Forget the new towers, Portland might get aircraft carrier - Page 2

der Reisender · #21 Posted **Mar 10, 2007, 9:01 PM**

we could refurbish the carrier and use it as the first piece of the Cascadian Navy...we'd just need planes for it then

GreenCity · #22 Posted **Mar 11, 2007, 12:37 AM**

Forgive me duplicating what others here has already said, but the Portland Left would hate it. There would be protests along the lines of Schumakers starting almost immediately, if I know the community. What connection does it have to our city's identity anyways? We've never been a strong center for the military-industrial complex, and our marine history has always focused much more on mercantile fleets. Throw in the fact that no matter what they say, the revenues from tourism wouldn't even be close to what it would take to upkeep an aircraft carrier, even a decommissioned one. It will take up valuable portage space and if it was placed somewhere it didn't, it would be to far away to be accessible anyway. Plus anyone that has a driving desire to see war ships has both the Rose Festival fleet and if they need an off season fix, the Blueback at OMSI. Seems silly and pointless to me, and I'm sure it would downright offend your casebook liberal Portlander. Send it to a coastal port that actually wants it.

Symi81 · #23 Posted **Mar 11, 2007, 12:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by der Reisender

we could refurbish the carrier and use it as the first piece of the Cascadian Navy...we'd just need planes for it then

Now there is a great idea! However, I believe Cascadia to be a pacifist nation, so maybe we could just plant flowers all over the ship's deck, then sail it around the world promoting world peace.... hahaha

tworivers · #24 Posted **Mar 11, 2007, 1:23 AM**

Quote:

we could refurbish the carrier and use it as the first piece of the Cascadian Navy...we'd just need planes for it then

Now we're talking! I can almost visualize our hodgepodge air force of re-tooled Cessnas with DIY missile launchers.

How about we just take the bow and stick it in the ground somewhere near the observation deck on what's left of the demo'd Marquam Bridge?
A Memorial To Bad Ideas Of The Twentieth Century. Talk about an international tourist attraction.

Dougall5505 · #25 Posted **Mar 11, 2007, 1:34 AM**

I say sink it in the mouth of the columbia river where it is deep enough. and make it a attraction for divers. although it might not be deep enough

oilcan · #26 Posted **Mar 11, 2007, 1:50 AM**

I don't see it as a fit for Portland myself, much like the London bridge in Arizona.. something just does not seem right about it locaton wise..

As far as the whole "anti-war" movement and "left wingers" opposing I could see the hesitation in displaying "military might" in the same light as prancing down Kremlin ave with a whole armored tank division and missles to boot.. however, the flip side to that is the historic value, especially with a WWII vessel where it was not a war for "shits and grins" as of today, but an actual force (fading forgotten generation) built for legitmit protection and liberation. Not condoning war what so ever however, one would hope this b.s. war and Vietnam would not disrupt ones understanding/knowledge about history in itself.. similar to me as a boy in Brem Naval Yards.. I will always remember standing on the USS. Missouri in the exact spot the surrendor of Japan was submitted.. One note it would be interesting to see if there is any involvement in this by General McPeek who is a retired "Joint Chairman" AF General now residing in Portland..

Few years ago there was some interference when Russia tried to sell a bunch of retired Chinese Military Generals now "Business" men a carrier to transform *cough *cough into a large port side casino.. Maybe Portland can work that stance.. flip it sell it off and take the wages to put into it's after school programs without relying on Blazer player assistance..

65MAX · #27 Posted **Mar 11, 2007, 3:05 AM**

The city wouldn't be maintaining it or operating it, the foundation that wants to bring it here would handle all of that. So there wouldn't be any reason for anti-tax zealots to protest this. Also, Portland DOES have a history of building warships. Remember WWII?

Nobody is more left-wing or anti-war than me. That's why I love the idea of using an aircraft carrier to promote peace. I think I'm not alone in that regard.

Another way to think about this, we're recycling about a million tons of steel in one fell swoop.

oilcan · #28 Posted **Mar 11, 2007, 3:30 AM**

Quote:

Nobody is more left-wing or anti-war than me. That's why I love the idea of using an aircraft carrier to promote peace. I think I'm not alone in that regard.

I know about 20 guys I served with in Afghanistan and Iraq to include myself that may be a little bit more anti-war than you.. lol

But you are correct... important to look at the big picture, learning from the past... and creating a new image for the future.... maybe I can see it...

Just get by river environmentalist and you may have your palace of peace...

GreenCity · #29 Posted **Mar 11, 2007, 4:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65MAX

That's why I love the idea of using an aircraft carrier to promote peace. I think I'm not alone in that regard.

I don't know what they'll think of decking out their shiny and newly-painted ship with a flower patch, but I'd love to see it.

I guess my wonder is why they are bringing it here. Is there any discernable connection between the Ranger and Portland? It seems that they're searching for a port, but why this one? anyone know?

65MAX · #30 Posted **Mar 11, 2007, 4:53 AM**

Seattle and Tacoma don't have enough space. Don't know about SF or LA. SD already has one.

Inkdaub · #31 Posted **Mar 14, 2007, 10:21 AM**

I'd have to see it to make any decision about whether or not I liked it. I can say that my brother served on the Ranger, though.

Why don't they just turn it sideways and stab it into the ground like a spear and it can be the Portland supertall that so many people want to see downtown?