CharlesUFarley

Didn't they have those in one of the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare games? They had a rifle sight that was a heartbeat detector. That was 3 or 4 motherboard meltdowns ago, I don't game anymore.

Can't answer about the cups, but I just had Vanilla Bean, on top of brownies, with hot fudge and caramel and whipped cream. My favorite desert , period.

Happy Easter.

They never had the resources to win. Their entire strategy was based on a belief that the US was weak and decadent and inept militarily. Midway was more or less their last gasp. They had no fuel. They knew the 1940 US Naval appropriation was going to build a fleet they could never compete with. They thought Americans were decadent and weak and inferior militarily. Their hope in the Midway campaign was that they would score a great victory and the US would give up the fight. Even if that had happened, the US would have still built that 1940 Navy for the European theater. They could never have stopped it.

But consider this: Japan's goal in World War 2 was to dominate the Pacific Rim. They actually accomplished this in the 1970's, but they did it economically instead of militarily. Now, China is the dominant economy, and is trying to be the dominant military. At any rate, in the 1970's many people were afraid that Japan was buying up America, yet, here we are.


Edit: Japan actually knew they couldn't win after World War 1. That's why England and Japan negotiated the 1920 Washington Naval Treaty. Japan couldn't keep up, and England couldn't afford to. Meanwhile the US was developing 18 inch naval guns and had test fired 20 inch prototypes, something that would escalate the Battleship race to a point the other powers couldn't keep up with.

The 1920 treaty limited the sizes of the US, English, and Japanese fleets, limited ship types and tonnage. It gave the US and England numerical superiority over the Japanese, justified because they were two ocean navies. The Japanese didn't like it, but they accepted it because without it they would be vastly surpassed by the US. They were anyway, but it was part of why they didn't like us.

We never seem to mention that treaty in these discussions, but it shaped WW2 in the Pacific.

The question I have is if we had it, how would we supply it? Through Pakistan? It's land locked and bordered on all sides with countries that are either hostile or not traditionally friendly with the US. How would you supply Bagram? It would likely be a liability, troops and assets there might be cut off unless you wanted to open up hostilities with yet another country in the region.

quote:

---

Is seafood the best food?

---

I don't understand the question.

Purple onion, dill relish, thin sliced tomato.

Why don't we just suspend SOL for public employees?

Now do the part where we cut $0.03 from every dollar the Government spends. Probably gets a similar result

quote:

---

It is a scam. My old man worked until he was 70. Died about one year later, shortly after starting to collect SS. My mom has since only received the greatly reduced surviving spouse benefit, even though dad payed in for 50+ years. Thieves, all of them.

---

Surviving spouse benefits are equal to your father's benefit as long as your mother is over retirement age. If she isn't, she still gets his full amount or close to it as long as she's still caring for your father's minor children, as well as money for those children until they are 18. I am no defender of SS and I think it's a ripoff, but one of its many flaws is how it does what I just described, when a proper group insurance benefit could have been implemented at a fraction of the cost.

Your post doesn't ring true.

This is simply a BS analysis for any president, BHO included. Any time, the president, and probably the first lady, goes anywhere and does anything it's at least a seven figure incremental cost for them to do that, and probably some trips, events, and activities are an 8 figure cost or more.