Thread: On Obama's "Horses and Bayonets" Fallacy

Originally Posted by Talon

Of course, that has nothing to do with Obama's "horses and bayonets" explanation for the size of the Navy...

Originally Posted by Talon

Of course, that has nothing to do with Obama's "horses and bayonets" explanation for the size of the Navy...

Mr. Romney’s point in calling for an expanded shipbuilding program is that the Navy is the primary means for the U.S. to project power around the world. The current Navy, the Romney campaign has said, is too small to provide a stabilizing force all around the globe. A bigger Navy, Romney aides argue, could help increase stability and head off conflicts in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere.

And Romney's saying that our navy is smaller than it was in 1916 have anything to do with what we need right now.

Romney thinks we need a bigger navy- and cited our 1916 fleet. That remark deserved to be ridiculed.

Bill Clintons "budget surplus" was created by slashing the size of the military in half.

We had a 600 ship navy.

4 years later, the cia and military were so small, they had to be rebuilt at twice the cost.

Originally Posted by DonGlock26

Are you really trying to tell us that the US Navy has four vessels at sea right now?

More than likely...

The idiocy of the carrier comment was hilarious. The aircraft carrier necessitates the carrier group, lots of ships to protect and supply one carrier. The modern carrier centered navy requires more ships then the old battle ship days.

Originally Posted by DonGlock26

That's the current threat. China, Iran, and Russia are a much more long term threat...

Last I checked, AQ wasn't building aircraft carriers, trying to impose its unilateral sovereignty over the entire South China Sea or threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz. On the other hand, AQ has reportedly been involved with problems such as piracy:

http://blog.usni.org/2011/07/06/foll...es-to-al-qaeda

Originally Posted by Windigo

The idiocy of the carrier comment was hilarious. The aircraft carrier necessitates the carrier group, lots of ships to protect and supply one carrier. The modern carrier centered navy requires more ships then the old battle ship days.

I made the same point in another thread...

Originally Posted by DonGlock26

They were used when needed. You do know what "need" means right? It's hard to make extra warships in a jiffy these days. Best to have a large navy.

Completely incorrect, it is far more vital to have real time battle assesment/info available. Any current US naval ship has the capable weapons, combined with the SA, it becomes a force multiplier.

Originally Posted by SFJEFF

Mr. Romney’s point in calling for an expanded shipbuilding program is that the Navy is the primary means for the U.S. to project power around the world. The current Navy, the Romney campaign has said, is too small to provide a stabilizing force all around the globe. A bigger Navy, Romney aides argue, could help increase stability and head off conflicts in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere.

And Romney's saying that our navy is smaller than it was in 1916 have anything to do with what we need right now.

Romney thinks we need a bigger navy- and cited our 1916 fleet. That remark deserved to be ridiculed.

If anything, Obama and his intellectually defective "horses and bayonets" remark deserves to be ridiculed. In his haste to talk down to Romney he made an illogical fool out of himself.

As for Romney, he was merely comparing the current size of our navy to the size of our navy when it wasn't expected to do as much as it is today.

Originally Posted by DonGlock26

Are you really trying to tell us that the US Navy has four vessels at sea right now?

Do you even know how many ships we have? There are ships all over this planet!!!! And me saying "At Least" four is an understatement...