• 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!

Syria: Liberals Are Getting Exactly What They Voted For

TiredOfLife said:
I know where the carriers were, do you? And do you know why why we didn't care much at that point?
Click to expand...
Uh, yeah, I do. A couple were in Norfolk, one was anchored due to a storm, one was in San Diego, and another was on patrol. Why why we didn't care much? What? I know we cared then because the friggin Japanese hit us on our own soil. I know it pissed the whole country off. I know we were thankful the carriers were out.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Uh, yeah, I do. A couple were in Norfolk, one was anchored due to a storm, one was in San Diego, and another was on patrol. Why why we didn't care much? What? I know we cared then because the friggin Japanese hit us on our own soil. I know it pissed the whole country off. I know we were thankful the carriers were out.
Click to expand...
So, there was nothing important for them to hit on this attack, which wasn't correctly executed, and didn't matter either way? Got it now.

Did you know, by chance, that we used to fight wars without carriers? Just checking.
 
TiredOfLife said:
So, there was nothing important for them to hit on this attack, which wasn't correctly executed, and didn't matter either way? Got it now.

Did you know, by chance, that we used to fight wars without carriers? Just checking.
Click to expand...
We also used to fight wars with swords, clubs, and catapults. How do you think that would've worked out in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan? Probably not too good. We also used to be without the internet in order to accommodate websites such as this. We also used to use candles to illuminate rooms. I have no idea where you were going with that either.....
 
MarineTpartier said:
We also used to fight wars with swords, clubs, and catapults. How do you think that would've worked out in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan? Probably not too good. We also used to be without the internet in order to accommodate websites such as this. We also used to use candles to illuminate rooms. I have no idea where you were going with that either.....
Click to expand...
At the time of Pearl Harbor, carries weren't considered that important.
 
TiredOfLife said:
At the time of Pearl Harbor, carries weren't considered that important.
Click to expand...
Oh, right, that's why two of the four preeminent superpowers in the world at the time used them as the primary combat platform to fight sea battles from. And they didn't build them retroactive to the war beginning, they had them prior to that. So at some point even before WWII started, someone, somewhere decided "Hey, launching planes from boats could be useful? Lets spend millions of dollars on it!"
 
poweRob said:
As opposed to Republican leadership. They are very against war and have shown their propensity for small government when?
Click to expand...

Thank you!!!!!!
 
MarineTpartier said:
Oh, right, that's why two of the four preeminent superpowers in the world at the time used them as the primary combat platform to fight sea battles from. And they didn't build them retroactive to the war beginning, they had them prior to that. So at some point even before WWII started, someone, somewhere decided "Hey, launching planes from boats could be useful? Lets spend millions of dollars on it!"
Click to expand...
Read the history. It was still a battleship age but not for long.
 
TiredOfLife said:
Read the history. It was still a battleship age but not for long.
Click to expand...
Soooo, why did we have so many carriers then? Just for kicks? You're out of your league here bud. Its kinda part of my job to know military history.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Soooo, why did we have so many carriers then? Just for kicks? You're out of your league here bud. Its kinda part of my job to know military history.
Click to expand...
So many? Not really.

The United States Navy on December 7 1941, Consisted of 902 Commissioned Vessels of the following types

Principal Combat Vessels, 345
Aircraft Carriers 7 + 1 Escort Carrier
Battleships 17
Heavy Cruisers 18
Light Cruisers 19
Destroyers 171
Submarines 112
http://www.navsource.org/Naval/usf.htm

Now, you were saying??
 
Last edited:
TiredOfLife said:
So many? Not really.

The United States Navy on December 7 1941, Consisted of 902 Commissioned Vessels of the following types

Principal Combat Vessels, 345
Aircraft Carriers 7 + 1 Escort Carrier
Battleships 17
Heavy Cruisers 18
Light Cruisers 19
Destroyers 171
Submarines 112
US-Fleet Dec 7 1941

Now, you were saying??
Click to expand...
You dont need as many carriers as other ships because they project more combat power due to the nature of their role in combat. Battleships are essentially mobile artillery platforms. All a carrier has to do is stay out of range of their guns and one carrier can sink 5-6 battleships. In addition, they are much larger than any ship you list there. Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. Drop it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom