what we have is generally very good, but it is spread out all over the globe. Our numbers in any one place are not that impressive, and if the crap truly hit the fan for real, a primary goal of our antagonist would be to prevent us deploying troops to where the fighting is. Without a period of unmolested build up as we had against Iraq, I question how a pitched conflict would turn out.

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Even with the cuts no one can match our military.

Perhaps no one country, but if we did become engaged in a real war with a major rival, it would be naive to think that other powers would not make a move to grab some of our possessions or distract us from the major conflict. Think of a mirror image of that scenario as how we were able to earn our independence from Britain.

custar

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by custar

Perhaps no one country, but if we did become engaged in a real war with a major rival, it would be naive to think that other powers would not make a move to grab some of our possessions or distract us from the major conflict. Think of a mirror image of that scenario as how we were able to earn our independence from Britain.

custar

I'm pretty sure if something that huge went down those mutual defense agreements would be invoked and we'd have no problems, period.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Matt.is.back2011

The military is oversaturated as it is, given your original post. Let them try to find work like the rest of us.

The military manning is not over saturated for what the enlisted and commissioned people are asked to do. In fact, they are undermanned.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

The military manning is not over saturated for what the enlisted and commissioned people are asked to do. In fact, they are undermanned.

That's why you cut down on our theaters and bring them all home. If more needs to be done the UN,NATO, etc. can step up.