USS Gabrielle Giffords - The Poll

[Safiel]

We are needing many more

There is never a taxi around when you need it

I would like to know what the hell we were doing with all those extra ships when we had them. Today, we field a Navy that has more tonnage than the next thirteen Navies COMBINED!!! And that is AFTER we have gotten rid of roughly 320 ships!!!

I sometimes have to question the very sanity of government types. Not just their judgement, but their very sanity.

Reagan was a very good President in many ways, but the whole 600 ship thing was definitely not the stellar pick among his ideas.

[Crossriflesonblue]

I would like to know what the hell we were doing with all those extra ships when we had them. Today, we field a Navy that has more tonnage than the next thirteen Navies COMBINED!!! And that is AFTER we have gotten rid of roughly 320 ships!!!

I sometimes have to question the very sanity of government types. Not just their judgement, but their very sanity.

Reagan was a very good President in many ways, but the whole 600 ship thing was definitely not the stellar pick among his ideas.

The number of Soviet Combat Ships in the Mid 80's was somewhere around 2500. An imbalance that was an obvious cause for concern when you take the stated goals of the Comintern into account.

[Safiel]

The number of Soviet Combat Ships in the Mid 80's was somewhere around 2500. An imbalance that was an obvious cause for concern when you take the stated goals of the Comintern into account.

Even at the height of the Soviet Union's militarization in the 1980's, there were never really a match for us, with the notable exception of submarine warfare. They had only one modern carrier and were building their second when the Soviet Union collapsed. During that same period of time, we had 14/15 carriers. We were at 521 ships at the time Reagan proposed the 600 ship Navy, so the buildup was relatively modest at best, although I still consider it unnecessary, as we were always eons ahead of the Soviets as far as blue water warfare was concerned. The Soviet Union would have collapsed with or without our naval buildup.

Quality, as opposed to quantity is the hallmark of the United States Navy. We may only have 283 vessels today, but they are they elite class of the world. This was reflected in the joint policies of Clinton/Bush II/Obama. Clinton guided us down initially and Bush II completed the job of reduction and Obama has stayed the course. There is no serious call by anybody today for a Naval buildup, simply because it is plainly obvious that, at 283 ships, we still outclass the entire world by many orders of magnitude.

[DapperDan]

Even at the height of the Soviet Union's militarization in the 1980's, there were never really a match for us, with the notable exception of submarine warfare. They had only one modern carrier and were building their second when the Soviet Union collapsed. During that same period of time, we had 14/15 carriers. We were at 521 ships at the time Reagan proposed the 600 ship Navy, so the buildup was relatively modest at best, although I still consider it unnecessary, as we were always eons ahead of the Soviets as far as blue water warfare was concerned. The Soviet Union would have collapsed with or without our naval buildup.

Quality, as opposed to quantity is the hallmark of the United States Navy. We may only have 283 vessels today, but they are they elite class of the world. This was reflected in the joint policies of Clinton/Bush II/Obama. Clinton guided us down initially and Bush II completed the job of reduction and Obama has stayed the course. There is no serious call by anybody today for a Naval buildup, simply because it is plainly obvious that, at 283 ships, we still outclass the entire world by many orders of magnitude.

Not sure what counts as a "serious call", but Romney--one of the two people who could be Pres in 2013--thinks we should be buildig a lot more:

"He will put our Navy on the path to increase its shipbuilding rate from nine per year to approximately fifteen per year."

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/national-defense

This seems like political pandering to me, but he might just be serious. Hard to tell with Romney (or Obama for that matter).

[Crossriflesonblue]

Even at the height of the Soviet Union's militarization in the 1980's, there were never really a match for us, with the notable exception of submarine warfare. They had only one modern carrier and were building their second when the Soviet Union collapsed. During that same period of time, we had 14/15 carriers. We were at 521 ships at the time Reagan proposed the 600 ship Navy, so the buildup was relatively modest at best, although I still consider it unnecessary, as we were always eons ahead of the Soviets as far as blue water warfare was concerned. The Soviet Union would have collapsed with or without our naval buildup.

Quality, as opposed to quantity is the hallmark of the United States Navy. We may only have 283 vessels today, but they are they elite class of the world. This was reflected in the joint policies of Clinton/Bush II/Obama. Clinton guided us down initially and Bush II completed the job of reduction and Obama has stayed the course. There is no serious call by anybody today for a Naval buildup, simply because it is plainly obvious that, at 283 ships, we still outclass the entire world by many orders of magnitude.

Depends on the situation and tactics during the 80's, part of our commitments involved the Baltic, Med and Northern Pacific, those OA's didn't require a Russian Blue Water Navy.... you seemed to wonder what the Naval experts of the 80's were thinking..I answered

[RWReaganfan]

I would like to know what the hell we were doing with all those extra ships when we had them. Today, we field a Navy that has more tonnage than the next thirteen Navies COMBINED!!! And that is AFTER we have gotten rid of roughly 320 ships!!!

I sometimes have to question the very sanity of government types. Not just their judgement, but their very sanity.

Reagan was a very good President in many ways, but the whole 600 ship thing was definitely not the stellar pick among his ideas.

The 600 ship Navy was actually the plan of Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, Jim Webb, now a blue-dog Democrat Senator from Virginia. He quit because the 600 ship Navy idea was scrapped.

[PhantomPholly]

Can you say "Slippery Slope"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1456486.html

OMG. And just what was his "heroic accomplishment???"

Let the off-color jokes begin...

[blue fox]

OMG. And just what was his "heroic accomplishment???"

Let the off-color jokes begin...

I notice that he served as the diving officer in the Navy

[PhantomPholly]

I notice that he served as the diving officer in the Navy

They weren't recommending him for the honor for anything he may have done in the Navy, so why even mention it?

[PhantomPholly]

Here's another Vet more deserving of having a ship named after him than Gabby Giffords. Silver Star, 2-time Purple Heart. No offensive content.

[PhantomPholly]

I notice that he served as the diving officer in the Navy

Here it is. His "heroic deed" was to get shot by a disgruntled ex-employee, and even the Gay community it appears does not want a ship named after him.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews

[Quetzalcoatl]

Oops, I voted the wrong way. I don't want anything named after her. Shot or not, she advocated watered-down amnesty.

[PhantomPholly]

Oops, I voted the wrong way. I don't want anything named after her. Shot or not, she advocated watered-down amnesty.

So are you saying that if she hadn't voted for Amnesty you would consider being shot an "act of valor" of such merit that one of our Nation's 500 ships should be named after a person?

Man, think of all those mugging victims in New York. They'll have to wait thousands of years for their ship...

[PurpleK]

And of course, this is not to toot my own horn. There are many more deserving than me.

Thank you for your service........and for your committment.