Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/15/06 10:19 PM, elecman wrote: Really.
Are those gunboats really necessary?

Calling them gunboats is spin. The Coast Guard calls them armed patrol boats, which is a much more accurate descriptor, especially in light of the historical usage of the word "gunboat."

At 3/15/06 01:42 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: -End corporate subsidies to corporations who outsource jobs (won't work, but I like the idea of ending corporate subsidies).

The question you have to ask is whether or not American industry can stand up to foreign competition that is heavily subsidised.

At 3/15/06 08:45 PM, JoS wrote: I think once they start equiping boats with .50 cal there is a problem. Its not like you are dealing with gun or drug runners who are armed, at the most yuo are talking about a very small number of people coming across illegally. There are far easier ways to get into the US from Canada via the border than the great lakes. Although I do think USCG officers should be armed themselves with side arms and shot guns, I think a weapon that can fire 600 rpm is a little over the top.

Give me a break. You really have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, the Coast Guard fires more nonlethal munitions than lethal munitions. Secondly, SOP and rules of engagement include a use of force continuum that only escalates to deadly force when it is absolutely necessary to protect USCG personnel and those who are targeted. Thirdly, no one said anything about equipping vessels with .50 cals except your spinster media. Additionally, the primary purposes for machine guns on CG assets are self-defense and disabling other vessels.

You can continue to live your life of fear at everything the US does, but you really got it wrong about the Coast Guard. While the US may get a lot of criticism from the international community, the Coast Guard is one service that is continually honored and respect in times of peace and war throughout the world and has one of the best reputations as a military and law enforcement force.

At 3/15/06 08:22 PM, JoS wrote: I would really like to hear what our Navy/Coast Guard users haev to say about this.

What is there to say? The Coast Guard has a job to do, and we will do it the best we can.

Semper Paratus!

At 3/15/06 08:11 PM, SteelSwilla wrote: Which country do you trust more with nuclear warheads, Israel or Iran. Why do you think so?

Israel. Israel's leadership is not bent on the complete destruction of another country.

At 3/15/06 08:07 PM, E-Spionage wrote: You people fail at humour.

Pretty sure you fail.

At 3/14/06 01:52 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Quite simple really, you have an army to DEFEND yourselves if you are attacked.
If you aren't attacked you don't have to use it.

Then you condone genocide, the oppression of women, tyranny, and militant regimes that rule by fear? How very liberal of you.

At 3/13/06 10:02 PM, Imperator wrote: I agree with Fenrus, I thought the whole point of Nuclear was that you DIDN'T have loud diesel turbines, but a nice quiet reactor.....

The point of nuclear submarines is mission endurance. Diesel-electric submarines are stealthier because they can operate on electric batteries instead of an engine. Diesel-electric submarines only run on diesel when they are charging the batteries, similar to a hybrid car. The fact that the Chinese use them for coastal defense makes them especially lethal because they can quickly head back into port after missions to charge and be serviced or have heavy cover to recharge their batteries.

At 3/13/06 09:55 PM, Raptorman wrote: You forget that China could not control the air, to use a diesel sub without air superiority is suicide. They would be dead as soon as they popped up a snorkel. Also, those cruise missile batteries would have to be used in the initial assault as US and Taiwanese air power would destroy them within a few days. They wouldn't survive long enough to support Naval operations.

I think you guys are really underestimating the Chinese. China has a large, undisclosed number of Su-27 fighters they call the J-11. The Su-27 was built by the Russians as a direct competitor to US Navy aircraft including the F-16 and F-18. Before 2000, China had over 1,300 aircraft within 500 nautical miles of Taiwan. I have no idea how many carrier groups the US would send initially, but even with Air Force assets staged out of Japan we would be very outnumbered. While I have absolute faith in US airmen and seamen to crush any opposing force, I fear it would not be the walk in the park you all imagine it to be.

At 3/13/06 09:06 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: I'm not sure about that though. The Ohio class submarine to my knowlege, runs on a S8G nuclear reactor and carries the usualy Tomahawk missles and MK-48's. The only real submarine that compares to them is the Oscar class russian submarine. And I hope to god the russians don't start selling those designs.

The US only operates four Ohio class submarines equipped with convential warheads. But you are absolutely correct in that they are amazing submarines. However, most of the submarine warfare would be done by Seawolf and Virginia class fast attack submarines to knock out Chinese naval assets to secure the strait to bring in larger platforms. However, this can only be done if the threat of Chinese submarines is neutralized, which makes the stealth and weapon capabilities of their submarines extremely relevant, more so than US capabilities.

At 3/13/06 07:37 PM, Japigeese wrote: Hi, everyone who see this post, I'd like to hear your ideas about these two parts of China. Ideas about the choices between unification and split. Tell me which is better and why, and where do you stand, better for who? Ideas about the prospectives. Will there be a war? What response would US, Jp and other countries make, if there were a war? WWIII?

The people of Taiwan have made it clear that under the present circumstances they are unwilling to unify with the mainland. I feel that their grievances are warranted, and I think that most of the international community agrees. However, the US is the only nation that could provide a rapid response. Currently we are the only power in the Pacific, and the only nation that can quickly project its power on a global scale.

At 3/13/06 08:31 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: But thats if China actually creates a navy or amphibous vehicles. And even if that, we will spot these floating targets before that and either 1. Take it up to the UN or 2. Tactical missle strike.

It is really not that simple. China already has a budding Navy which serves two main purposes: (1) to land and support PLA soldiers on Taiwanese soil and (2) counter a US attack. The Chinese have expanded their Navy significantly from where they were just ten years ago. While it may not be a blue water fleet and have any resemblance to a US fleet, it is capable of serving the aforementioned main purposes. They have many new Luhu and Luhai class destroyers as well as the Russian Soveremenny destroyer, each of which is a very capable platform for a ground attack with cruise missiles while performing anti-submarine operations. The Chinese continue to build their Ming-class diesel-electric subs which are nearly undetectable by US forces on top of new Han class nuclear submarines that can be used to strike US forces at sea. The US uses exclusively nuclear-powered subs which are larger and less stealthy than their small diesel-electric counterparts. In addition to its Navy, China has deployed hundreds of cruise missile sites along the coast of the mainland to support Naval operations.

At 2/28/06 01:14 AM, Papa_Smuff wrote: Recruiters usually do give pretty good information

Then the truth changes.

Did you mean 7 trillion dollars?

At 2/25/06 02:57 PM, Freemind wrote: You are a hypocrite because you constantly put people down because of their age when you and them have around a 2-3 year age difference. It's like calling your opponent in the special olympics a retard. It's technically true, but it doesn't make you any less of a retard either.

Not really. I do not know many fifteen year-olds who are skilled debators (sylvos not being one of them), but I know lots of eighteen year-olds who are. However, I would say that on the average, neither a fifteen year-old nor an eighteen year-old can debate well.

At 2/24/06 01:12 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Try and forget your regular notion of slavery and read merriam-websters definition
"Slavery : submission to a dominating influence"

Instead of just telling you how worthless you are, I think I will try a different approach and try to help you out. As a general rule in debate, since you want a "serious" debate so badly, when you are defining words, do not use definitions that are not operational. Part of that means not using definitions that worthlessly vague. Given that you are the proposition and have set the definition of slavery as such, I propose that you are also a "slave" to gravity, since it matches your definition. Now that there is a relationship established between gravity and the government, I can attack your argument by attacking the relationship. Obviously the government and gravity are nothing alike and this serves as a trivial example, but hopefully you see my point.

The resounding defense of my little town government can be attributedto altruism. most people here seem to believethat i should do this to help my fellow man. But why should I be forced to? if someone wants to help someone else great. But why should i be forced into the slavery of the rest of the world. Its amazing its almost as if its taken directly from atlas shrugged. which, you would know if you read it, quite terrifying.

Actually, I find it more terrifying that someone just a few years my junior could have no sense of civics whatsoever.

At 2/22/06 02:01 PM, Wyrlum wrote: I wonder which group is going to be the first to claim that they need marijuana for their "ritual observances."

The Rastafarians have been trying that for years.

At 2/15/06 10:10 PM, JoS wrote: Actually Bush wanted to send more troops to Iraq, but someone made a typo in the orders to deploy and no one else caught it. rather than embarass themselves theya re going to send off young men and women to die in Iran.

Just be glad the typo was not "Canada." Actually, we would probably have less casualties.

At 2/12/06 01:03 PM, Dranigus wrote: I am quite certain most muslims wouldn't have a problem with the Matrix.

I am quite certain most Christians wouldn't have a problem with a picture of Muhammad, or the Matrix for that matter.

At 2/11/06 04:03 PM, Freemind wrote: 1. Your right, I just imagine the condiscending tones, crappy insulting jokes and the need to cut in in the middle of every sentence of someone who disagrees with him.

If your opinion is that his tone is condescending that's great. But it doesn't matter.

2. Like when Al Franken and him had an arguement about Frankens book. O'Reilly told him to shut up multiple times and then called him an idiot. Didn't look to me like the subject changed at all. No, I haven't ever seen a british house of commons debate.

Franken purposely picks fights with O'Reilly. There are personal attacks on both sides all the time. Neither of them have any respect for each other. Speaking of Al Franken, you must think he is a dick, too. I mean he is the king of attacks on people with different views.

3. Tell that to Jeremy Glick. He told O'Reilly that he signed a anti-war ad after his father was killed in 9/11. They had a short arguement about it. Bill told him to shut up and cut his microphone. If that doesn't make you a dick than what does? The thing that really pisses me off is that he had the nerve to ask the guy if his father would approve of his anti-war stance. I have no respect for this man.

Jeremy Glick is an idiot. The only reason he came on there was to claim that the government was responsible for 9/11. Like I said, O'Reilly's show is not the UN. O'Reilly realized that he was not going to have an intelligent debate with that kid and ended the segment. The only thing I found questionable about that segment was how O'Reilly brought his mother and father into it. He should not have said that, but it is not a big deal.

4. No, it doesn't really suprise me. My favorite attack was when he repeatedly called watchers of the Daily Show "stoned slackers." Then we all found out that watchers of the Daily show could answer political questions correctly more often and were more likely to have graduated from college compared to watches of The O'reilly factor. Thats just good stuff.

You realize he was mostly just poking fun right?

At 2/11/06 01:59 PM, Freemind wrote: I think he is a dick because he doesn't respect other peoples opinions.

Unfounded speculation.

He tells people to shut up on his show

He tells them to shut up when they try to beat around the bush, spin, change subjects, and refuse to answer questions. I read one of his books a few years ago and he says the one thing he hates is how politics is full of people who can talk for hours and hours but never make a single point. His show is not the UN or the floor of the Senate. If he decides not to put up with people's drivel then more power to him.

Out of curiosity, have you ever seen a British House of Commons debate?

he cuts peoples microphones off in the middle of arguements

He cuts them off for good reason, like when they change the nature of the debate, become rowdy, etc...

he constantly attacks people with opposing views.

And this surprises you?

At 2/10/06 08:41 PM, mackid wrote: But O-1 basic pay is pretty low--->2416.20 monthly (w/o benefits with less than 2 years of service) as compared to enlisted pay...oh wait...Enlisted pay doesn't come close until E-5 with 4 or 5 years of service. Not fair.

Officer pay is nothing special until about O-3. In general, it takes at least four years to become an officer. In that time an enlisted can make at least E-4 even if they screw up a lot and earn a salary comparable to an O-1.

Which is kinda annoying, cause Chiefs run the Navy (and Coast Guard). And Gunnys run the Marines. Or so I hear.

The truth is the NCO's are the backbone of any military service. Without them nothing would get done.

Darn, I can't wait to join the CG.

The Coast Guard is an amazing and diverse service that has a lot to offer anyone.

At 2/10/06 09:46 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Cadet pay does suck though.

My disposable income is $130/month.

I'd recommend going to a good college and then going OCS.

The Academies have arguably the best engineering programs in the nation and are consistenly rated very highly. But when you think of how much it costs to run an Academy, feed cadets, and pay them, it makes you wonder why they have them. In my opinion, the quality of the officers produced by any commissioning program are the same, but the difference it costs them almost half a million dollars to put me through the Academy as opposed to about $200,000 for an ROTC cadet.

Or even better, if you want to make a career of things, do a 4 year enlistment, go to college on your MGIB and then become an officer. It's no secret that prior enlisted Officers get far more respect than Academy grads.

Yes, the mustangs do get more respect, but I think that is due in part because most enlisted do not know much about the Academy. It is not easy. We go through basic and put up with the same shit that seamen do.

At 2/10/06 04:03 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Quit whining. Once you make O-1 you'll be making more money than most of the enlisted guys.

I was mostly kidding.

At 2/9/06 07:47 PM, PureCarnage wrote: Finally a politically charged flash by yours truely.

Let me know what you think.

http://newgrounds.com/portal/view/293483

Holy cow! That was awesome!

You made a great movie that really shines the light of truth and justice on an otherwise dark administration. You were right on about when Bush said he wanted to liberate Iraq and Afghanistan, he really meant liberate them of their arms and legs and make a whole new race of people like Hitler! And I think you were right about those generals. They probably spend all their time reading comics instead of worrying about the war. And your mocking of honorable US soldiers who bravely gave their lives and appendages was BRILLIANT! What more can I say?

I salute you because you are so cool. I love everything about this move and you. We should be together. Maybe after we impeach Bush we can get married. You had me at "penis is another word for dick."

At 2/10/06 12:30 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I really wish they'd stop spending so much on "advanced" technology and start spending a little to update the relics from the 70's. Oh yeah, pay raises for the enlisted too!

And cadets!

At 2/9/06 12:26 AM, Lucky_Mabey wrote: As a New Orleanian I think its lovely that he will spend four hundred billion pluss on Iraq but is against spending more than ninteen billion on my city. Black, White whatever he dosent care about us. But were proud New Orleanians we'll beat this with or without the whitehouse help we are used to seeing women tear up the place and leaving and Katrina is no different. Were comeing back.

Bush is actually planning on selling you back to the French. Your best choice now is to secede.

At 2/8/06 02:57 AM, JoS wrote: Just because the ebst schools are located in your country doesn't mean you general population isnt still naive.

I would say trying to insult the US is pretty naive.

At 2/7/06 12:50 PM, red_skunk wrote: I might threaten to kill and kidnap people, but I'll just be using it as an excuse to let out some pent-up rage.

That justifies nothing.

Will I be offended? Likely.

Am I going to burn down embassies and threaten to kill and kidnap people? Hell no.

At 2/6/06 09:32 PM, bradford1 wrote: What the fuck dude? This is a hypothetical war. We are the only ones who understand economic imperialism and genocide if that is what you mean.

Oh really? I apologize in advance for taking this off topic.

Name one instance of the US committing genocide, with the exception of Native Americans for several reasons.

At 2/6/06 05:06 PM, -poxpower- wrote: Well in any case, I do agree that most of the info I see to find on this man and his machine is made by geocities-esque websites that are dubious as fuck :o

I could have told you that. Oh wait -- I did.

I love the fact that Cindy Sheehan is a huge supporter of Chavez, yet he is a far bigger "warmonger" than Bush, and she hates everything war, right?