At least your logic is consistent. I would rather have this debate with someone who is being intellectually honest than someone who is not...
This reminds me of the debate that was going on in Britain and the US prior to WWII. The penny-pinching isolationists expected the US military to do without while the Germans and Japanese were preparing for war.
Obama was a community organizer. I'm a military vet. Are you a vet? He allowed the ambassador to Libya to be murdered by Islamists. It doesn't get more incompetent than that.
That's the current threat. China, Iran, and Russia are a much more long term threat. The Navy has anti-missile capability and is highly mobile. Basically, we can offer some anti-missile defense to most of our alllies. I'm sure you remember that Obama helped to cancel the anti-missile defense of Europe that was to be based in Poland. This is why we don't want an incredible shrinking Navy.
The US Army and the USMC. You get issued what you need at the time. I was never issued weapons or ammo unless I was using them. Army: [video=youtube;BDeyGrUV-CI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDeyGrUV-CI&feature=related[/video] Marines: [video=youtube;oU6M9p9tR3A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU6M9p9tR3A[/video]
So you have more knowledge about classified capabilities of our military than the Command in Chief does? That's quite a claim.
The "Command in Chief" is an idiot who does not even know how or when to salute the flag properly. Most people know more about the military than he does.
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.
when the CiC doesn't bother with briefings even after a terrorist attack, that doen't take much. $10 says he knows nothing about the Navy's rail gun or that it was adapted for the Ford Class carrier's catapult.
Knowledge is one thing, and judgement is quite another. If the military/CIA came to me and said they wanted to kill a located Bin Laden, I would not make them ask me three times. Nor, would I watch the ambassador being murdered in real time and not order some kind of rescue/air support, go to bed, and fly to Vegas to raise cash. Obama is simply a POS. You reading me?? I wouldn't have denied him security either. I wouldn't stage a cover-up. I wouldn't send out my UN ambassador to prostitute herself on five news shows.
Did Obama state that he is basing the size of the Navy on account of a terrorist organization that doesn't have a navy? If so, I'd love to see a link to his statement. As for Romney's argument for a larger navy: Or, perhaps Reagan's former Secretary of the Navy can better illuminate the rationale for you: 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.
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.
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/follow-the-money-from-somali-pirates-to-al-qaeda
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.
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.
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...