Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
Sat Jul 7, 2012, 03:00 AM Jul 2012

The American Navy: A Global Force for Good...

Well that is the slogan. But what does it really mean, a global force for good.

Perhaps the commercial is claiming that these aircraft carriers bring goodwill to the ports of the world.

Perhaps they are claiming that the US Navy, funded by the future earnings of American taxpayers, makes sure that it is safe for the massive container ships moving about the oceans laden with all those cheap imports to the US as well as oil to the US and other markets around the world.

In other words, we, the American taxpayers, are subsidizing the undermining of the US economy.

You see if we weren't borrowing so much money just to keep those shipping lanes open, the balance of trade would be much much lower.

That means the dollar would be worth more and could actually improve the chances of things being made here again in the good old US of A

Also, who are we keeping those trade lanes open for anyway.

Well there is that oil But it really is to keep all those trinkets and other doo dads that we need to feel like we are worth something.

A little esoteric for a friday night but pain killers and cough medicine brings about a certain kind of clarity that should not be stifled.

Anyway, think about it the next time you see that commercial for the US Navy. Makes you feel proud, or does it make you feel uncomfortable about subsidizing the free traders of the world who are doing their best to undermine the way of life for millions of Americans.

Of course Mitt and his "hard" line cronies get real excited when they see that commercial because they know that there is another mile driven between those pesky downtrodden masses and the enclaves their wealth has built has erected in the in between.

Or maybe it just makes you feel great that we have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.

They cost about $4.5 billion to make and at least half that much to keep out at sea. And remember, that doesn't cover the cost of the aircrafts that must tally up in the billions because they are specialty aircrafts.

The question we should all be asking is "Do we really need more aircraft carriers and the support ships that travel with, than all the rest of the world combined?"

China enjoys the safe transit of all those goods to the US for practically nothing as we supply the safety. Now I wouldn't mind if we were getting a little something for the effort, you know....

Don't get me completely wrong, I do find pride when the US is the first responders to natural disasters all over the world, in that sense we are a force for good...

Well it's late, the pain is creeping back so I want to fall asleep before it gets too much to sleep.

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The American Navy: A Global Force for Good... (Original Post) WCGreen Jul 2012 OP
The Navy was founded for the purpose HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #1
Of course it does, but it keeps the shipping lanes so that the world commerce can transport WCGreen Jul 2012 #2
Yes, but the US shipping fleet is so depleted HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #3
That's the point.... WCGreen Jul 2012 #19
Carriers are a convenient way of projecting US power, but oh so vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, leveymg Jul 2012 #4
Nobody that could is that dumb. loose wheel Jul 2012 #13
Might happen in a use 'em or lose 'em situation where the regime and IRGC were fighting for their leveymg Jul 2012 #18
That is one creepy commercial. It makes me think of pre WW-II Nazi propoganda 1-Old-Man Jul 2012 #5
G.I. beans warrprayer Jul 2012 #6
It certainly could be... Bigmack Jul 2012 #7
Maybe they should have 2 guys and a rowboat? PavePusher Jul 2012 #10
Smart-assed topic line aside.... Bigmack Jul 2012 #11
Over kill no not at all KatChatter Jul 2012 #15
Coverage is thin because we're trying to control the world..... Bigmack Jul 2012 #22
Good thoughts...K&R. CaliforniaPeggy Jul 2012 #8
They certainly are not the Peace Corps... kentuck Jul 2012 #9
Good. Next time there's an international disaster and you need humanitarian aid.... PavePusher Jul 2012 #12
What do you think I meant by my comment?? kentuck Jul 2012 #23
It appeared to be a accusation/insult towards the Navy. PavePusher Jul 2012 #24
I served in the Navy. mick063 Jul 2012 #14
How much is still classifed you ask KatChatter Jul 2012 #16
I too served in the Navy permatex Jul 2012 #20
Just for the record, the Navy is Constitutionally Madated KatChatter Jul 2012 #17
The value of the dollar PETRUS Jul 2012 #21
 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
1. The Navy was founded for the purpose
Sat Jul 7, 2012, 03:16 AM
Jul 2012

of protecting US shipping from other countries navies, and pirates. It still does that, in addition to disaster response.

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
2. Of course it does, but it keeps the shipping lanes so that the world commerce can transport
Sat Jul 7, 2012, 03:19 AM
Jul 2012

good to the US.

We make it safe so that all that stuff that is undercutting domestic industries can get here.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
3. Yes, but the US shipping fleet is so depleted
Sat Jul 7, 2012, 03:22 AM
Jul 2012

That most all goods shipped in and out of the US are on foreign-flagged vessels. They do look over the US fishing fleet thats in international waters.

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
19. That's the point....
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 09:10 AM
Jul 2012

They are keeping the shipping lanes open so that the other economies of the world can safely and cheaply keep flooding the US market with crap.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
4. Carriers are a convenient way of projecting US power, but oh so vulnerable to anti-ship missiles,
Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:35 AM
Jul 2012

particularly close to shore in places like the Persian Gulf.

It's a high-risk strategy, and the odds aren't good, when a $250,000 missile can sink a $5 billion ship.

 

loose wheel

(112 posts)
13. Nobody that could is that dumb.
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 02:09 AM
Jul 2012

Let's say somebody that has the ability to sink a NUCLEAR POWERED Aircraft carrier or guided missile cruiser that is patrolling off their coast decides to get froggy and jump.

#1. The US will respond. Any reasoning aside, any president that failed to respond would be pushed aside with haste for someone that would respond.

#2. Congratulations to them, they just damaged and sank a nuclear reactor. Off their own coast. Guess they didn't need access to the ocean or any fish for a few years

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
18. Might happen in a use 'em or lose 'em situation where the regime and IRGC were fighting for their
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 09:03 AM
Jul 2012

lives. Future ecological consequences wouldn't really seem to matter under such an end-game scenario.

I could see it happen if Israel or the US were to attack their large reactor at Busheur, which itself might have catastrophic results.

1-Old-Man

(2,667 posts)
5. That is one creepy commercial. It makes me think of pre WW-II Nazi propoganda
Sat Jul 7, 2012, 09:40 AM
Jul 2012

Do we live in the good Motherland where all our country does is benevolent? I think not. And why is our Navy allowed to do this feel-good advertising for itself with our tax dollars. Creepy, creepy. Fascism marches on ....

 

Bigmack

(8,020 posts)
7. It certainly could be...
Sat Jul 7, 2012, 10:33 AM
Jul 2012

It certainly could be a force for good.

But...

Like everything American, we take something... obsess on it.. and turn it into something else.

Seriously.. 325,000 people... 283 ships...11 aircraft carrier groups... 71 subs (18 of which carry MIRV nuclear missiles) ...

A bit of overkill, no?

It's for intimidation more than for good.

 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
10. Maybe they should have 2 guys and a rowboat?
Sat Jul 7, 2012, 12:23 PM
Jul 2012

Seriously, do you have any idea how over-extended they currently are?

 

Bigmack

(8,020 posts)
11. Smart-assed topic line aside....
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 01:33 AM
Jul 2012

..no... wait a minute. Let's deal with the smart ass line about 2 guys and a rowboat.

WTF! Is that anything like I intimated? I'm talking by far the most powerful Navy in history, and you fucking think I'm implying that we should cut back to 2 guys and a rowboat?

That's fucked up! It's insulting and it's totally irrational. Can't you argue in terms other than all-or-nothing?

Of course the Navy is over-extended. And you think somehow that the Marines and Army aren't... is that it? Hell... they are all over-extended. That's because the US is over-extended. Multiple deployments, Reserves in combat, troop suicides....

We can't afford an Empire anymore. We can't afford - in terms of money and in terms of personnel - to police the whole world anymore.

How about we just try to police 1/2 the world..? Could we cut back just a little..?

Or do you want to go with the dumbshit "2 guys and the rowboat" line?

 

KatChatter

(194 posts)
15. Over kill no not at all
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 06:16 AM
Jul 2012

1/3 of the fleet is out to sea at all time, another 1/3 in getting ready to go to see and the other 1/3 is just getting back.

When the planet is over 70% water with less then 100 ships out at any one time, the coverage is pretty thin.

 

Bigmack

(8,020 posts)
22. Coverage is thin because we're trying to control the world.....
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 10:12 AM
Jul 2012

How much "coverage" does Germany have...? Hell, how much "coverage" does China have, with their one carrier...?

How about a little change of paradigm? Cut down our "coverage" and see how that works.

 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
12. Good. Next time there's an international disaster and you need humanitarian aid....
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 02:09 AM
Jul 2012

don't call on the military.

Call the Peace Corps and see how much tonnage they can haul to the affected area.

kentuck

(111,667 posts)
23. What do you think I meant by my comment??
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 10:14 AM
Jul 2012

about not being the Peace Corps? How did you interpret that?

 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
24. It appeared to be a accusation/insult towards the Navy.
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 04:17 PM
Jul 2012

If I grossly misinterpreted your intent, you have my abject apology.

In my defense, there have been a number of virulent and baselessly slanderous anti-military comments on DU recently, and your post could easily be interpreted as accusatory. One of the downfalls of electronic communication is that tone is not always readily apparent, especially in such short messages.

Aagin, sorry if I jumped to an incorrect conclusion.

 

mick063

(2,424 posts)
14. I served in the Navy.
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 04:57 AM
Jul 2012


Best schooling I have ever had and I've attended quite a few classes in my day.


I was a sonar technician at the height of the cold war. Operations and maintenance on two different sonar suites.

Don't know how much of the 30+ year old stuff is still classified, but I will just say that we were very, very good at what we did.


The proof is in the pudding. I earned my "patriotic" stripes. The Teabaggers have nothing on me when it comes to being a "patriot".

Indeed, I am sickened with how they sport their "patriotic" image to tear this nation apart. It is worse (or akin) to the controversial fellow that falsified his service record to indicate he had achieved fictional commendations. Similarly, Teabaggers are "falsified" patriots. They are no different. They dilute the word and believe they are patriots because FOX News tells them so. In reality, they are our great nation's demise.
 

KatChatter

(194 posts)
16. How much is still classifed you ask
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 06:19 AM
Jul 2012

it depends on what you did, seeing that you did O&M I would guess you wear dolphins and if you do everything you did is still classified, you can still neither confirm nor deny.

 

permatex

(1,299 posts)
20. I too served in the Navy
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 09:26 AM
Jul 2012

I was trained as a Corpsman and served with the 1stBN 26th Marines at Khe Sanh in 68 and then I took my Navy training to the civillian world and used it to join the Phoenix Fire Dept. when I got discharged.
So, yes, in my opinion, the U.S. Navy is a force for global good.

 

KatChatter

(194 posts)
17. Just for the record, the Navy is Constitutionally Madated
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 06:24 AM
Jul 2012

in fact it is the ONLY service that is required to have full time funding. Per the Constitution the Army can only be funded for 2 years at a time.

Baggers love to scream 'Follow the Constitution' and if we did our only military force would be the US Navy/USMC, the Army would have to many funding issues to be funded full time and the USAF is not in the Constitution either so it would just go away.

PETRUS

(3,678 posts)
21. The value of the dollar
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 10:09 AM
Jul 2012

This isn't to contradict your main point (about the role of the US military in the global economy), but in your post you wrote:

"the dollar would be worth more and could actually improve the chances of things being made here again in the good old US of A."

It's actually the other way around. A stronger dollar makes imports cheaper. And the impact is significant. A 2% move in the value of the dollar is worth about a million manufacturing jobs.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The American Navy: A Glob...