Miata List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: bonni (Bonni Weatherwax)

Close enough for us civilians, I bet . . . point is they are out there, and
it's a sad thing that they hvae to be. I thought they deployed battleships,
too -- thought they were aircraft carriers, in fact. But if the news
reported it wrong, how would any of us know the difference? Bread still
did an outstanding job of giving the details.

> > At 1:44 PM the Pentagon reports that it has dispatched 5 battleships and
2
> > aircraft carriers to New York Harbor and along the East Coast top build
up
> > air defenses in case of another threat.
>
> The Navy has no active battleships. Battle Groups maybe, but no
battleships.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Miata mailing list
> (email redacted)
> realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/miata

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: rsr (Roy S. Rapoport)

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Bonni Weatherwax wrote:
> Close enough for us civilians, I bet . . . point is they are out there, and
> it's a sad thing that they hvae to be. I thought they deployed battleships,
> too -- thought they were aircraft carriers, in fact. But if the news
> reported it wrong, how would any of us know the difference? Bread still
> did an outstanding job of giving the details.

Battleships are different from aircraft carriers. All battleships were, I
believe, retired; the last one retired pretty recently (the last 10 years
or so). If you're interested, check out
fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/index.html for a listing of ships
in the US Navy; aircraft carriers are of the CV designation; the only
battleship designation I know of is BB (BB-61, for example).

-roy

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: bonni (Bonni Weatherwax)

Well, thanks Roy and John F. for clearing up the differences between these
military machines. It's still terrible to watch them go, no matter what you
call them, which was really my point, but that's okay -- I learned something
new.

BW

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: bobhotaling (Bob Hotaling)

There is no "moral equivalence" between those who would use terrorism
against any nation's population and those who would defend against that
terrorism. There is no justifiable "moral consideration" that can be given
due to some perceived social injustice that is defendable. All Nations must
fully acknowledge that no social injustice consideration outweighs or hold
"moral equivalence" to absolute removal of this type of threat world-wide.

-Bob