Please Oppose Tyrrany before it's too late ! ! !
brendar...@my-deja.com
>
People who are blaming the USS Cole Massacre on
lax security are the joke of the century. One thing
for sure, it has betrayed the genuine nature of a
Bush Administration. With National Security Terrorist
Oliver North swinging the bat and Attorney General
Starr calling the shots, expect tyranny.
http://mypage.goplay.com/koppel/clint.htm
Please excuse this intrusion, but it is not
possible to compete with this:
Edward Straight, chairman of Bush's internet
operations staff, said his organization's latest
research shows that fully 80 percent of messages
favorable to Bush on Bush message boards are put
there by paid staff of the Bush Campaign. Upwards
of 40 percent of pro-Bush messages posted on other
non-Bush controlled boards are posted by hired
Bush public relations personnel, Straight said.
The entire operation is run out of basement offices
in a downtown Pittsburgh, Pa. bank, Straight reports.
"the cost advantages of this kind of campaign are
enormous," said Straight. "For a few hundred thousand
dollars we have been able to hire nearly 400 internet
users to repost our campaign materials and to maintain
a presence on all message boards."
"Make no mistake about it," Straight said, "The postings
you see extolling and defending the candidacy of George
W. Bush Jr. are not for the most part posted by amateurs
-- they're paid professional and there are a lot of them.
We think they're doing a bang up job."
http://mypage.goplay.com/koppel/clint.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Docky Wocky
Nobody told me I could get paid to trash these current SOBs.
Joe Krolikowski
brendar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
>
> People who are blaming the USS Cole Massacre on
> lax security are the joke of the century.
Yeah, right. You just keep on believing that, O expert on the Sea and
Anchor Detail.
Joe Krolikowski
The Bruce
news:39FAE482...@mediaone.net...
From everything I've heard on the bombing, that little boat shouldn't have
been allowed within 100 meters of the Cole; it should have been blown out of
the water by then, having already ignored repeated warnings.
Of course, I could be wrong; I was a Grunt, after all, not a Squid. But if I
were skippering a ship like that into a harbor like Aden, I'd have
full-scale deck security running 24/7 until I raised anchor & split for
Bahrain.
--
bye for now,
The Bruce
On Election Day, Vote Liberty, or don't vote at all.
Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the World
Then the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled (Neil Peart]
http://www.lp.org -- Libertarian Party
http://www.norml.org -- National Organization For The Reform Of Marijuana
Laws
http://www.aclu.org -- American Civil Liberties Union
http://www.fija.org -- Fully Informed Jurors Association
Joe Krolikowski
> Joe Krolikowski <jkroli...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:39FAE482...@mediaone.net...
>
> > brendar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > People who are blaming the USS Cole Massacre on
> > > lax security are the joke of the century.
>
> > Yeah, right. You just keep on believing that, O expert on the Sea
> > and Anchor Detail.
>
> From everything I've heard on the bombing, that little boat shouldn't have
> been allowed within 100 meters of the Cole; it should have been blown out of
> the water by then, having already ignored repeated warnings.
Quite so. When I was in the Navy, even the liberty launches were checked out
before they came within spitting distance of the accomodation ladders. This is
during the early 80's when the terrorists were far more visibly active than they
are today.
Given the current political climate, you *could* call what happened to Cole the
result of fostering amity, or an isolated incident, or somesuch excuse, but to
me and my shipmates, it's simply a case of letting your guard down.
> Of course, I could be wrong; I was a Grunt, after all, not a Squid.
As you can tell from my remarks, I was a Squid, but you're absolutely right.
> But if I were skippering a ship like that into a harbor like Aden, I'd have
> full-scale deck security running 24/7 until I raised anchor & split for
> Bahrain.
Quite so. This includes roving patrols with M-16's and low-light gear at night,
as well as actively manning the Phalanx system.
Joe Krolikowski
mongo78
Cole incident, wherein the author decried the Cole's lack of armor
plating. The article stated the hull thickness at the point of the
explosion was 1/2", although I seem to recall other sources indicating
it was 1" steel. The author claimed to have served abord the USS
Wisconsin during the Gulf War (I cleaned out my car and pitched the
paper with the article, but I will get the cite off the paper's web
page and post it later).
Any thoughts on this? I seem to remember similar discussions when the
USS Stark was hit by the Iraqi Exocet (?) back in the 80's. For
reasons of cost an fuel economy, it seems that surface ships are being
built without adequate armor protection. That's not to say they need
the same degree of protection as an Iowa-class battleship, but maybe
we have skimped a little too much.
Donald R. McGregor
mongo78 <MON...@NOSPAAM-AOL.COM> wrote:
>Any thoughts on this? I seem to remember similar discussions when the
>USS Stark was hit by the Iraqi Exocet (?) back in the 80's. For
>reasons of cost an fuel economy, it seems that surface ships are being
>built without adequate armor protection. That's not to say they need
Armor is largely irrelevant these days. It made sense back when
the primary weapon used against surface ships was large caliber
cannon, but not when the most likely weapon is a high speed
missile loaded with TNT. It's far better to use the weight
adding defensive measures such as electronic systems, defensive
guns, anti-sub capability, or mounts for .50 MGs to deal with
speedboats.
>>
>
--
Don McGregor | Gore2000: Imagine a Birkenstock in your face--forever.
mcg...@mbay.net |
Zepp, Weasel Sea Shells by the Sea Shore
wrote:
>On a related note - I caught an article in Thursday's paper about the
>Cole incident, wherein the author decried the Cole's lack of armor
>plating. The article stated the hull thickness at the point of the
>explosion was 1/2", although I seem to recall other sources indicating
>it was 1" steel. The author claimed to have served abord the USS
>Wisconsin during the Gulf War (I cleaned out my car and pitched the
>paper with the article, but I will get the cite off the paper's web
>page and post it later).
Half-inch? Did they have that ship designed by the same people who
brought us the K-car? What's that thing supposed to do during
hostilities? Just sink without a trace?
**********************************
"We already have a hate crimes law in Texas"
--GW Bush, shouting incoherant lies when confronted with
his administration's dismal human rights record.
For commentary on all things liberal/leftist: http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
Links to hundreds of left wing areas: http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
****************************************
Joe Krolikowski
"Donald R. McGregor" wrote:
> In article <jfcnvscrorhvo2bnr...@4ax.com>,
> mongo78 <MON...@NOSPAAM-AOL.COM> wrote:
> >Any thoughts on this? I seem to remember similar discussions when the
> >USS Stark was hit by the Iraqi Exocet (?) back in the 80's. For
> >reasons of cost an fuel economy, it seems that surface ships are being
> >built without adequate armor protection. That's not to say they need
> >we have skimped a little too much.
>
> Armor is largely irrelevant these days.
Not entirely. In conjunction with watertight compartments, the purpose is to
limit damage and keep the ship afloat.
> It made sense back when the primary weapon used against surface ships was
> large caliber cannon, but not when the most likely weapon is a high speed
> missile loaded with TNT. It's far better to use the weight adding defensive
> measures such as electronic systems, defensive guns, anti-sub capability,
> or mounts for .50 MGs to deal with speedboats.
Sure, if you want your line ships to be sunk, or irreparably damaged with the
first shot.
If so, then what's the point of such ships in the first place? Ships
designed to sail into harm's way have to have the ability to absorb some
punishment, as well as dish it out.
Joe Krolikowski
silverback
McGregor) wrote:
>In article <jfcnvscrorhvo2bnr...@4ax.com>,
>mongo78 <MON...@NOSPAAM-AOL.COM> wrote:
>>Any thoughts on this? I seem to remember similar discussions when the
>>USS Stark was hit by the Iraqi Exocet (?) back in the 80's. For
>>reasons of cost an fuel economy, it seems that surface ships are being
>>built without adequate armor protection. That's not to say they need
>>we have skimped a little too much.
>
>Armor is largely irrelevant these days. It made sense back when
>the primary weapon used against surface ships was large caliber
>cannon, but not when the most likely weapon is a high speed
>missile loaded with TNT. It's far better to use the weight
>adding defensive measures such as electronic systems, defensive
>guns, anti-sub capability, or mounts for .50 MGs to deal with
>speedboats.
Sounds an awfully lot like puting rear view mirrors on a geo metro and
proclaiming it safe.
>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Don McGregor | Gore2000: Imagine a Birkenstock in your face--forever.
>mcg...@mbay.net |
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
Get your free election flyer to hand out or email at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/lies.htm
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/bushrat.html
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/dickandgeorge.html
*********************************************
Joe Krolikowski
mongo78 wrote:
> On a related note - I caught an article in Thursday's paper about the
> Cole incident, wherein the author decried the Cole's lack of armor
> plating. The article stated the hull thickness at the point of the
> explosion was 1/2", although I seem to recall other sources indicating
> it was 1" steel.
I caught that as well, and I'll tell you; it sure struck me as strange. I've seen
the pictures of the damage that were released to the news media, and from what I can
tell, there was more than a mere 1/2" of armor plate, but not all that much.
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd call it 2 or 3 inches. Anything less would be like
building a house out of 1x lumber and balsa wood sheeting.
> The author claimed to have served abord the USS Wisconsin during the Gulf War (I
> cleaned out my car and pitched the paper with the article, but I will get the cite
> off the paper's web page and post it later).
The inference here is that Wisconsin is of the same ship class as Cole. I'd have to
do some checking on that. If not, such a comparison would be of only limited value.
> Any thoughts on this? I seem to remember similar discussions when the USS Stark
> was hit by the Iraqi Exocet (?) back in the 80's.
Actually, Stark took a tougher hit than Cole did. Stark took an Exocet under the
port bridge wing and one that went clear through the hull amidships. The concern
then was that a more severe list would cause the ship to capsize.
> For reasons of cost an fuel economy, it seems that surface ships are being built
> without adequate armor protection.
For a ship that is supposed to sail into harm's way, this is bad thinking. Fuel
economy, while good, is not, or rather, should not be the prime consideration of
design or construction. Such ships need to possess the ability to absorb some
punishment as well as dish it out.
> That's not to say they need the same degree of protection as an Iowa-class
> battleship, but maybe we have skimped a little too much.
The Iowa class battlewagons had a full 12" of class B armor plate at the waterline.
Had that been the case with Cole, I doubt the ship would have taken the damage that
she did.
Joe Krolikowski
Billy Beck
Joe Krolikowski <jkroli...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>mongo78 wrote:
>
>> On a related note - I caught an article in Thursday's paper about the
>> Cole incident, wherein the author decried the Cole's lack of armor
>> plating. The article stated the hull thickness at the point of the
>> explosion was 1/2", although I seem to recall other sources indicating
>> it was 1" steel.
>
>I caught that as well, and I'll tell you; it sure struck me as strange. I've seen
>the pictures of the damage that were released to the news media, and from what I can
>tell, there was more than a mere 1/2" of armor plate, but not all that much.
>
>If I were to hazard a guess, I'd call it 2 or 3 inches. Anything less would be like
>building a house out of 1x lumber and balsa wood sheeting.
>
>> The author claimed to have served abord the USS Wisconsin during the Gulf War (I
>> cleaned out my car and pitched the paper with the article, but I will get the cite
>> off the paper's web page and post it later).
>
>The inference here is that Wisconsin is of the same ship class as Cole. I'd have to
>do some checking on that. If not, such a comparison would be of only limited value.
Wisconsin is a 52,000 ton BB. Cole is an 8300 ton DDG. Not even
close.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html