|
Posted By
|
Message
|
Radix
hot for teacher
Registered
01/10/2003
Points
3139
     
|
24th May, 2005 at 09:12:52 -
He said carriers are useless, I said they aren't, now he agrees they aren't. That's it I guess.
n/a
|
ChrisB
Crazy?
Registered
16/08/2002
Points
5457
|
24th May, 2005 at 10:34:16 -
Boats suck, spaceships are the future
n/a
|
JP
Registered
07/06/2003
Points
1338
|
24th May, 2005 at 16:00:18 -
You've got the comprehension of an aimbot text parser. I saw that you needed more clarification and in my second post I clarified myself. Now your main argument is something I fixed 6 posts ago but you're still bitching about it and filling the empty spaces with your own take on the matter.
"You very clearly stated that you think the carrier is a waste of resources. You did not qualify that you were referring to a specific use of the carrier; you made a general comment about the carrier being useless and now you're backpedalling."
I 'backpedaled' one post after I made the comment, quit whining.
"They aren't currently doing anything except dicking around in the pacific posing for pictures and glaring menacingly at n. korea and china. It's good when turkey and saudi arabia won't let us stage air operations to baghdad on their turf, but they aren't much use in the desert. That's why they're phasing out battle ships."
"Since you've stated you think carriers are useless, and battleships aren't carriers, the implication is you were suggesting all warships are being phased out.
You then talked about destroyers being phased out. Destroyers aren't battleships, further supporting the case that you don't know what you're talking about."
This is where I clarified my original thought, carriers such as the Regan have no business in the pacific and are a waste of resources, they are useful however when used in war.
Note that I specifically mention Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Baghdad one post before you say "Aircraft carriers were the primary stage for air assault during the iraq war. That's hardly useless."
At this point I should think that any implication or generalization has been corrected.
I also specifically say "That's why they're phasing out battle ships." There is no mention of phasing out carriers or warships, and this is intentional.
The next post is where you get confused I guess when you say "Phasing out warships? I'd like to see your source for that. "
So now you have changed the subject to warships in general being phased out, so I went out of my way to find you sourced. Warships includes battleships and destroyers, the only ones being phased out.
You then talked about destroyers being phased out. Destroyers aren't battleships, further supporting the case that you don't know what you're talking about.
Correct you are, destroyers aren't battleships, but at that point you had changed the discussion to warships, which I thought was an intentional move.
"So yes some warships are being phased out because all classes of the battleships are being phased out."
Some is not all. That's like saying "I don't eat fruit," and expecting everyone to know you were only talking about oranges.
And here is where you get your comments and my comments confused again, you were the first to mention warships, an err on your part.
" He said carriers are useless, I said they aren't, now he agrees they aren't. That's it I guess."
I said carriers in the pacific are useless, I still say carriers in the pacific are useless, That's it.
Steve Zissou: Anne-Marie, do all the interns get Glocks?
Anne-Marie: No, they have to share one.
|
Radix
hot for teacher
Registered
01/10/2003
Points
3139
|
24th May, 2005 at 16:22:59 -
Whatever dude, you aren't fooling anyone. The question remains as to why you were talking about battleships at all (if that is in fact what you meant: if you hadn't been talking about warhships in general you would have said "I wasn't talking about warships, only battlehips have been phased out")--their effectivess has absolutely nothing to do with the application of carriers; they aren't even standard CVBG vessels.
I said carriers in the pacific are useless, I still say carriers in the pacific are useless, That's it.
Carriers are actually far more useful in open water than in coastal assaults, which is a big reason China are doing everything they can to keep them out of the Taiwan Strait. It's in the Pacific because, as you may have noticed, there's a naval base there. Pearl Harbor is the HQ for the entire Pacific fleet. That's half the ocean.
If it's not involved in an active operation it doesn't matter where it is.
n/a
|
guri-n ha
Registered
16/04/2005
Points
245
|
24th May, 2005 at 16:25:57 -
i also like pizza 
n/a
|
defenestrator
Old
Registered
12/07/2003
Points
724
|
24th May, 2005 at 16:37:17 -
JP: I like boats!
Radix: Shut up, stupid asshole.
JP: What about the poor people?
Radix: Fuck everybody. I'm surly.
JP: Don't cry. 
Radix: You complete me.
*embrace*
n/a
|
Radix
hot for teacher
Registered
01/10/2003
Points
3139
|
24th May, 2005 at 16:44:32 -
Is this the slow-motion running embrace? I'm up for that.
But seriously, fuck etheopia.
guri-n ha: spamming every thread with your favourite foods isn't a smart idea.
n/a
|
defenestrator
Old
Registered
12/07/2003
Points
724
|
24th May, 2005 at 18:53:49 -
I was thinking sideflip to standing 69. But there's no reason we can't combine two great homoerotic ideas into one.
n/a
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
Post Reply