Mr. President, US Special Forces Rode Horses Into Afghanistan

Do you understand what the president said? You might get that straight before tipping your hand as a fool.

 

And it continues.

You know what is interesting here? I am right. Obama never said that the military did not use horses or bayonets. You are calling me names while I am correct. Amazing.

Were we debating something? I certainly was not debating anything with you when you called me names. There was nothing to debate. I am right. This was not open to interpretation of subjective.

 

And bayonets...

 

OK. To your point.

We have fewer battleships today
We have fewer wooden decked carriers today
'We have fewer diesel submarines today
We have fewer coal powered destroyers today

Why? Because we don't need them.

 

No, Romney compared today's naval numbers to those in 1916.

Obama just pointed out how silly the comparison is.

 

We are not worthy!

 

While I understand Obama's point about bayonets and horse, I felt his condescending attitude was unprofessional and unpresidential.

His reference to Aircraft carriers also displayed his own ignorance about todays navy. Aircraft carriers are becoming more obsolete with the increased range of aircraft. Yes, they are still useful for quick deployment of aircraft and for the aircraft carrier's support functions, however, the cost of production of aircraft carriers greatly out weighs there usefulness on a global battlefield. Currently, only 2 modern aircraft carriers are under construction and a third carrier is planned. Because of the production costs compared to their usefulness, two of those three carriers may never be completed.

 

But we do need ships that are up to date and protecting the ocean. The ocean didn't get smaller all of a sudden.

 

Yes I do. He looked like a fool. Talking about aircraft carriers, air craft carriers have been around before Obama was born. He makes it sound like its a new invention.

 

When a "serious" presidential candidate "seriously" compare the US Navy of 1917 to the US Navy of 2012 "condescension" is preferable to "**** you stupid buttwipe!"

 

1. We do have ships and they are refitted with smarter weapons.
2. There is this thing called "technology" that changes how we do things and what we need to accomplish a task.
3. The latest military request is not for MORE ships

Congress Wants A Bigger Navy — Unlike the Navy

Why don't you trust the Navy? Why do you think you know better than people who have done this their whole lives?

 

No but the ships got faster.
The weapons more powerful.
Their reach much longer.

So we need fewer ships to do the same job.

 

It that so, so the older gun based destroyers are just as useful as the missle based destroyers.

 

In effect, yes it did. Our sensors have improved exponentially and the reach of our individual ships has increased as well.

 

However, Obama (and you) are missing the point that Romney was trying to make. Our Navy is continuing to shrink....and it is not because of technology concerns. It is because of budgetary concerns. Ships are constantly being decommissioned each year and they are not being replaced. These ships are needed to patrol ours and our allies water to insure shipping lanes are secured. These ships also need support vessels and/or facilities in order to effectively operate. These support ships are not keeping up technology wise and are also not being replace as they are decommissioned.

If the Navy had more available ships, the issues in Somalia would not be happening. If the Navy had more ships, people would not be killed or robbed off the coast of Mexico (yes, it is happening). If the Navy had more available ships, the drug trafficking using mini-subs could be combated more efficiently.

Another consideration is that the jobs that are created in the construction of these ships. Ship construction account for numerous jobs here in the US. Those jobs represent tax revenue.

But, as always, Obama refused to address the actual issue and instead resorted to play-ground bullying with his condescending attitude as a means for deflection. Obama fails to see the big picture and is only concerned with the voter perception of him....and a lot of voters are falling for rhetoric which has no substance.

 

Yes, but one ship is still one ship and that ship can not be in two places at once.

 

PT Barnum was right... There is an idiot born every minute...

 

Obama voters don't need ships in the Navy.

All they need is Obama in the White House sending out those government checks.

 

Which is why every ocean has multiple ships.

 

Not is the navy is being decreased because ships are not being built.

 

So you are arguing that we have oceans where there is only 1 ship?

 

First, we need a budget. The military, being the military, realized how to reorganize in order to meet the budget and then turned around and said: Actually, we only need this.

Instead of applauding them for fiscal responsibility you want to throw away their efforts and in a move of fiscal irresponsibility and political posturing give them ships they say they no longer need.

That makes zero (*)(*)(*)(*)ing sense.

 

Nice strawman....no, I never said that.

I said our Navy is shrinking because of budgetary concerns. The Navy's grand plan states that we need a total of 315 ships to maintain the minimal level of protection needed. The Navy currently have 285 ships. There are many in the Navy that even state that the "minimal level of protection" is still not enough.

 

Mitts daddy's an Obama voter?

 

That was The Presidents point.. We don't "need" to be in two places... Believe me - we can touch any person - in any house on this planet with the ships we got - dropping VW Bugs on their craniums...

What and why do you think we need more?