Comment: That is nonsensical

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: What ? (see in situ)

That is nonsensical

First, while the Consitution provides for a standing Navy, it does not define their duties as protecting shipping lanes for corporations. That old mantra of protecting shipping in all oceans was created to build ships, etc... - pure military industrial complex. That is what companies like XE should be hired to do. Furthermore, citizens abroad have the "protection" of our embassies, sometimes, but for the most part they are on thier own. We don't use the Army to follow tourist around Thailand, stopping every mugging. Your whole point is wrong, and absurd.

And the idea that we bolster the Army over the Navy is not at all absurd. When is the last time there was a naval battle?....Yup, WWII (not counting the Israeli ambush of the Liberty). Yes, the Navy warships are absolutely valuable in our current methods of warfare. Yes, when attacking a country, as missle and mobile aircraft launch bases they are extremely valuable. But, after the initial invasion/attack they are not used hardly at all. It is not absurd if you have limited resources to provide more for the men doing, you know, the actual fighting. What are your fellow Seamen doing off the coast of Afghanistan right now? Swabbing decks and waiting for the next invasion so they can fire their big gun?

Anectdotal story: When I was handing out info with some Vets Against Iraq War in a city park, long ago, the men that came up and yelled at them for being unpatriotic and traitors were 9 out of 10 times Navy vets. These Iraq vets had been soldiers and marines in an invasion while they spent 4 years off the coast of Vietnam or Panama or wherever protected by 4 inches of steel. What is it about you Navy guys?

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain