The Captain: 26 new messages in 13 topics

sci.military.naval
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval?hl=en

sci.military.naval@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Russian General Staff: NATO warships will enter Black Sea in August
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/7ec3ccc3e78a01ee?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 11:30 am
From: "Ken S. Tucker"

On Aug 20, 9:29 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> Hi Buff.
>
> On Aug 20, 5:25 am, buff82driver <buff82dri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Russia the worlds greatest superpower? Hmm and were is there
> > blue water navy? Modern/heavily upgraded intercontinental
> > bombers? Professional infantry? How are they a superpower?> Currently Russia is the worlds greatest superpower,
> > > what's important however, is using our influence to
> > > settle the problem to create the best future, with the
> > > least damage.
> > > Russia and West have too much in common to let
> > > this incident fracture us.
> > > I think the US over-played placing missiles in Poland,
> > > for strange ideas, what's next, how would the US
> > > react if canux allowed a Russian missile base in
> > > Manitoba, because we need to protect Vancouver
> > > from North Korean missiles and the Ruskies were
> > > the lowest bidder for that ABM system?
> > > Ken
>
> > How did we overplay our hand? Everyone really knows who those
> > missiles are to defend against and thats Iran but perhaps they could
> > help out in a "spiff" with Russia but I doubt that. Russia has far to
> > many missiles
> > to be stopped by this shield and it may be easier to sneak in a bomber
> > undetected. If we
> > really wanted to neuter Russia we would use the Cold War era idea/
> > system? of using space based lasers
> > and Brilliant Pebbles. Using ground based missiles for the foundation
> > of BMD never will make sense. Using SAMs
> > for terminal defense and as a backup for space based defenses is ok
> > but as the primary shield is and always will be
> > cost-prohibitive.
>
> I think the good spirit of the Gorby-Reagan INF deal
> was to minimize military systems in East Europe,
> and that should stand. If the EU thinks it needs
> an ABM system then they should talk to Russia
> about it. It's a grand strategy outlook that the US
> needs to formulate and use.
> Ken

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty
Ken

==============================================================================
TOPIC: President Apostate? -- Obama & Islam
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/f71765ccc57c2f0c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 11:44 am
From: Dan

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Rather was simply out to GET Bush, a fellow Texan, whom he despised for many
> reasons.
>
> One of which was that Bush would not grant Rather a CBS interview with the
> President.
>
> Rather's producer, a woman who was later fired by CBS, was also a Bush
> Hater.

Nice projection, guy.

Dan

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Cut & Runners
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/5f8b43a305714f00?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 11:48 am
From: Dan

tankfixer wrote:
> In article <qKCqk.33667$KZ.26720@newsfe03.iad>, dnadan56@hotmail.com
> says...
>> tankfixer wrote:
>>> In article <qOtqk.43612$yn5.40054@newsfe08.iad>, dnadan56@hotmail.com
>>> says...
>>>> tankfixer wrote:
>>>>> In article <yTgqk.20945$Bt6.8117@newsfe04.iad>, dnadan56@hotmail.com
>>>>> says...
>>>>>> William Black wrote:
>>>>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carrier@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:MPG.23114a11900643f4989f5c@nntp.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>>> In article <g86ihk$cj4$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>>>>>>>> william.black@hotmail.co.uk says...
>>>>>>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carrier@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:MPG.230fbb956c84ca8e989f13@nntp.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>> In article <dnpba45mkonsiepqlm971e5eppefei50d3@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> Jas.HoggOUT@SPAM.gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>> That's correct. Georgia attacked South Ossetia, a part of Georgia
>>>>>>>>>>> where a majority of the people had said that they did not want to
>>>>>>>>>>> belong to Georgia (and do so even less now than when they voted
>>>>>>>>>>> in favour of independence in 2006).
>>>>>>>>>> South Ossetia, where that majority only arrived about 40 years ago from
>>>>>>>>>> Russia.
>>>>>>>>> The bulk of the South Asian community in the UK only arrived in the past
>>>>>>>>> 40
>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>> Were they sent by their parent government ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't mean we can shoot them if we feel like it.
>>>>>>>> From reports it would appear the ones shooting civilians with abandon
>>>>>>>> are the Russians and Ossettian militia's
>>>>>>> I'm afraid that, as the Georgians are finding out, this is what happens
>>>>>>> when you try and get nasty with the Russians.
>>>>>> And it appears to be totally erroneous: it was the Georgians who were
>>>>>> shooting civilians before the Russians brought in outside force.
>>>>> Sorry, I can't buy that.
>>>> Your choice.
>>>>
>>>>> See this from Jack's earlier post.
>>>> Funny, I fail to find where I mentioned genocide...
>>> So shooting civilians is ok then ?
>> What ARE you on about?
>>
>> Go back, read the thread, and come back better-prepared next time...
>
>
> I see you discard the link.
>
>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-breakaway18-
>>> 2008aug18,0,3381598.story
>>> From the Los Angeles Times
>>> No signs of Russia claim of genocide by Georgia in South Ossetia
>
> I accept your surrender.

None was offered. Unless you come up with some actual information, none
will be. And this time, DO read it first.

Dan

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:01 pm
From: Dan

tankfixer wrote:
> In article <sUCqk.33681$KZ.32058@newsfe03.iad>, dnadan56@hotmail.com
> says...
>> Carl Alex Friis Nielsen wrote:
>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carrier@gmail.comm> skrev i en meddelelse
>>> news:MPG.2313c5fd231c874c989fc5@nntp.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>> Close all traffic in and out of Russian seaports.
>>> Its kind of hard to embargo trade with someone you depend on.
>>>
>>> Dependency of NATO member states on Russian natural gas (2006):
>>>
>>> Germany 39 %
>>> Italy 31 %
>>> Turkey 65 %
>>> France 24 %
>>> Poland 43 %
>>> Netherlands 6 %
>>> Greece 82 %
>>> Belgium 1 %
>>> Hungary 64 %
>>> Czech Republic 77 %
>>> Slovakia 99 %
>>> Romania 22 %
>>> Lithuenia 100 %
>>> Bulgaria 99 %
>>> Latvia 100 %
>>> Estonia 100 %
>>> Slovenia 52 %
>>> Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain, the UK and
>>> the USA
>>> do not depend on Russian natural gas.
>>> Belgium and the Netherlands could likely also do without, but unless an
>>> alternative source for
>>> a LOT of natural gas can be found its patently absurd to expect NATO to take
>>> any action
>>> against Russia.
>>>
>>> The figures above imply imensly more power to Russia, than she ever got from
>>> her military.
>>>
>>> Its always easy to be brave when you are not the one suffering the
>>> consequences.
>> And who made the Russians the oil giant they are?
>>
>> G. Bush and his pump-up-oil-prices Middle East "strategy." (I leave
>> open the probability it was an unintended consequence of an otherwise
>> stupid action).
>
>
> IIRC Russia was an oil giant long before Bush was elected.
> Try using a different scapegoat.
>

In terms of raw supply, sure. In terms of monetary income (you know,
that stuff you buy things with and use to buy people and materials to
produce things with), not so much...

The current cock-up in the Middle East has caused the price of oil to go
through the roof after years of stability. There are good consequences
of that (alternative energy sources look good to even the most strident
of Capitalists), of course, but also some less-than-stellar ones, like
the resurgence of the Great Beelzebub ("Satan" was already taken) that
the mindless rightwingers like to hate so that they don't have to think
too hard.

Please, do not get sensitive - I don't know enough about your politics
to definitely place you in that category. Most of your posts are fairly
reasonable. But Georgie does take a hit on this one, this time.

Dan
Dan

Dan

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:05 pm
From: Dan

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Hilarious!
>
> Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Some naïve little rampant pogues here actually believe Vladimir
> Vladimirovich Putin is no longer a COMMUNIST.

Some of us, actually having some KNOWLEDGE, understand that the fUSSR
never was Communist (nor did THEY really make such claims, except for PR
purposes - they were the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, as in
Capital "S" Socialists).

> How gullible they are.

You were saying?

> Said little rampant pogues actually foolishly and gullibly believe that a
> person must belong to a COMMUNIST PARTY and openly profess beliefs in
> Marxist-Leninist COMMUNISM in order to be a true COMMUNIST.

The former, not so much; the latter, kinda by definition on the Marxist
part, not so much the Leninist part...

> Hilarious!

You definitely are!

<"stuff" snipped for brevity - read it for a good laugh>

Dan

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:07 pm
From: Dan

John Briggs wrote:
> tankfixer wrote:
>> In article <iWAqk.63271$8y1.7200@newsfe18.ams2>, john.briggs4
>> @ntlworld.com says...
>>> tankfixer wrote:
>>>> In article <wvfqk.164$w51.41@trnddc01>, firelaw@firelaw.us says...
>>>>> tankfixer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't hold the US accountable for the poor quality of other
>>>>>> countries diplomat's or leaders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bush made promises to Georgia.
>>>>
>>>> Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon made promises to South Vietnam too.
>>>>
>>>>> "Americans respect your courageous choice for liberty. And as you
>>>>> build a free and democratic Georgia, the American people will stand
>>>>> with you.
>>>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2059773/posts
>>>>
>>>> Do you intend to abandon them as we did South Vietnam when it became
>>>> inconvenient ?
>>>>
>>>>> Now since Georgians have no way to know that Bush is an idiot and
>>>>> will say anything for a photo op They were stupid enough to
>>>>> believe him
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly Georgians can be held responsible for having the
>>>>> stupidity to believe Bush
>>>>>
>>>>> But we can and must hold US leadership responsible for failing to
>>>>> understand when idiots are leading another country, especially
>>>>> when our idiot in chief makes promises he can't keep that trigger
>>>>> action.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bush is responsible for this fiasco.
>>>>
>>>> So replace him in the next election.
>>>
>>> He should have been replaced at the last one - why wasn't that done?
>>
>> Ask the DNC, they were the one's who pushed Kerry to the front.
>
> I see. So, Al Gore wasn't any good, John Kerry wasn't any good and
> Barack Obama isn't any good? I'm beginning to see a pattern here! It's
> all the fault of the DNC, and the American people don't bear any of the
> blame?

Nor the RNC party apparatus in Florida and Ohio...

Dan

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:25 pm
From: tankfixer

In article <hDZqk.71$_s1.48@newsfe07.iad>, dnadan56@hotmail.com says...
> tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <qKCqk.33667$KZ.26720@newsfe03.iad>, dnadan56@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >> tankfixer wrote:
> >>> In article <qOtqk.43612$yn5.40054@newsfe08.iad>, dnadan56@hotmail.com
> >>> says...
> >>>> tankfixer wrote:
> >>>>> In article <yTgqk.20945$Bt6.8117@newsfe04.iad>, dnadan56@hotmail.com
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>> William Black wrote:
> >>>>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carrier@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:MPG.23114a11900643f4989f5c@nntp.earthlink.net...
> >>>>>>>> In article <g86ihk$cj4$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> >>>>>>>> william.black@hotmail.co.uk says...
> >>>>>>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.carrier@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> news:MPG.230fbb956c84ca8e989f13@nntp.earthlink.net...
> >>>>>>>>>> In article <dnpba45mkonsiepqlm971e5eppefei50d3@4ax.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>> Jas.HoggOUT@SPAM.gmail.com says...
> >>>>>>>>>>> That's correct. Georgia attacked South Ossetia, a part of Georgia
> >>>>>>>>>>> where a majority of the people had said that they did not want to
> >>>>>>>>>>> belong to Georgia (and do so even less now than when they voted
> >>>>>>>>>>> in favour of independence in 2006).
> >>>>>>>>>> South Ossetia, where that majority only arrived about 40 years ago from
> >>>>>>>>>> Russia.
> >>>>>>>>> The bulk of the South Asian community in the UK only arrived in the past
> >>>>>>>>> 40
> >>>>>>>>> years.
> >>>>>>>> Were they sent by their parent government ?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It doesn't mean we can shoot them if we feel like it.
> >>>>>>>> From reports it would appear the ones shooting civilians with abandon
> >>>>>>>> are the Russians and Ossettian militia's
> >>>>>>> I'm afraid that, as the Georgians are finding out, this is what happens
> >>>>>>> when you try and get nasty with the Russians.
> >>>>>> And it appears to be totally erroneous: it was the Georgians who were
> >>>>>> shooting civilians before the Russians brought in outside force.
> >>>>> Sorry, I can't buy that.
> >>>> Your choice.
> >>>>
> >>>>> See this from Jack's earlier post.
> >>>> Funny, I fail to find where I mentioned genocide...
> >>> So shooting civilians is ok then ?
> >> What ARE you on about?
> >>
> >> Go back, read the thread, and come back better-prepared next time...
> >
> >
> > I see you discard the link.
> >
> >>> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-breakaway18-
> >>> 2008aug18,0,3381598.story
> >>> From the Los Angeles Times
> >>> No signs of Russia claim of genocide by Georgia in South Ossetia
> >
> > I accept your surrender.
>
> None was offered. Unless you come up with some actual information, none
> will be. And this time, DO read it first.

You wish to blieve the Russian claim that the Georgians were killing
civilians.
It seems that may not be true.

Did you read it ?

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:29 pm
From: tankfixer

In article <KPZqk.641$4s1.0@newsfe06.iad>, dnadan56@hotmail.com says...
> tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <sUCqk.33681$KZ.32058@newsfe03.iad>, dnadan56@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >> Carl Alex Friis Nielsen wrote:
> >>> "tankfixer" <paul.carrier@gmail.comm> skrev i en meddelelse
> >>> news:MPG.2313c5fd231c874c989fc5@nntp.earthlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>> Close all traffic in and out of Russian seaports.
> >>> Its kind of hard to embargo trade with someone you depend on.
> >>>
> >>> Dependency of NATO member states on Russian natural gas (2006):
> >>>
> >>> Germany 39 %
> >>> Italy 31 %
> >>> Turkey 65 %
> >>> France 24 %
> >>> Poland 43 %
> >>> Netherlands 6 %
> >>> Greece 82 %
> >>> Belgium 1 %
> >>> Hungary 64 %
> >>> Czech Republic 77 %
> >>> Slovakia 99 %
> >>> Romania 22 %
> >>> Lithuenia 100 %
> >>> Bulgaria 99 %
> >>> Latvia 100 %
> >>> Estonia 100 %
> >>> Slovenia 52 %
> >>> Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain, the UK and
> >>> the USA
> >>> do not depend on Russian natural gas.
> >>> Belgium and the Netherlands could likely also do without, but unless an
> >>> alternative source for
> >>> a LOT of natural gas can be found its patently absurd to expect NATO to take
> >>> any action
> >>> against Russia.
> >>>
> >>> The figures above imply imensly more power to Russia, than she ever got from
> >>> her military.
> >>>
> >>> Its always easy to be brave when you are not the one suffering the
> >>> consequences.
> >> And who made the Russians the oil giant they are?
> >>
> >> G. Bush and his pump-up-oil-prices Middle East "strategy." (I leave
> >> open the probability it was an unintended consequence of an otherwise
> >> stupid action).
> >
> >
> > IIRC Russia was an oil giant long before Bush was elected.
> > Try using a different scapegoat.
> >
>
> In terms of raw supply, sure. In terms of monetary income (you know,
> that stuff you buy things with and use to buy people and materials to
> produce things with), not so much...

It's been a major source of real income for years. even back during the
good old days of the Soviets.

>
> The current cock-up in the Middle East has caused the price of oil to go
> through the roof after years of stability. There are good consequences
> of that (alternative energy sources look good to even the most strident
> of Capitalists), of course, but also some less-than-stellar ones, like
> the resurgence of the Great Beelzebub ("Satan" was already taken) that
> the mindless rightwingers like to hate so that they don't have to think
> too hard.

Ah yes, the gratuitous insults.
Never let real thought get in the way of your ideology there.

>
> Please, do not get sensitive - I don't know enough about your politics
> to definitely place you in that category. Most of your posts are fairly
> reasonable. But Georgie does take a hit on this one, this time.

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: U.S. Armed Forces Are Said To Be "Slightly At A Loss With The British"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/eff91bbc93040b96?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 11:50 am
From: James Hogg

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:15:10 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>On 20 Aug, 10:49, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>> Even the color pink has lost its respect and panache -- as it's been taken
>> over by the Homosexual Lobbies, along with violet, and the Code Pink
>> pacifist/feminist nuts in the United States.
>> --

>Oh dear. He gets worse and worse.

Yes, all the fine Hinesian rhetoric about Freedom & Liberty
breaks down when it comes to women and homosexuals. There
Caveman Hines sees the enemy lined up ready for World War VI.

James

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 11:57 am
From: James Hogg

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
<a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>On 20 Aug, 10:43, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>> The Forces of Freedom, led by the United States, DID win The Cold War --
>> World War III.
>>
>> Any fool, even one as dense as Surreyman, whose nation cut and ran from Aden
>> and now wants to cut and run from Iraq as soon as possible without losing
>> more face, should understand that.
>>
>> So, as I have previously clearly stated with respect to Russia, this is Cold
>> War II, The Sequel.
>>
>> It's always subject to renaming as the game unfolds -- just as we had The
>> Great War, later renamed to World War I.
>>
>> We are also currently fighting World War IV, the Global War On
>> Islamofascist, Jihadist Terrorism.
>>
>> Pogue Surreyman needs to read FAR more and get himself a playbook if he
>> intends to keep up with this international chess game.
>> --
>> DSH
>> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>> Vires et Honor
>> Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
>
>No Hines. The above mental wandering is yours alone and used by no
>other.

That kind of objection is no obstacle to a narcissist living in a
world of his own.

He's got his own definition of communism too, according to which
Attila the Hun and Alexander the Great were Marxist-Leninists.

James

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:46 pm
From: "La N"

"James Hogg" <Jas.HoggOUT@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jrpoa4dqknkq7u71v915t9tmkm0likha0h@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
> <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>On 20 Aug, 10:43, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>>> The Forces of Freedom, led by the United States, DID win The Cold War --
>>> World War III.
>>>
>>> Any fool, even one as dense as Surreyman, whose nation cut and ran from
>>> Aden
>>> and now wants to cut and run from Iraq as soon as possible without
>>> losing
>>> more face, should understand that.
>>>
>>> So, as I have previously clearly stated with respect to Russia, this is
>>> Cold
>>> War II, The Sequel.
>>>
>>> It's always subject to renaming as the game unfolds -- just as we had
>>> The
>>> Great War, later renamed to World War I.
>>>
>>> We are also currently fighting World War IV, the Global War On
>>> Islamofascist, Jihadist Terrorism.
>>>
>>> Pogue Surreyman needs to read FAR more and get himself a playbook if he
>>> intends to keep up with this international chess game.
>>> --
>>> DSH
>>> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>>> Vires et Honor
>>> Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
>>
>>No Hines. The above mental wandering is yours alone and used by no
>>other.
>
> That kind of objection is no obstacle to a narcissist living in a
> world of his own.
>
> He's got his own definition of communism too, according to which
> Attila the Hun and Alexander the Great were Marxist-Leninists.
>

Out of curiosity, what are his alter-ego Julia's forte / slash / interests?

- nilita

==============================================================================
TOPIC: U.S missiles based in Poland
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/2bcaa4b3d2852b94?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:09 pm
From: Peter Skelton

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:37:34 -0400, David McMillan
<spamtrap@skyefire.org> wrote:

>Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>> Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> :The russian government has already stated the glaringly obvious to the
>>> :press: IF they want to launch a huge wave of ICBMs and don't want any
>>> :interference from those pesky SAM sites, there'll be a couple of
>>> :missiles with much lower trajectory and flight time launched first...
>>> :
>>> Which is about the stupidest thing they can do, since when they do
>>> that we empty the holes over here before they launch their "huge wave
>>> of ICBMs".
>>
>> Hint:
>> - Flight time of a nuclear SRBM from Russian territory to the SAM base?
>> - Flight time of the russian ICBMs before they can be engaged by the
>> SAMs? - Flight time of the US ICBMs before they can strike the russian
>> silos?
>
> Hint: irrelevant.
> Why do people keep getting stuck on this non-issue? The ABMs based in
>Poland aren't oriented against ICBMs being fired from Russia against
>North America, and depending on deployment might be useless against
>IRBMs launched against Europe from Russia. Not that it would matter
>anyway, since 15 ABMs vs the hundreds, if not thousands, of IRBMs Russia
>currently has available.
> The ABM system being deployed in Poland has no affect on the Russian
>strategic or theater nuclear issue. The Russians just seize on it as a
>handy excuse for acting hysterical and bellicose because bystanders keep
>falling for the hype that this is somehow an aggressive move against Russia.

OFCS the Russians are about as happy about a major American
military presence in Poland as the US would be about a Russian
one in Mexico. Buffers are a good idea.

Peter Skelton

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Freemen, Fighting For The Blessings Of Liberty For Ourselves & Others
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/76fe6e326a5cd561?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:13 pm
From: Peter Skelton

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:39:10 -0700, tankfixer
<paul.carrier@gmail.comm> wrote:

>In article <45vna4lhffpdcnqg7v9ubndfhm940r0bol@4ax.com>,
>skeltonp@cogeco.ca says...
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:39:56 -0700, tankfixer
>> <paul.carrier@gmail.comm> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <qvcla45o76hqp4potd6de8r92huj9ul7u3@4ax.com>,
>> >skeltonp@cogeco.ca says...
>> >> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:37:20 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
>> >> <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
>> >> >news:K5KdnVPjY6ULtTfVnZ2dnUVZ8sHinZ2d@giganews.com...
>> >> >> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> >> >>> "William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> >>> news:g8coeg$4fh$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> >> >>>> It is sad that you don't seem to realise that the American
>> >> >>>> revolutionaries were fully aware of the Putney Debates and 'The
>> >> >>>> Agreement of the People' and knew exactly what 'Liberty' was.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> right, why weren't we happy to bow and scrape to our betters, to say "yes
>> >> >>> mi'lord"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because you wanted to create a different set of "betters" to scrape to.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >anybody can be a better here, one is not born into it.
>> >> >
>> >> That would be something of a shock to the Bush's, Kennedys,
>> >> DuPonts and so on.
>> >
>> >Yeah, somebody better tell Bill Gates and Steven Jobs.
>>
>> You don't know much about Gates background do you? One could make
>> a case for Jobs coming for a humble background (it is less
>> advanced that Gates, his dad could probably not have protected
>> him from the consequences of Gates act with CDC, for example) but
>> not after he was adopted.
>>
>
>
>He came from one of the old money families ?
>
I did not say that, did I?

>Last time I checked he made his piles of money on his own.

He has certainly made big piles of money. His dad had sufficient
piles of money, was a significant player in the legal system and
protected him from nasty consequences.

Peter Skelton

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:37 pm
From: tankfixer

In article <m1roa4dli7rh2684va8qst7tos1k0fdbdp@4ax.com>,
skeltonp@cogeco.ca says...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:39:10 -0700, tankfixer
> <paul.carrier@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> >In article <45vna4lhffpdcnqg7v9ubndfhm940r0bol@4ax.com>,
> >skeltonp@cogeco.ca says...
> >> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:39:56 -0700, tankfixer
> >> <paul.carrier@gmail.comm> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <qvcla45o76hqp4potd6de8r92huj9ul7u3@4ax.com>,
> >> >skeltonp@cogeco.ca says...
> >> >> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:37:20 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
> >> >> <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:K5KdnVPjY6ULtTfVnZ2dnUVZ8sHinZ2d@giganews.com...
> >> >> >> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> >> >> >>> "William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >> >>> news:g8coeg$4fh$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> >> >> >>>> It is sad that you don't seem to realise that the American
> >> >> >>>> revolutionaries were fully aware of the Putney Debates and 'The
> >> >> >>>> Agreement of the People' and knew exactly what 'Liberty' was.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> right, why weren't we happy to bow and scrape to our betters, to say "yes
> >> >> >>> mi'lord"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Because you wanted to create a different set of "betters" to scrape to.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >anybody can be a better here, one is not born into it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> That would be something of a shock to the Bush's, Kennedys,
> >> >> DuPonts and so on.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, somebody better tell Bill Gates and Steven Jobs.
> >>
> >> You don't know much about Gates background do you? One could make
> >> a case for Jobs coming for a humble background (it is less
> >> advanced that Gates, his dad could probably not have protected
> >> him from the consequences of Gates act with CDC, for example) but
> >> not after he was adopted.
> >>
> >
> >
> >He came from one of the old money families ?
> >
> I did not say that, did I?
>

So why imply he did ?

> >Last time I checked he made his piles of money on his own.
>
> He has certainly made big piles of money. His dad had sufficient
> piles of money, was a significant player in the legal system and
> protected him from nasty consequences.

Suposition on your part.

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: BAE to build 155mm Naval gun
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/72d5bf51b67f5cd4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:25 pm
From: Peter Skelton

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:31:56 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
<andrelieven@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>On Aug 20, 7:25 am, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca> shat:
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:08:21 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>>
>> <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >On Aug 19, 8:57 pm, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:32:10 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>>
>> >> <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >> >On Aug 19, 7:02 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>> >> ><dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>> >> >> Raymond O'Hara ha scritto:
>>
>> >> >> [6" guns]
>>
>> >> >> > obsolete? all an "obsolete" gun needs is a new mount.
>> >> >> > the U.S. got great mileage out of the old 3'50. from the main gun on early
>> >> >> > destroyers to an anti-tank/tank destroyer gun to a crew served AA to a twin
>> >> >> > auto AA. same barrel different mounts
>>
>> >> >> there's another problem with old RN BL's:
>>
>> >> >> RN firing charges have the major defect of igniting easily and in a
>> >> >> rather spectacular manner.... and the current RN ship have nothing in
>> >> >> the passive protection department; a baddie's RPG, even an HMG/AMR
>> >> >> bullet, in the wrong place of a ship retrofitted with 6" BL can have
>> >> >> rather unpleasant consequences (and a casualty rate in the 98%-100%
>> >> >> range, whose today is considered more than unacceptable in the West)
>>
>> >> >And, heres more idiocy that ASSumes that the current RN has learned
>> >> >NOTHING since 1915... (proklyatiya kretinii kusok)
>>
>> >> The 6" of WWII vintage used bagged powder of the type that
>> >> exploded in Barham's magazine (and was simillar to that in Hood).
>>
>> >You are about to make a own goal statement, since the 6 inch guns
>> >in Barham's casemates (Guns that had been entirely replaced on
>> >the rebuilt QE and Valiant.) were of WW *One* vintage, going
>> >back all the way to Barham's first construction during WW1.
>>
>> Is the concept of bagged powder alien to you Andre?
>
>Not at all, and I am also conversant with the fact that propellents
>that burned off were well worked out before the end of WW2.
>
So you're retreating from your WWI nonsense? That's progress

>So, you're still trying to squeeze in 70 year old history on a topic
>of a FUTURE gun system.
>
Why yes, I'm saying that using 1940's technology in a future
system is silly. Do you have a problem with that? If you don't
then why were you so rude to Dott?

>> Don't you
>> realize that the RN extended its changes to propellant to all its
>> ships between the wars?
>
>None of which is relevent to a FUTURE gun system...
>
Which was rather my point and also Dott.'s. Why were you so rude
and stupid?

>> >So, no soup for you, as you flubbed this topic.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Yep.
>
Nope.

>> >Further, even if Hood was due to the 4 inch ammo, thats still gear
>> >thats well obsolete a generation ago.
>>
>> Those 4" used fixed ammunition. I'd tend to think they are
>> irrelevant here. Let's go with the most likely explanation, shall
>> we?
>
>Far more learned people than you include the Hood's 4 inch magazine
>being involved. I'll take their considered professional opinions
>over your factless whinging.
>
Now that is just plain idiotic. Your claim here is that I
suggested Hood's 4" was involved. You didn't like that and said
so. I didn't make that suggestion and said so. Now you've
promptly taken a position on the other side and are calling the
majority position of serious authorities "factless whinging".

>> >> Your desire to be rude has lead you to make a stupid statement.
>>
>> >Own Goal. Try again, this time, with actual real naval facts.
>>
>> I did. The dott. may have had a point, you were rude to him in a
>> stupid way.
>
>No proof ever offered ? Factless loon claim always fails.
>
Full proof was offered and your bullshit response has now been
refuted.

Peter Skelton

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:41 pm
From: "Paul J. Adam"

In message
<47a014d9-1f3b-4d2b-8e3f-1b787d2142a4@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, guy
<guyswettenham@googlemail.com> writes
>What I really do not see here is the requirement, what is the bigger
>and undoubtedly more effective gun for?

Coastal suppression.

>As a shore bombardemt weapon it would be madness to put a ship as
>costly as one capable of carrying this gun in gun range of coast held
>by a major power..

With a range of 30km+ that's doable, and options like Excalibur extend
that further. Indeed, in some places you can't sail through or operate
where you need to be without getting much closer to the coast (e.g. most
of the Persian Gulf).

Also, we're seriously short of ships and saying "no, Type 45 is too big
and expensive and valuable, she can't go in, send a Type 23 instead...
who needs air defence, so we'll need to escort her, with a Type 45...
oh." isn't a good option.

>I am a BAE shareholder so of course I want them to make money, but
>this exercise seems like a money making exercise, not fullfilling an
>actual requirement.

There's a definite need for more capable naval fires than the existing
Mark 8 can provide: this is one of the lower-risk and lower-cost means
of addressing that.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides

paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: No scuttle at Scapa
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/ce923999f58deaf6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:23 pm
From: "Paul J. Adam"

In message
<36224b7e-f02b-44be-88f7-c157611cabe1@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Lieven <andrelieven@yahoo.ca> writes
>On Aug 16, 8:10 pm, "Pissant Jerkwad Adam"
><n...@jrwlynch.demon.cow.uck> McCluelessed:
>> Andre seems to have this obsession with Miss Haystack. Should we worry?
>
>Pointing out OTHER'S use of them is not an issue for anyone other than
>said
>others.

Meanwhile, straw prostitutes are your invention, and your incessant
obsession with them is amusing.

>> Actually, Fred and Andre have a lot in common: a similarly predictable
>> spiral down through a regular routine when disagreed with. Andre, as
>> mentioned, has a particular fondness for squealing "straw whore" and
>> "projection" whenever challenged. (He particularly doesn't seem to have
>> understood what 'projection' actually means... but it's his problem)
>
>No proof ever offered ? Factless Ad Hominem Alone scoundrel ploy
>always
>fails.

Google Groups returns "results 1 - 91 of 91 for "straw whore"
author:andre author:lieven" and "1 - 100 of about 2,150 for
"projection" author:andre author:lieven".

The factless ad hominem scoundrel is the one with the straw fetish, it
seems - as evidenced by a hasty flight from the field...

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides

paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sec. of State Rice warns Russia about Bombers off Alaska
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/40d80f770df6af61?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:32 pm
From: Dan

Rob Arndt wrote:
> On Aug 20, 6:44�am, Vincent <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>> Rob Arndt wrote:
>>> On Aug 19, 9:02 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 19, 6:35 pm, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rice warns Moscow about its bomber runs off Alaska
>>>> As if that's never happened before.
>>>> Unless they encroach upon US airspace there's not a lot can be done.
>>>> Unless Conny wants to start WW3
>>> So what? Sounds like Condi has more fucking balls than you do. What do
>>> you do when a hunter with a rifle encounters a hostile bear? Drop his
>>> gun and get into the fetal position hoping it will just sniff around
>>> you and leave? No, you aim and shoot the fucker dead.
>>> People like you make me sick; you know, the ones that always wanna
>>> negotiate peace with terrorists, rouge nations, dictators, and
>>> anything of Slavic origin.
>>> Rob
>> Lets assume its a Grizzly and and you have a .22
>>
>> That is what takes balls
>>
>> Vince- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Bad analogy. If hunter is US vs Russian Bear the gun is anything from
> a .50 cal rifle to a 40mm Grenade launcher to a flame thrower.
>
> Where is the vaunted USAF which is able to defeat any foe, anwhere?
> Apparently not over Georgian skies but in hiding or under repair.

Where is the treaty or pact that requires or allows USAF involvement?
For that matter, if you feel so strongly why aren't YOU volunteering?
It's easy for you to accuse servicemen of being cowards since you you
are safe behind your modem.

Tell us how USAF involvement beyond what is currently going on would
change things. Would it make you happy for the USAF to shoot down
Russian aircraft?

>
> Same for US ground and naval forces- former has no troops to send
> anyway as it cannot even manage Afghanistan nor Iraq nor US borders
> and the latter would be ineffectual.*
>
> Rob
>
> * Bush won't even send a hospital ship to the Black Sea.

It has been determined the Comfort isn't needed at this time, genius.
Turkey hasn't said she would allow the Comfort to pass anyway.

Are you aware the USAF is making several flights a day into Georgia
with relief? I guess that doesn't count because you'd prefer war.

Where are your heroes the Germans? Hiding under their beds?

For that matter, have you ever said anything positive about the U.S.
and when did you say it?

Amazing how someone who has never had to face any risk in her life
insults those who do it every day, isn't it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:58 pm
From: tankfixer

In article <fba49d69-3a49-472c-a447-02211c5d9d00
@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, tomcervo@aol.com says...
> On Aug 19, 10:17?pm, Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
> > tankfixer wrote:
> > > In article <g8eoj2$24...@aioe.org>, n...@none.net says...
> > >> eyeball wrote:
> > >>>> lol "john pumpkin from dumbfuck, ga warns solar system"
> > >>> You live in Moscow, komrade?
> > >> this question is actually deeper than you might know, sonny :)))
> >
> > >> live? well, i work in oregon. of course, i have to kind of "live" there.
> > >> or, more precisely, i "reside" there, since applying the word "live" to
> > >> anywhere in the usa is like the greatest insult to life ever. nobody
> > >> lives in the usa.
> >
> > >> i do in fact live in moscow when i go there about once a year on vacation.
> >
> > > We can help you get to stay there...
> >
> > ? ?So how come he can afford to go visit Moscow annually yet can't
> > afford to move there? I think the fool is lying through someone's teeth.
> >
>
> Cost of living's higher in Idaho.

About a day's drive too....

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 1:01 pm
From: tankfixer

In article <284a5176-e895-4a2a-a622-0a39b7cea6b6
@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, teuton263@aol.com says...
> On Aug 19, 10:12?pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> > In article <09eb4f53-09f5-475a-86a5-
> > 750908ce3...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, teuton...@aol.com says...
> >
> > > On Aug 19, 9:02?pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 19, 6:35 pm, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Rice warns Moscow about its bomber runs off Alaska
> >
> > > > As if that's never happened before.
> > > > Unless they encroach upon US airspace there's not a lot can be done.
> > > > Unless Conny wants to start WW3
> >
> > > Russia claims Georgian "provocation" for the invasion of that nation
> > > and now Polish "provocation" with the missile deal in progress- making
> > > them a Russian target.
> >
> > > Let's play that game and say Russian Bears around Alaska are
> > > "provocation" and splash a few :)
> >
> > Fortunately we never could be bothered to volunteer to serve so we are
> > safe from your delusions.
> >
>
> So working on a M-60 somehow makes you both a political analyst and
> military strategist?

It gives one a perspective you will never aquire.

You assume it's the only job I've ever had in the military.

>
> Dream on, Tinkerbell.
>
> Everything on this NG is opinion anyway.

Much of ill-informed and outright silly.

>
> All you are doing in sitting on your ass and hoping resurgent Russian
> military power/aggression will just go away.

No, I'm not offering stupid opinions based on incomplete and half true
news reports.
That is folly.

>
> Congratulations, you are now a Canadian or European ;)

And I would still be a better man than you ....

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 1:17 pm
From: Rob Arndt

On Aug 20, 12:32�pm, Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 6:44 am, Vincent <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> >> Rob Arndt wrote:
> >>> On Aug 19, 9:02 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 19, 6:35 pm, Tiger <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Rice warns Moscow about its bomber runs off Alaska
> >>>> As if that's never happened before.
> >>>> Unless they encroach upon US airspace there's not a lot can be done.
> >>>> Unless Conny wants to start WW3
> >>> So what? Sounds like Condi has more fucking balls than you do. What do
> >>> you do when a hunter with a rifle encounters a hostile bear? Drop his
> >>> gun and get into the fetal position hoping it will just sniff around
> >>> you and leave? No, you aim and shoot the fucker dead.
> >>> People like you make me sick; you know, the ones that always wanna
> >>> negotiate peace with terrorists, rouge nations, dictators, and
> >>> anything of Slavic origin.
> >>> Rob
> >> Lets assume its a Grizzly and and you have a .22
>
> >> That is what takes balls
>
> >> Vince- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Bad analogy. If hunter is US vs Russian Bear the gun is anything from
> > a .50 cal rifle to a 40mm Grenade launcher to a flame thrower.
>
> > Where is the vaunted USAF which is able to defeat any foe, anwhere?
> > Apparently not over Georgian skies but in hiding or under repair.
>
> � �Where is the treaty or pact that requires or allows USAF involvement?
> For that matter, if you feel so strongly why aren't YOU volunteering?
> It's easy for you to accuse servicemen of being cowards since you you
> are safe behind your modem.
>
> � �Tell us how USAF involvement beyond what is currently going on would
> change things. Would it make you happy for the USAF to shoot down
> Russian aircraft?
>
>
>
> > Same for US ground and naval forces- former has no troops to send
> > anyway as it cannot even manage Afghanistan nor Iraq nor US borders
> > and the latter would be ineffectual.*
>
> > Rob
>
> > * Bush won't even send a hospital ship to the Black Sea.
>
> � It has been determined the Comfort isn't needed at this time, genius.
> Turkey hasn't said she would allow the Comfort to pass anyway.
>
> � Are you aware the USAF is making several flights a day into Georgia
> with relief? I guess that doesn't count because you'd prefer war.
>
> � Where are your heroes the Germans? Hiding under their beds?
>
> � For that matter, have you ever said anything positive about the U.S.
> and when did you say it?
>
> � Amazing how someone who has never had to face any risk in her life
> insults those who do it every day, isn't it?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A single C-17 does not qualify as any real relief effort, nor a C-9...

Stop making excuses...

Rob

==============================================================================
TOPIC: BMPs in Georgia
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/d93371743394de8d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:40 pm
From: tankfixer

In article <Xns9B005969E16Ejuergennieveler@nieveler.org>,
juergen.nieveler.nospam@arcor.de says...
> tankfixer <paul.carrier@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> >> Any signifance to any of this? Local news just runs tape, has no idea
> >> what its looking at.
> >
> > Three different guys painted them....
>
> Surely the Red Army has manuals covering that sort of thing?

Ours used to. An entire huge manual of silhouettes of front and side
showing the pattern to paint.

Not that anyone bothered to actually pay much attention to them..

>
> Of course, they'll be nowhere as detailed as the ones used by the
> Germans - we had a manual for each different type of vehicle, with
> drawings from all sides specifying the camo pattern, so that for
> example each 2t Unimog would have EXACTLY the same pattern on it, with
> less than an inch of variation (if any)
>
> Don't ask me why, it's probably something in the genes... ;-)

No doubt.. ;')

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:51 pm
From: Jack Linthicum

On Aug 20, 3:40 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> In article <Xns9B005969E16Ejuergennieve...@nieveler.org>,
> juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de says...
>
> > tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> > >> Any signifance to any of this? Local news just runs tape, has no idea
> > >> what its looking at.
>
> > > Three different guys painted them....
>
> > Surely the Red Army has manuals covering that sort of thing?
>
> Ours used to. An entire huge manual of silhouettes of front and side
> showing the pattern to paint.
>
> Not that anyone bothered to actually pay much attention to them..
>
>
>
> > Of course, they'll be nowhere as detailed as the ones used by the
> > Germans - we had a manual for each different type of vehicle, with
> > drawings from all sides specifying the camo pattern, so that for
> > example each 2t Unimog would have EXACTLY the same pattern on it, with
> > less than an inch of variation (if any)
>
> > Don't ask me why, it's probably something in the genes... ;-)
>
> No doubt.. ;')
>
> --
> Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
> Goode with Ketchup.

You could diddle through all the little videos of tanks and equipment
pulling into and out of Georgia. They ought to be moderately accurate.
Most of the tanks have cobham armor and therefore no real color.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Daylight Savings Time
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/c9e50af9b6cdb27c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 12:46 pm
From: !Jones

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:51:26 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam "D. Spencer
Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

>In the normative form, daylight saving time uses the present participle
>saving as an adjective, as in labor saving device; the first two words are
>sometimes hyphenated, as in daylight-saving time.

Fuck!

I see another *long* argument over whether a ship's name may have an
article preceeding it...

It's only made longer by the fact that Spencer is the only one
arguing.

Jones

==============================================================================
TOPIC: NATO Won't Let Russia Succeed In Georgia: Rice
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/6d1a87d54ce1eadd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 1:08 pm
From: "La N"

"Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidholiman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b7ca95d2-54fc-41b0-a3aa-ad132c0453b1@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 19, 2:30 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>> Brava Condoleezza!
>>
>> But Pogue Gans WANTS Russia to succeed in Georgia -- just so he can say
>> "I
>> told you so" and make President Bush [and Rice too] look bad.
>>
>> Gans WANTS the United States to look weak, feckless and impotent on the
>> World Stage -- just so he can Blame It On Bush.
>>
>> Just as Gans says we have lost in Iraq and should pull out immediately,
>> he
>> doesn't want to WIN in Georgia either -- because that would make him look
>> foolish, pig-ignorant, wimpy-wussy and redound to Bush's and Rice's
>> credit.
>>
>> SO, Gans...
>>
>> Blames America First.
>> --
>> DSH
>> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>> Vires et Honor
>> Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>> NATO won't let Russia succeed in Georgia: Rice
>>
>> Aug 18, 2008
>> By MATTHEW LEE
>> Associated Press Writer
>>
>> BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday
>> that Russia is playing a "very dangerous game" with the U.S. and its
>> allies
>> and warned that NATO would not allow Moscow to win in Georgia,
>> destabilize
>> Europe or draw a new Iron Curtain through it.
>>
>> On her way to an emergency NATO foreign ministers meeting on the crisis,
>> Rice said the alliance would punish Russia for its invasion of Georgia
>> and
>> deny its ambitions by rebuilding and fully backing Georgia and other
>> Eastern
>> European democracies.
>>
>> "We have to deny Russian strategic objectives, which are clearly to
>> undermine Georgia's democracy, to use its military capability to damage
>> and
>> in some cases destroy Georgian infrastructure and to try and weaken the
>> Georgian state," she said.
>>
>> "We are determined to deny them their strategic objective," Rice told
>> reporters aboard her plane, adding that any attempt to recreate the Cold
>> War
>> by drawing a "new line" through Europe and intimidating former Soviet
>> republics and ex-satellite states into submission would fail.
>>
>> "We are not going to allow Russia to draw a new line at those states that
>> are not yet integrated into the trans-Atlantic structures," she said,
>> referring to Georgia and Ukraine, which have not yet joined NATO or the
>> European Union but would like to.
>>
>> Rice could not say what NATO would eventually decide to do to make its
>> position clear but said the alliance would speak with one voice "to
>> clearly
>> indicate that we are not accepting a new line."
>>
>> At the same time, she said that by flexing its military muscle in Georgia
>> as
>> well as elsewhere, including the resumption of Cold War-era strategic
>> bomber
>> patrols off the coast of Alaska, Russia was engaged in high-stakes
>> brinksmanship that could backfire.
>>
>> This "is a very dangerous game and perhaps one the Russians want to
>> reconsider," Rice said of the flights that began again with frequency
>> about
>> six months ago. "This is not something that is just cost-free. Nobody
>> needs
>> Russian strategic aviation along America's coast."
>>
>> At Tuesday's meeting, the NATO ministers will consider a range of
>> upcoming
>> activities planned with Russia-from military exercises to ministerial
>> meetings-and decide case-by-case at the meeting Tuesday whether to go
>> ahead
>> or cancel each.
>>
>> They will also discuss support for a planned international monitoring
>> mission in the region and a package of support to help Georgia rebuild
>> infrastructure damaged in its devastating defeat at the hands of the
>> Russian
>> armed forces.
>>
>> And, she suggested that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who signed an
>> E.U.-backed cease-fire brokered by the French, may be unable to exert
>> power
>> behind the scenes against his powerful predecessor, Prime Minister
>> Vladimir
>> Putin, or the Russian military.
>>
>> YES, THAT IS A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY. -- DSH
>>
>> She said she thought the French would be seeking "an explanation from the
>> Russians for why the Russian president either won't or can't keep his
>> word."
>>
>> "It didn't take that long for the Russian forces to get in and it really
>> shouldn't take that long for them to get out," Rice said.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Commander,
>
> I don't see the advantage in telling the Russians what we or NATO are
> going to do. First thing. We are talking about the Russian border.
> Now
> I know there are nitwits who say, "It's not the Russian border. It's
> South Ossetia." Or "Dagistan", or "Trans-Dniestria", or "Chechnya."
> But the Russian border is largely ethnic enclaves scattered across 12
> time zones.
>
> How much slack would we give Russia, if Putin started making
> statements
> about the U.S. border ? Nothing, nada. Yet here we are, trillions of
> dollars
> in debt, stretching our Army to the breaking point halfway around the
> globe,
> sending $700 billion abroad for 70% of our domestic energy, facing a
> bottomless market slump, still not secure on the southern US border,
> and
> now we are facing off with the Russians on their on border.
>
> And we are doing this with an administration that is managerially
> bankrupt,
> economically insolvent, spending the country into an inflationary
> spiral,
> and totally incapable of policing the world. This is indeed the
> perfect storm.
> And also the perfect opportunity to sit back and let the Russians show
> the
> world their best 5 cards. In the days ahead Russia under Vlad Putin
> may
> shoot itself in the foot so badly that even the Chinese will have to
> reconsider
> their own border with Russia.
>
> As Dwight David Eisenhower once told John Foster Dulles, "for goodness
> sake, John, don't do something!"
>
> Cheers, David H.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't know how much cred Gorbachev has anymore, but in his op-ed piece of
today in the NY Times he insists that Russia never wanted a war:

August 20, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Russia Never Wanted a War
By MIKHAIL GORBACHEV
Moscow

THE acute phase of the crisis provoked by the Georgian forces' assault on
Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, is now behind us. But how can one
erase from memory the horrifying scenes of the nighttime rocket attack on a
peaceful town, the razing of entire city blocks, the deaths of people taking
cover in basements, the destruction of ancient monuments and ancestral
graves?

Russia did not want this crisis. The Russian leadership is in a strong
enough position domestically; it did not need a little victorious war.
Russia was dragged into the fray by the recklessness of the Georgian
president, Mikheil Saakashvili. He would not have dared to attack without
outside support. Once he did, Russia could not afford inaction.

The decision by the Russian president, Dmitri Medvedev, to now cease
hostilities was the right move by a responsible leader. The Russian
president acted calmly, confidently and firmly. Anyone who expected
confusion in Moscow was disappointed.

The planners of this campaign clearly wanted to make sure that, whatever the
outcome, Russia would be blamed for worsening the situation. The West then
mounted a propaganda attack against Russia, with the American news media
leading the way.

The news coverage has been far from fair and balanced, especially during the
first days of the crisis. Tskhinvali was in smoking ruins and thousands of
people were fleeing - before any Russian troops arrived. Yet Russia was
already being accused of aggression; news reports were often an embarrassing
recitation of the Georgian leader's deceptive statements.

It is still not quite clear whether the West was aware of Mr. Saakashvili's
plans to invade South Ossetia, and this is a serious matter. What is clear
is that Western assistance in training Georgian troops and shipping large
supplies of arms had been pushing the region toward war rather than peace.

If this military misadventure was a surprise for the Georgian leader's
foreign patrons, so much the worse. It looks like a classic wag-the-dog
story.

Mr. Saakashvili had been lavished with praise for being a staunch American
ally and a real democrat - and for helping out in Iraq. Now America's friend
has wrought disorder, and all of us - the Europeans and, most important, the
region's innocent civilians - must pick up the pieces.

Those who rush to judgment on what's happening in the Caucasus, or those who
seek influence there, should first have at least some idea of this region's
complexities. The Ossetians live both in Georgia and in Russia. The region
is a patchwork of ethnic groups living in close proximity. Therefore, all
talk of "this is our land," "we are liberating our land," is meaningless. We
must think about the people who live on the land.

The problems of the Caucasus region cannot be solved by force. That has been
tried more than once in the past two decades, and it has always boomeranged.

What is needed is a legally binding agreement not to use force. Mr.
Saakashvili has repeatedly refused to sign such an agreement, for reasons
that have now become abundantly clear.

The West would be wise to help achieve such an agreement now. If, instead,
it chooses to blame Russia and re-arm Georgia, as American officials are
suggesting, a new crisis will be inevitable. In that case, expect the worst.

In recent days, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have
been promising to isolate Russia. Some American politicians have threatened
to expel it from the Group of 8 industrialized nations, to abolish the
NATO-Russia Council and to keep Russia out of the World Trade Organization.

These are empty threats. For some time now, Russians have been wondering: If
our opinion counts for nothing in those institutions, do we really need
them? Just to sit at the nicely set dinner table and listen to lectures?

Indeed, Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts. Here's the
independence of Kosovo for you. Here's the abrogation of the Antiballistic
Missile Treaty, and the American decision to place missile defenses in
neighboring countries. Here's the unending expansion of NATO. All of these
moves have been set against the backdrop of sweet talk about partnership.
Why would anyone put up with such a charade?

There is much talk now in the United States about rethinking relations with
Russia. One thing that should definitely be rethought: the habit of talking
to Russia in a condescending way, without regard for its positions and
interests.

Our two countries could develop a serious agenda for genuine, rather than
token, cooperation. Many Americans, as well as Russians, understand the need
for this. But is the same true of the political leaders?

A bipartisan commission led by Senator Chuck Hagel and former Senator Gary
Hart has recently been established at Harvard to report on American-Russian
relations to Congress and the next president. It includes serious people,
and, judging by the commission's early statements, its members understand
the importance of Russia and the importance of constructive bilateral
relations.

But the members of this commission should be careful. Their mandate is to
present "policy recommendations for a new administration to advance
America's
national interests in relations with Russia." If that alone is the goal,
then I doubt that much good will come out of it. If, however, the commission
is ready to also consider the interests of the other side and of common
security, it may actually help rebuild trust between Russia and the United
States and allow them to start doing useful work together.

Mikhail Gorbachev is the former president of the Soviet Union. This article
was translated by Pavel Palazhchenko from the Russian.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: PHOENIX UNABLE TO OPERATE DUE HEAT IN IRAQ
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/756fc903f0cbeae4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 20 2008 1:18 pm
From: Mike

Thirteenth Report The contribution of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to
ISTAR capability
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdfence/535/535.pdf

PHOENIX UNABLE TO OPERATE DUE HEAT IN IRAQ
THE PHOENIX UNMANNED AIR VEHICLE , WHICH COST AN ESTIMATED 300,000
POUNDS EACH AND WAS BROUGHT INTO SERVICE WITH THE BRITISH ARMY IN 1998
AFTER A PROTRACTED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME IS NOW OFFICIALLY DEAD, THIS
WAS PUBLISHED IN UK DAILY.
MPS ON THE COMMONS DEFENSE COMMITTEE REVEALED IN A REPORT PUBLISHED
LAST WEEK THAT THE PHOENIX , WHICH PROVIDED TARGET INFORMATION FOR THE
ARMYS ARTILLERY REGIMENTS FROM AN OPERATING HEIGHT OF ABOUT 9,000FT,
WAS UNABLE TO COPE WITH THE HEAT IN IRAQ WHEN IT WAS DEPLOYED IN 2003.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sci.military.naval"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.military.naval+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

26 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 Comments: