Archive through July 11, 2003 Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search
Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

M-SO Message Board » The Attic (1999-2002) » Soapbox » Archive through July 25, 2003 » U.S.S. REAGAN » Archive through July 11, 2003 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

FOUR STAR STRAW
Citizen
Username: Strawberry

Post Number: 906
Registered: 10-2001
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 6:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

On July 12, 2003, the USS Ronald Reagan, the most modern and sophisticated aircraft carrier in the world is to be commissioned. Reagan is 1,092 feet long, and will be home to 6,000 sailors, carry more than 80 aircraft and cruise at speeds in excess of 30 knots."

"Nothing testifies more to Reagan's legacy, and his belief that only a strong America will be a free America, than the USS Ronald Reagan. "

An honor indeed. This very fine President deserves his ship, and he deserves our applause. Thank You Mr. President for serving our nation. You were one of a kind. A grateful nation salutes you!

"We have the money, we have the power, we have the population, and most importantly if we want, we can take you down as well."

-Strawberry/ Star Ledger, Sunday June 22, 2003


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn

Post Number: 1574
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 7:14 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Very good Straw. I knew you would get around to posting the latest travesty in the naming our most important surface warships. My God, Reagan, unlike James Stewart, couldn't even be bothered to serve in WW II.

I think it is an insult to all Americans that have faced our enemies in battle that the naming of aircraft carriers has descended to the level of vanity license plates.

At the time of WW II, battleships, until that time, our most important naval weapons, were named for states and states would have money-raising drives to help pay for "their" battleship.

Aircraft carrier names were a bit less consistent, but generally commemorated capability or historical victories by the American people.

We have a long list of fabled ship names to chose from - Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, Hornet, Wasp, Yorktown, Intrepid, Essex, Bunker Hill, Franklin, Princeton, Tarawa, Philippine Sea, Leyte - the list is much longer, all great fighting ships representing the teamwork of Americans. Why do we have to name ships after politicians, some of whom never did anything braver than confront a hostile press corps?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

FOUR STAR STRAW
Citizen
Username: Strawberry

Post Number: 908
Registered: 10-2001
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 8:32 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

tjohn,

well, I think we probably lowered the bar once we named a carrier the U.S.S. Kennedy. Anyway, this thread was written with you in mind.
"We have the money, we have the power, we have the population, and most importantly if we want, we can take you down as well."

-Strawberry/ Star Ledger, Sunday June 22, 2003


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk

Post Number: 3207
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 8:53 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In fairness since the Navy has seen fit to start naming carriers after Presidents and other government officials (the John Stennis was the low point imho) it is hard to disagree with naming a carrier Reagan who was a big supporter of the military and on whose watch the Soviet Union collaspsed.

The early WWII era carriers were named for historical ships in the US Navy and historical battles and I would like to see these ships still named this way. But then I don't have to worry about getting my share of the defense budget. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer

Post Number: 1626
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 9:47 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My real problem with this is naming such things after someone who is still alive. It's nowhere near as bad as the Brendan Byrne Arena, but I do think it's distasteful.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn

Post Number: 1577
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 9:53 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bobk,

Our attack subs used to be named after predator fish (Tarpon, Wahoo, Tang, Marlin, etc.), but now they are named after cities. Admiral Rickover's purported observation, in response to critics of this change, was, "Fish don't vote". I suppose the same is true of naming carriers after famous ships or battles versus politicians.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

jeffl
Citizen
Username: Jeffl

Post Number: 142
Registered: 8-2001
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 10:01 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, somebody's gonna say it so it may as well be me...
How about the SS Clinton. What could be more appropriate than naming something after President Clinton that will be filled with seamen?

Sorry, had to do it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk

Post Number: 3208
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 10:04 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Tj - Prior to the SSNs being named for cities, city names were used for cruisers. The new Aegis cruisers are now being named for battles such as Normandy and Bunker Hill, replacing the use of these names on carriers. LOL

Are they still naming destroyers and frigates after, mostly, navy heros?

Larry, I agree.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carl Thompson
Citizen
Username: Topcat

Post Number: 4
Registered: 4-2003


Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 10:08 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Has anyone read Michael Korda’s book about the publishing industry? Korda was a senior editor at Simon & Schuster for decades and has fascinating stories on many topics, including celebrity authors.

Korda was the editor responsible for Reagan’s autobiography, which, of course, was actually ghost-written. He recounts a meeting at Reagan’s ranch involving himself, Reagan, the ghostwriter and several staffers from both sides. As Korda was trying to focus on important issues about the manuscript, Reagan passed a plate of chocolate-chip cookies around the conference table. Korda then noticed that Reagan became disengaged from the meeting and instead focused all his attention on the cookies, apparently hoping one would still be left when the plate returned. Shortly after the plate came back empty, Reagan excused himself to go horseback riding, leaving the others to finish the work and make the important decisions.

I suspect this was typical of how things transpired during Reagan’s terms in office.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero

Post Number: 1807
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 10:18 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Reagan Administration: "That's okay, Mr. Saddam, if you used those chemical weapons in your war. We can still be friends."
RumsfeldHandshake
Above: Pres. Hussein greets Pres. Reagan's envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, December, 1983.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Insite
Citizen
Username: Insite

Post Number: 80
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 12:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nohero,

Oh, I get it, since Rumsfeld once did business with Hussein 20 years ago, that means he needs to continue being friendly with him. How foolish. Stop surfing the net for useless crap like that.

Carl thompson,

If you ever spend one second studying Reagan you'll learn the man was very uncomfortable discussing himself or his life. The fact his father was the town drunk gave him a very unpleasent childhood. As a result of this miserable beginning he strived and climbed and fought his way to the top. To those who knew him well he was described as a down to earth, friendly and an extremely modest man. He was also quite intelligent. A publishing "editor" recounting Reagans's life would certainly make a man such as he uncomfortable.

Unlike Hillary of course, who loves talking about herself and signing thousands of autographs for eight million dollars.



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn

Post Number: 1579
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 1:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think the larger point about our past dealings with Hussein is that all governments have a tendency to work with the Devil when it suits them and then to act like raped virgins when the Devil switches sides.

Perhaps we should set some standards with regard to dealing with monsters to avoid the situation we have with Hussein and had in the past with Noriega.

It's one thing to deal with a person you don't particularly like. It's quite another to deal with somebody as clearly monstrous as Saddam. I doubt that there was ever any doubt about just how nasty Saddam has always been.

In fairness to Bush, it should be noted that this practice of consorting with the Devil is a bipartisan thing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

FOUR STAR STRAW
Citizen
Username: Strawberry

Post Number: 909
Registered: 10-2001
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 3:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I've seen that pic before. Rumsy has been around since the Nixon years. He's met just about everyone whose ever ruled anything over the last 40 years or so as a result. Just another reason why when this man speaks, you listen. Even, if you don't agree with him.


"We have the money, we have the power, we have the population, and most importantly if we want, we can take you down as well."

-Strawberry/ Star Ledger, Sunday June 22, 2003


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

#9Dream
Citizen
Username: 9dream

Post Number: 465
Registered: 12-2002


Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 3:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

ESPECIALLY if you don't agree with him.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero

Post Number: 1810
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 3:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually, Insite missed my point. I was just trying to inject a little current events into the Reagan hagiography which started this thread.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer

Post Number: 1628
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 4:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A real democrat would never shake hands with a brutal dictator.
stalin
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn

Post Number: 1581
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 4:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hitler was such a problem that Churchill said something like this in response to the rabid anti-USSR critics who disliked the cooperation with Stalin.

"If Hitler were to invade Hell, I would have a kind word for the Devil."

Of course, the USSR lost 20 million to the Nazis. I would say they earned a place at the bargaining table.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tuscano
Citizen
Username: Tuscano

Post Number: 66
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 6:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Dingleberry: JFK (the person, not the ship) was indeed a war hero--this in spite of the PT109 book and movie hype. Your boy Ronnie spent the war years narrating training films on Melrose Avenue, although, during his political career, he did fictionalize his service record to the point of claiming he's personally liberated concentration camps. What a prince; I can see why you so admire him.
__________________________________________________
"I have an annuity, I have an ISP, I have time to kill, and most importantly, I don't have a thought in my head..."
--Six Cylinder Dingleberry
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk

Post Number: 3209
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 7:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I believe that Reagan was 4-F because of poor eyesight and I don't believe I am defending the guy

A surprising number of Hollywood stars did go of to war. Jimmy Stewart is the best known, but Sterling Hayden (OK a minor star) served with distinction in the OSS and I believe Tyrone Power was a Marine aviator, although I don't know if he saw action. I am sure there were others.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aaron Friedman
Citizen
Username: Java_drinker

Post Number: 218
Registered: 8-2002
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 10:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hell, Elvis served too, but that was before he became a bloted, drug addicted, Nixon patsy.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Credits Administration