|
Post by genesda on Apr 22, 2004 5:25:39 GMT -5
Immaterial from the DoD point of view when they evaluate when a ship is in a combat zone. This has nothing to do with the original statements. Trying to switch the argument won't work here. [/color] No, you feel the hazards associated with ground troops in a combat zone is not the same as sailors on a war ship in a combat zone. The Pentagon seems to feel differently since they compensate them exactly the same. It is really not that difficult to understand. It must be because you can't understand the subject. [/color] It would appear that I am the only one offering anything. All you've added is your "back-pedaling", and that I've misrepresented your intentions. Distortions of what was said is not offering anything. Changing the subject doesn't offer anything either. [/color] Again, in my own words, the sailor on ships in a combat zone have just as much risk as do troops on the ground. How many sailors have been shot by terrorists while sitting on their ships? [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 22, 2004 5:28:16 GMT -5
Because I have better things to do than spend very much time closely reading trite, redundant, and hypocritical whining. They got much more of my attention while reflecting on YOUR thoughtful and rational responses that countered each and every one of them RS. ;D See, she only reads your trite, redundant and hipocritical whining.
She admits she did a Kerry!
It's easy to see why she agrees with you. LOL!! [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 22, 2004 21:33:29 GMT -5
Immaterial from the DoD point of view when they evaluate when a ship is in a combat zone. This has nothing to do with the original statements. Trying to switch the argument won't work here. [/color][/quote] It has everything to do with your original statement. Too paraphrase your original statement, the Navy has it easier compared to the Army or Marines. Yet DoD compensates them exactly the same when they are in a combat zone. Ergo, the DoD considers the inherant risks for being in a combat zone the same for both ground troops and sailors. So, the debate is the same...I agree with the DoD assessment, and I do not agree with yours. [/color][/quote] Unfortunately I have a much better understanding then you'll ever know or experience, my friend! [/color][/quote] The subject remains the same. In your zeal to discredit Mr Kerry, you inadvertantly made the mistake of characterizing the entire US Navy as a "cushion" compared to the Army or Marines. [/color][/quote] Not really sure. Let it suffice to say, that unmarked/unidentified do not get too close before they are done away with (lessons of the USS Cole). Whether any shots are fire before that, I'm not really sure. But be assured, vigilance is a 24 hour job.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 22, 2004 21:39:57 GMT -5
Because I have better things to do than spend very much time closely reading trite, redundant, and hypocritical whining. They got much more of my attention while reflecting on YOUR thoughtful and rational responses that countered each and every one of them RS. ;D See, she only reads your trite, redundant and hipocritical whining.
She admits she did a Kerry!
It's easy to see why she agrees with you. LOL!! [/color][/quote] LOL...Trite? Redundant? Hypocritical? Now you're really funny!! What you might characterize as "trite' are just facts that you do not wish to agree with. I guess what you characterize as "redundant" are the same answers to the same questions/statements that you seem to re-post ad nauseum. And I'm not quite sure what I posted that was "hypocritical". You'll have to point that one out to me.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 23, 2004 5:57:16 GMT -5
It has everything to do with your original statement. Too paraphrase your original statement, the Navy has it easier compared to the Army or Marines. Yet DoD compensates them exactly the same when they are in a combat zone. Ergo, the DoD considers the inherant risks for being in a combat zone the same for both ground troops and sailors. So, the debate is the same...I agree with the DoD assessment, and I do not agree with yours. You brought the DOD into this. I was speaking of reality. [/color] Unfortunately I have a much better understanding then you'll ever know or experience, my friend! Too bad it isn't displayed here. [/color] The subject remains the same. In your zeal to discredit Mr Kerry, you inadvertantly made the mistake of characterizing the entire US Navy as a "cushion" compared to the Army or Marines. The Marines are the Navy, and I've clarified what I meant by "cushy" and I'm correct. [/color] Not really sure. The answer "0". If you would have answered HONESTLY, you'd have admitted you were wrong!! [/color] Let it suffice to say, that unmarked/unidentified do not get too close before they are done away with (lessons of the USS Cole). O.K., that's the new policy, but where's the example of the policy in action? ans. "0". [/color] Whether any shots are fire before that, I'm not really sure. But be assured, vigilance is a 24 hour job. Absolutely!! Personally, I'd rather be watching, as shipboard personal do, rather than ducking bullets as the men on the ground do. Which one has the "cushy" job? [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 23, 2004 6:39:01 GMT -5
It has everything to do with your original statement. Too paraphrase your original statement, the Navy has it easier compared to the Army or Marines. Yet DoD compensates them exactly the same when they are in a combat zone. Ergo, the DoD considers the inherant risks for being in a combat zone the same for both ground troops and sailors. So, the debate is the same...I agree with the DoD assessment, and I do not agree with yours. You brought the DOD into this. I was speaking of reality. [/color][/quote] So now the DoD does not base it's decisions on reality? Someone better give a "wake-up" call to Don Rumsfeld then! You're digging yourself into another hole, my friend! [/color][/quote] Perhaps only to those who don't wish to see it. [/color][/quote] And I disagree even with your "clarification". You are incorrect with your assessment. [/color][/quote] You may have answered a little too quickly. This is from this web site: www.navyleague.org/sea_power/feb_04_36.phpIn the Persian Gulf, the coastal patrol ships USS Firebolt and USS Chinook, as well as Coast Guard patrol boats, and units from coalition navies, have been joined by ships of the Enterprise CSG and Expeditionary Strike Group 1 (ESG-1) in maritime interdiction operations in the northern Persian Gulf. The CSG includes the Argentine Navy destroyer Sarandi, the first non-NATO Navy ship to deploy with a U.S. Navy battle group.
The coalition ships and aircraft patrolling the northern Persian Gulf intercepted and seized, in three incidents in late December and early January, four dhows loaded with illegal drugs. The destroyer USS Decatur seized on Dec. 15 a 3,780-pound cache of hashish from a dhow and detained its 12 crew members. On Dec. 20, the cruiser USS Philippine Sea — aided by P-3 Orion patrol aircraft of the U.S. Navy, and Royal Australian and New Zealand air forces, and Nimrod patrol aircraft of the Royal Air Force — seized two dhows and 21 crew members, along with 95 pounds of heroin and 50-to-100 pounds of methamphetamines, according to a spokesman of Naval Forces Central Command.A little more research will show that these actions were not something as you would like to characterize as a "cushion". [/color][/quote] Maybe it's that liberal media again not reporting it? Afterall, no US service people are dying. [/color] [/quote] Again, it's a matter of perception. A US warship makes for a large, juicy target for anyone wishing to make a statement. Where else are you going to find a large number of Americans all in one place.
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 23, 2004 8:24:39 GMT -5
"So now the DoD does not base it's decisions on reality?"
Given some of the things that go on around here at work, I do question that from time to time.
|
|