• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservatives lash out at the military over ‘woke’ policies

Most are not destroyers. Under 70 does not equal most of 480.

Destroyers make up the largest single class of surface combatants in the US Navy.

For example, we have another 36 Amphibious Warfare ships, spread across 7 classes. And also an old school wood and sail frigate.

And a lot of other ships, but thank you for trying to pick nits and completely missing the point I was making. Out surface ships are nowhere near the numbers we had during the "Cold War". Hell, even our subs are drastically reduced.

In 1989, we had 94 Attack Submarines. Today, we have 52.

In 1989, we had 38 Ballistic Missile Submarines. Today we have 14 (and an additional 4 Ohio class converted to Cruise Missile Submarines).

Shall I continue? Even including the "Boats" (Submarines are not "Ships"), the Arleigh Burke class is still by far the largest group of any class of ships in the US Navy. You are aware that the word "Most" can be used in more than one way, right? It does not have to mean "majority", it can also mean "largest grouping in a series of groupings".

But please, feel free to go through the list of current ships for yourself:


And while you are at it, feel free to look at the ships at the end of the "Cold War":


Myself, I remember the 600 Ship Navy. A big mission of both SecNav Lehman, and SecNav Webb.
 
Destroyers make up the largest single class of surface combatants in the US Navy.

For example, we have another 36 Amphibious Warfare ships, spread across 7 classes. And also an old school wood and sail frigate.

And a lot of other ships, but thank you for trying to pick nits and completely missing the point I was making. Out surface ships are nowhere near the numbers we had during the "Cold War". Hell, even our subs are drastically reduced.

In 1989, we had 94 Attack Submarines. Today, we have 52.

In 1989, we had 38 Ballistic Missile Submarines. Today we have 14 (and an additional 4 Ohio class converted to Cruise Missile Submarines).

Shall I continue? Even including the "Boats" (Submarines are not "Ships"), the Arleigh Burke class is still by far the largest group of any class of ships in the US Navy. You are aware that the word "Most" can be used in more than one way, right? It does not have to mean "majority", it can also mean "largest grouping in a series of groupings".

But please, feel free to go through the list of current ships for yourself:


And while you are at it, feel free to look at the ships at the end of the "Cold War":


Myself, I remember the 600 Ship Navy. A big mission of both SecNav Lehman, and SecNav Webb.
My brother-in-law
Destroyers make up the largest single class of surface combatants in the US Navy.

For example, we have another 36 Amphibious Warfare ships, spread across 7 classes. And also an old school wood and sail frigate.

And a lot of other ships, but thank you for trying to pick nits and completely missing the point I was making. Out surface ships are nowhere near the numbers we had during the "Cold War". Hell, even our subs are drastically reduced.

In 1989, we had 94 Attack Submarines. Today, we have 52.

In 1989, we had 38 Ballistic Missile Submarines. Today we have 14 (and an additional 4 Ohio class converted to Cruise Missile Submarines).

Shall I continue? Even including the "Boats" (Submarines are not "Ships"), the Arleigh Burke class is still by far the largest group of any class of ships in the US Navy. You are aware that the word "Most" can be used in more than one way, right? It does not have to mean "majority", it can also mean "largest grouping in a series of groupings".

But please, feel free to go through the list of current ships for yourself:


And while you are at it, feel free to look at the ships at the end of the "Cold War":


Myself, I remember the 600 Ship Navy. A big mission of both SecNav Lehman, and SecNav Webb.
My brother-in-law is a retired Navy Commander. He is always telling people how he Commanded the Enterprise... which he did. He doesn't mention that it was in drydock. He was a nuke propulsion guy... like Scotty in Star Trek.
 
My brother-in-law

My brother-in-law is a retired Navy Commander. He is always telling people how he Commanded the Enterprise... which he did. He doesn't mention that it was in drydock. He was a nuke propulsion guy... like Scotty in Star Trek.

Kind of weird, all the Commanders of the CVN-65 were Captains, and pilots.
 
Kind of weird, all the Commanders of the CVN-65 were Captains, and pilots.
Like I said... they were in drydock... under repairs... shut down.. you know what drydock is? The planes all flew off with pilots and crews.. most of the sailors gone... ship immobile... under repair... but they still officially have a "Commander". While repairs are completed.
 
Like I said... they were in drydock... under repairs... shut down.. you know what drydock is? The planes all flew off with pilots and crews.. most of the sailors gone... ship immobile... under repair... but they still officially have a "Commander". While repairs are completed.

I was simply questioning, not accusing anything. But it still makes no sense. You see, having been stationed at a US Navy Shipyard, they still have the regular "Commanders" in charge during refits. Quite often, the next commander of the ship. That way they can get to know the ship while it is in for work, and can get to work with the crew. The only time somebody else might be in "command" is when it is still being built. But they are never considered to be "Commanders", more like a "Supervisor". It is not until the ship is launched and then commissioned that it finally gets it's "First Commander". In this case, Captain Vincent de Poix.

So now, I am curious. Her first drydock was October 64-June 65. Commander was Captain Fred Michaels.

She then went back in, July-September 67. Captain Captain James Holloway when she entered, Captain Kent Lee when she left. Another in 1969, still Captain Lee. Then another between late 1969 and 1970, under Captain Petersen.

Her second longest was from 1979 to 1981, under Captains Austin and Kelly. It was at Puget Sound so long, it was nicknamed "Building 65" during that time.

Another long overhaul, October 1990 to September 1994. Under Captains Rittenour, Roper, and Naughton.

A brief return in 2005 after she was damaged after hitting a sandbar, Captain Lawrence Rice.

That was her final one. In 2012 she was deactivated with Captain William Hamilton in command. She was moved to drydock in 2013 to prepare to remove the remaining fuel, but there was nobody in "command" by that time.

But yes, I do happen to know what a dry dock is. I have actually been inside of them.

DryDock01.jpg


But you have no reason to be angry, I am just saying that it does not make sense is all. He may have "dumbed it down" to help you understand, maybe you misheard. Does not matter to me, but knowing how the Navy handles ship commanders and drydock operations, it stood out because it did not make sense. Because I have seen a great many ships in drydock, and generally they posted a new commander before the ship entered. Either that, or if it was for a fast one the same skipper remains in command.

Because she may be in dock, but she is still a Commissioned Ship in the US Navy. And in the event things have to be rushed so she can be put back to sea quickly, she still needs a "real skipper".

What you are talking about is a "caretaker", and those are for ships that are either not commissioned yet, or have already been decommissioned. One helps "wake it up", the other "puts it to bed".
 
I was simply questioning, not accusing anything. But it still makes no sense. You see, having been stationed at a US Navy Shipyard, they still have the regular "Commanders" in charge during refits. Quite often, the next commander of the ship. That way they can get to know the ship while it is in for work, and can get to work with the crew. The only time somebody else might be in "command" is when it is still being built. But they are never considered to be "Commanders", more like a "Supervisor". It is not until the ship is launched and then commissioned that it finally gets it's "First Commander". In this case, Captain Vincent de Poix.

So now, I am curious. Her first drydock was October 64-June 65. Commander was Captain Fred Michaels.

She then went back in, July-September 67. Captain Captain James Holloway when she entered, Captain Kent Lee when she left. Another in 1969, still Captain Lee. Then another between late 1969 and 1970, under Captain Petersen.

Her second longest was from 1979 to 1981, under Captains Austin and Kelly. It was at Puget Sound so long, it was nicknamed "Building 65" during that time.

Another long overhaul, October 1990 to September 1994. Under Captains Rittenour, Roper, and Naughton.

A brief return in 2005 after she was damaged after hitting a sandbar, Captain Lawrence Rice.

That was her final one. In 2012 she was deactivated with Captain William Hamilton in command. She was moved to drydock in 2013 to prepare to remove the remaining fuel, but there was nobody in "command" by that time.

But yes, I do happen to know what a dry dock is. I have actually been inside of them.

DryDock01.jpg


But you have no reason to be angry, I am just saying that it does not make sense is all. He may have "dumbed it down" to help you understand, maybe you misheard. Does not matter to me, but knowing how the Navy handles ship commanders and drydock operations, it stood out because it did not make sense. Because I have seen a great many ships in drydock, and generally they posted a new commander before the ship entered. Either that, or if it was for a fast one the same skipper remains in command.

Because she may be in dock, but she is still a Commissioned Ship in the US Navy. And in the event things have to be rushed so she can be put back to sea quickly, she still needs a "real skipper".

What you are talking about is a "caretaker", and those are for ships that are either not commissioned yet, or have already been decommissioned. One helps "wake it up", the other "puts it to bed".
Could be. I'm an Army guy and I'm pretty clueless about Navy things. Maybe he was just bragging. He's something of a nut.
 
Your graduating USMA in '75 put you the butterbar into the wreckage the Army was as it was cranking up the post VN all new, all recruited, no draft, AVF.

I don't envy you and you have my sympathies for having to deal with such a mess you had little or nothing to do with creating. Army had a tough decade, "75 into '85.

Army finally built itself up and now, at this point, Army is less oriented toward the generations of hayseed Republican hillbillies in their trucks by refocusing on the urban coffee house liberals to include Gen Z who are grossly underrepresented in the AVF both presently and throughout its entire past.

It's also true of WP grads that those who retire at O-5 / LTC are the run of the mill ones who were in charge of paper clips.

I'd love to see some of your urban coffee house liberal soy boys down in the engine rooms Tangmo, But I believe that they are better suited for Hospital Corpsman, or a paper pusher in the personnel office.
 
Could be. I'm an Army guy and I'm pretty clueless about Navy things. Maybe he was just bragging. He's something of a nut.

Army and Marine here, but I was at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard for 3 years. Knew a lot of guys on ships and boats for work, did a visit on a few of them. Also sometimes did training for the students on and around ships in drydock. In the early 1990's that was the final call for many ships from the "Ghost Fleet" prior to being scrapped (removing any final equipment, making sure they were seaworthy so they could by tugged to the scrapyard). Many were WWII and Korean War era Destroyers, and we would hold combat drills on board them during that process.

And mostly, in things like this I consider myself an analyst. I just pick out things that do not quite sound right, or the reverse and see if it does sound right. But more than once I saw the ceremonies to post a new commander right as the ship was tied up at our wharf and before being brought in for work. The new skipper was to be the one in command when she went back to sea again, and during the time it was in drydock they were learning the new systems that were being put in (most worked previous as Executive Officers on the same or a sister ship). That way when the work was done, they were already familiar with everything about their "new ship".

Now, he might have been a "temporary commander" during one of those times in drydock between one leaving and another taking over. But that would have been for just a week or so if nobody more senior was onboard. Like during Christmas Leave, if the CO and XO of a unit are gone, and some Lieutenant or Major was placed in temporary command of the Company-Battery-Battalion.
 
I'd love to see some of your urban coffee house liberal soy boys down in the engine rooms Tangmo, But I believe that they are better suited for Hospital Corpsman, or a paper pusher in the personnel office.

Please don't defame my Corpsmen like that!

Now true, most of us Marines have little use for the majority of "Sailors". But we would give our left-nut for our Doc if called for. Corpsmen (especially "Greensiders") always have my respect.

The admin weenies however, pfffttttt.
 
Please don't defame my Corpsmen like that!

Now true, most of us Marines have little use for the majority of "Sailors". But we would give our left-nut for our Doc if called for. Corpsmen (especially "Greensiders") always have my respect.

The admin weenies however, pfffttttt.
Trust me, the two ratings that were always under appreciated were Cooks and Corpsman.

I love those guys.
 
Destroyers make up the largest single class of surface combatants in the US Navy.

For example, we have another 36 Amphibious Warfare ships, spread across 7 classes. And also an old school wood and sail frigate.

And a lot of other ships, but thank you for trying to pick nits and completely missing the point I was making. Out surface ships are nowhere near the numbers we had during the "Cold War". Hell, even our subs are drastically reduced.

In 1989, we had 94 Attack Submarines. Today, we have 52.

In 1989, we had 38 Ballistic Missile Submarines. Today we have 14 (and an additional 4 Ohio class converted to Cruise Missile Submarines).

Shall I continue? Even including the "Boats" (Submarines are not "Ships"), the Arleigh Burke class is still by far the largest group of any class of ships in the US Navy. You are aware that the word "Most" can be used in more than one way, right? It does not have to mean "majority", it can also mean "largest grouping in a series of groupings".

But please, feel free to go through the list of current ships for yourself:


And while you are at it, feel free to look at the ships at the end of the "Cold War":


Myself, I remember the 600 Ship Navy. A big mission of both SecNav Lehman, and SecNav Webb.
Someone said that “most”’of the 400+ surface ships in the US Navy are destroyers. That’s not true.
 
Someone said that “most”’of the 400+ surface ships in the US Navy are destroyers. That’s not true.

You are picking one definition of the word "most", I said it with the other in mind.

Most, as in that is the class we had the most ships in. And that is true, we and of our surface warfare ships, most of them are indeed destroyers. Amphibious ships are not "surface combatants", neither are submarines, oilers, or most of the other ships in the fleet. In fact, only about half of the ships are even "combat ships" at all.

Sorry, not interested any more in playing word games.
 
You are picking one definition of the word "most", I said it with the other in mind.

Most, as in that is the class we had the most ships in. And that is true, we and of our surface warfare ships, most of them are indeed destroyers. Amphibious ships are not "surface combatants", neither are submarines, oilers, or most of the other ships in the fleet. In fact, only about half of the ships are even "combat ships" at all.

Sorry, not interested any more in playing word games.
Most means most, more than half, not just more.
 
I'd love to see some of your urban coffee house liberal soy boys down in the engine rooms Tangmo, But I believe that they are better suited for Hospital Corpsman, or a paper pusher in the personnel office.

Read below thx to find out why you won't see that.

Plus you'll see a lot less of your rightwing politics in the ranks of the AVF. You're missing a lot about the changes already.

Because this is about the Army so kindly sit down and observe. Pour yourself some coffee of course.


Army says liberals barely join military, wants to sell them on “travel and adventure”​

January 3, 2019

The US Army is shifting their recruiting focus to liberal-leaning cities. While rural America - specifically the majority of conservative, Southern states - has often disproportionately filled the ranks of America’s warfighting team at two to three times the rate of other regions, the Army is looking away from Dixie, hoping to recruit from metropolitan areas. “We want to go into Boston, Pittsburgh, Kansas City,” Maj. Gen. Frank Muth, the head of Army Recruiting Command, told The New York Times. “These are places with a large number of youth who just don’t know what the military is about.” Desperate to bring aboard urbanites and suburb-dwellers perceived to be more digitally-inclined than their rural counterparts, the Army has resorted to trying to recruit Soldiers in multiplayer video games, on social media platforms and even Twitch, a live-stream game platform.




Air Force has had this already and for a long time. Army is meeting success going for it. Army had a huge competition a couple of years ago to create a slick team of 20 video game players who are online all the time playing war games with high school kids who sooner or later ask where to go to enlist. There were more than 2000 applicants for this new Army program btw. So it's the Navy that's still grinding it out down there in the engine room ghettos.
 
If you believe him, he served in the "Old Guard" as an Officer during Vietnam.

And yes, none of us believe his stories. He has complete contempt for the NCO Corps and enlisted, and spins stories that are completely beyond belief.

I suspect he is in his 20's, and is just making it all up wholesale.
Alas we've come full cycle.

When I started here 7 years ago there was a retired lifer nco rightwinger who pronounced me to be a kid in his parent's basement -- in Hong Kong besides -- screwing around and that he was going to drive me out with his focused barking and snarling.

Now there's you, 7 years on.

Indeed, the category of retired or active duty lifer nco rightwinger I'm speaking of is: uneducable.

In other words my honorable active duty military service makes me much tougher and resilient than all of you guys over all of these years combined. Many have come and gone in this sustained campaign by the DP military right. The guys who supported Trump against John McCain. You guyz.
 
Tucker Carlson, say no more. If you listen to these loons long enough you'll end up believing they hate america.
I call him ****er Carlson because hes so annoying. Only person more annoying than this hypocrite mockerman is Piers Morgan. They are both hypocrites who just sorta mock people so I call them mockermen. If we lived in the jungle I would definately punch ****er Carlson kinda hard and Piers Morgan in the face as hard as I possibly can but we live in modern society where we aren't allowed to do that.
 
Wow... you really do have a bug up your butt. I never went to Viet Nam. I did basic at Knox, a year at USMAPS then at Ft Belvoir, entered West Point and graduated in 75. I don't even REMEMBER being in my twenties. I'll be 70 my next birthday.
76 here.

Hell, I don't remember 70 but that's due to age rather than it being the factor of deep time.

Happy birthday to you in advance of the upcoming Big Seven-O.
 
I'd love to see some of your urban coffee house liberal soy boys down in the engine rooms Tangmo, But I believe that they are better suited for Hospital Corpsman, or a paper pusher in the personnel office.
Yeah, well... I was going to go Navy... but they found out I was heterosexual.
 
Your graduating USMA in '75 put you the butterbar into the wreckage the Army was as it was cranking up the post VN all new, all recruited, no draft, AVF.

I don't envy you and you have my sympathies for having to deal with such a mess you had little or nothing to do with creating. Army had a tough decade, "75 into '85.

Army finally built itself up and now, at this point, Army is less oriented toward the generations of hayseed Republican hillbillies in their trucks by refocusing on the urban coffee house liberals to include Gen Z who are grossly underrepresented in the AVF both presently and throughout its entire past.

It's also true of WP grads that those who retire at O-5 / LTC are the run of the mill ones who were in charge of paper clips.
It's funny seeing you pretend to know amuthing about what the Army is actually like.
 
I'd love to see some of your urban coffee house liberal soy boys down in the engine rooms Tangmo, But I believe that they are better suited for Hospital Corpsman, or a paper pusher in the personnel office.

I'd love to see some of your urban coffee house liberal soy boys down in the engine rooms Tangmo, But I believe that they are better suited for Hospital Corpsman, or a paper pusher in the personnel office.

It's funny seeing you pretend to know amuthing about what the Army is actually like.
Son, I've spent more time in the chow line than you've spent in uniform. Your arrogance and conceit, though, are very "amuthing"
 
It's funny seeing you pretend to know amuthing about what the Army is actually like.
You demonstrate zero knowledge because all you do is proclaim, denounce and allege in hit and run posts.

You really don't have time or much interest in this.

You're doing it because you have to, ie, to prep for the coming coup by TrumpFlynn et al against the Government of the United States. The braindead Trump after all has proclaimed openly -- and brazenly -- he will be reinserted as Potus by the end of the summer. Indeed, the only way this could happen is by some sort of coup or another.

That is, you know you're lying in denying my honorable active duty military service. You know others are lying too. Yet it's anything the braindead PutinTrump orders for you guys who are rightwing lifer rightwing nco rightwing retired or rightwing active duty nco who post rightwing politics to civilian general interest discussion boards. Who know you can post your lies and Your Big Lie at will besides.
 
Last edited:
Son, I've spent more time in the chow line than you've spent in uniform. Your arrogance and conceit, though, are very "amuthing"
I am sure you believe that's true.
 
You demonstrate zero knowledge because all you do is proclaim, denounce and allege in hit and run posts.

You really don't have time or much interest in this.

You're doing it because you have to, ie, to prep for the coming coup by TrumpFlynn et al against the Government of the United States. The braindead Trump after all has proclaimed openly -- and brazenly -- he will be reinserted as Potus by the end of the summer. Indeed, the only way this could happen is by some sort of coup or another.

That is, you know you're lying in denying my honorable active duty military service. You know others are lying too. Yet it's anything the braindead PutinTrump orders for you guys who are rightwing lifer rightwing nco rightwing retired or rightwing active duty nco who post rightwing politics to civilian general interest discussion boards. Who know you can post your lies and Your Big Lie at will besides.
I see lots of tangmobable and not much else.

Why don't you tell us some more of your fictional military stories. Always good for a laugh.
 
Dismantle democracy? Oh... you mean unsolicited mass mailings of ballots with no ID required to vote... ok... got ya.
Since my blue state has that requirement and checks the mail-in ballots, and various red states have been particular about checking ID information, I'd be interested in knowing which states required no ID on a mail-in ballot. . . .
 
Back
Top Bottom