Jimmy Carter Attack Sub Armed With Nerf Missiles!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I know why this submarine was named for him being the Nuclear Navy man he was, but has he sure turned into a dingbat. How would you like to serve on that one?

Funny and Ironic!


American Seahare-class subs

The U.S. Navy on Saturday will commission its newest nuclear-powered attack submarine, the Jimmy Carter, with many new features, including multiple-warhead Nerf missiles.

President Carter, who brought peace to the middle east, vigorously defended America's right to give away the Panama Canal and, in 1994, convinced North Korea to abandon talking about its nuclear weapons, said he's honored to have his name on "one of the most powerful peacemaking devices on earth."

Jimmy Carter is the first of the American Seahare-class subs, featuring a high-tech sonar system which alerts enemy forces to its presence and a safety device on the Nerf missiles which allows firing only after an enemy missile impact.

"This new generation of nuclear submarines is designed to use trust in our enemies as our first line of defense," said an unnamed Navy spokesman.

President Carter has invited leaders from North Korea and Iran to the commissioning ceremony, during which former First Lady Rosalyn Carter, in a time-honored Navy tradition, will give the first order to "man our ship, bring her to life then park her over there by the dock!"


link




posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Not quite sure what the point of this thread is but I will post anyway. I sure George W Bush will have a dingy full of holes named after him.

Dose the US navy name ships after world leaders ? If so it wont be long before we see the USS Tony Blair and USS John Howard.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Not quite sure what the point of this thread is but I will post anyway. I sure George W Bush will have a dingy full of holes named after him.

Dose the US navy name ships after world leaders ? If so it wont be long before we see the USS Tony Blair and USS John Howard.


Well I guess the point of the thread was just how odd it is that one of if not the most advanced submarine in the World is named after a man who cohorts with his nations enemies. Ironic isn't it?

As for the other, we have a Winston Churchill so why not? I like ships named after people that have shown they have balls.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   


Well I guess the point of the thread was just how odd it is that one of if not the most advanced submarine in the World is named after a man who cohorts with his nations enemies. Ironic isn't it?

As for the other, we have a Winston Churchill so why not? I like ships named after people that have shown they have balls.


Come on Jimmy Carter wasnt that bad I doubt a repubilan could have stopped the oil prices from going up in the 70s. At least he didnt start any misadventures (Vietnam! ) and disgrace the whitehouse (Watergate!)

I am amazed an American knows who John Howard is.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

Come on Jimmy Carter wasnt that bad I doubt a repubilan could have stopped the oil prices from going up in the 70s. At least he didnt start any misadventures (Vietnam! ) and disgrace the whitehouse (Watergate!)

I am amazed an American knows who John Howard is.


Carter was terrible, the reason Reagan had so much success was that he following the spineless Carter and made Americans proud again......

Carter would make a great neighbor but was one of the worst Presidents.


John Howard? Of course Why wouldn't we? Allies, we remember allies.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
edsinger you have to be carefull where you tread remember the Reagan admin supplyed the Iraqs with intel. Was Reagan in cohorts with the enemy?



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
What Reagan did with his 12 years (count Bush Sr. in that) was amazing , sure some things were not perfect but he did what no other president could do in 45 years, He defeated the USSR and grew the economy at the same time and most importantly, he brought back the pride of the American People.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
edsinger I have a lot of respect for Reagan but he didnt defeat the soviet union. The soviet union strangled itself Reagan speed up the death of a failed state and I am very grateful for that.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
edsinger I have a lot of respect for Reagan but he didnt defeat the soviet union. The soviet union strangled itself Reagan speed up the death of a failed state and I am very grateful for that.


He sped it up? OK I can agree with that, but before Reagan the US moral was # and we all know it, and I feel the the Defense buildup under Reagan broke the back, if it was just earlier then fine......but his policies were a resounding success.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Im not taking anything away from Reagan.
How about explaining how Carter did peanuts for America?



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Im not taking anything away from Reagan.
How about explaining how Carter did peanuts for America?


I was alive at that time, our moral was #, we had just had a failure in Vietnam, the one who got us out resigned in disgrace, the USSR was on the offensive and Carter did nothing, then the Iran crisis.....when he needed the military , he realized he had cut it to much and moral was almost nonexistant......the rest they say is history.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I take you mean that the USSR was on a polictal offensive.
How was Carter spose to lift american moral?
Carter couldnt change the fact that american and its allies failed in Vietnam nor could he change the fact that Nixon disgraced the whitehouse.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
It was his 'lazy' and liberal ideals that failed us, it is why he lost so darn badly. He had no hope no balls no plan......'

It was not all his fault for sure, but he was not the right man to fix it either. Reagan was.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
edsinger You havnt said what Carter was spose to have done. Dont forgot that during the four years Carter was in power the soviet union was strangling itself.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
edsinger You havnt said what Carter was spose to have done. Dont forgot that during the four years Carter was in power the soviet union was strangling itself.


Look, I remember those times well, it is not just me....

Carter was a bad President and history will show that to be the truth. I do not want to berate the man, but he was a lousy president. Inflation was rampant (oil was a big part agreed but he did nothing to stop it), I also remember that while I was living in a trailer park, he gave 'free' homes to low income families and withing 10 years many had to be torn down due to lack of maintenance and basically lack of caring. While I lived in a trailer park with both parents working these folks loved of the system and abused what was meant to be helpful...he was a liberal socialist in my mind.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   
edsinger dont take my questions the wrong way Im just trying to find out what he did wrong other then the fact he was a liberal.
What should have Carter done about the high oil prices?



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
edsinger dont take my questions the wrong way Im just trying to find out what he did wrong other then the fact he was a liberal.
What should have Carter done about the high oil prices?


Well considering the power the US had with Iran at the time, in which we did utilize, he could have played some hard ball.....but he did not - spineless!


I just don't like him as a politician but I bet he makes a fine neighbor.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   
What he should have done was broken OPEC.
By force.
Had we done so then the middle east would not have the abillity to influence world politics that it does now.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
What he should have done was broken OPEC.
By force.
Had we done so then the middle east would not have the abillity to influence world politics that it does now.


Sounds like a good idea assuming the US Bombed the arabs until the price of oil went down . As soon as the bombing finished oil prices would go up again and the Arabs would have the excuse that they needed the money to repair war damage. Then again If the USA had invaded Iraq in the 70s they wouldnt have had do it in 2003.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by xpert11
edsinger I have a lot of respect for Reagan but he didnt defeat the soviet union. The soviet union strangled itself Reagan speed up the death of a failed state and I am very grateful for that.


He sped it up? OK I can agree with that, but before Reagan the US moral was # and we all know it, and I feel the the Defense buildup under Reagan broke the back, if it was just earlier then fine......but his policies were a resounding success.


Also do not forget his dealings with the Saudis...Low oil prices totally undermined the USSR. It was an economic "force multiplier".

BTW - I got a good laugh out of this


[edit on 28-2-2005 by American Mad Man]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join