Obama Dustbins US Navy with the Bayonets and Horses

reply to post by FlyersFan

2 - I didn't lie or misquote. I posted EXACTLY what he said. He owns it.

Obama never said the Navy was a thing of the past. You misquoted live up to it.

Originally posted by Hawking
There are more ships in the US Navy now than when Bush was president

there are also more than there were in 1916.

From www.history.navy.mil...

1916

Battleship 36
Cruiser 30
Monitor 3
Destroyers 61
Torpedo Boats 18
Submarines 44
Steel Gunboats 17
Auxiliaries 25
Gunboats 11
Total Active 245


2011 data:
Carriers 11
Cruisers 22
Destroyers 61
Frigates 26
LCS * 2
Submarines 53
SSBN 14
SSGN 4
Mine Warfare 14
Amphibious 31
Auxiliary 47
Surface Warships 122
Total Active 285

They've added 2 since 2011, and they've also got 3,700 aircraft that they didn't have in 1916.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I hope the entire US Military was listening to what their Commander in Chief said last night. I hope the ship builders and sub-bases in Virginia and Maine and Connecticut were listening closely as well. During the debate, Obama told us all what he thinks of the US Navy. According to him It's a thing of the past, like bayonets and horses. We don't need to have a strong Navy. That is the message of what he said.

According to experts in geopolitics, the US has the best (and by far the best) blue water Navy in the world. The quality and capability of the force do not always correlate with the sheer number of unit. I thought this sort of knowledge was easy enough to comprehend to most people, but I was overly generous.

Let's assume that someone says that the US Army is not using cannonballs in its artillery units. Does it mean any disrespect to the Army?

And I need to point out this: you are putting words in Obama's mouth, and that's just plain disgraceful. He was talking about evolving technology and capability and no he was not putting the Navy down -- quite the opposite. He did mention nuclear carriers, did he not?

People can play dumb all day long. Bottom line is, the bayonet line did show that Romney's "expertise" belongs in the dustbin. That part of the thread title I agree with.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
2 - I didn't lie or misquote. I posted EXACTLY what he said. He owns it.

Wait, you are saying that Obama went on record to state that the Navy is a thing of the past. I want to see the exact quote where he did just that. Still waiting.

i'm still amazed on how the right can twist words and meanings. i listened last night, and for someone (the OP) to twist what he said into this, is truly pathological and disturbing.

Originally posted by Logman
You are just lying or trolling. You should be banned.

Grow up. I posted EXACTLY what he said. He compared our Navy ships to the use of bayonets and horses.

Originally posted by buster2010
Obama never said the Navy was a thing of the past. You misquoted live up to it.

I didn't misquote him. I quoted him exactly. Read the opening post. The meaning was clear.
He compared our need for nuclear subs and navy ships to the use of bayonets and horses.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I want to see the exact quote where he did just that. Still waiting.

I gave his quote at the start of this thread. His meaning was clear.

Originally posted by jimmyx
i'm still amazed on how the right can twist words and meanings.

The left and the right do it all the time. However, in this case, there is no 'twisting of meaning'. Obama said what he said. The meaning behind it is very clear. You see what you want to see.

for someone (the OP) to twist what he said into this, is truly pathological and disturbing.

What is pathological and disturbing is the level of devotion that obama fans have.
They cant' see the deeper meaning behind the words he picked.

Whatever. The left can canoodle Obama all they want.
His words are there. The meaning was very clear.
You people see what you want to see.

Originally posted by Logman

You are just lying or trolling. You should be banned. You add 2 plus 2 and get 11. He didn't put the US Navy in the dustbin with bayonets. Does it really need to be explained to you? Okay.

Romney said the US Navy has less ships now than 1917.

Obama said we also don't have bayonets and horses.

Is he saying the US Navy is as relevant as a bayonet? Or is he saying we don't need AS MANY SHIPS because technology has advanced. And he even explained it so those with smaller cranial capacity could understand. He said we have aircraft carriers and submarines.

The point is that the size of the US Navy now and in 1917 has no correlation. Romney's point was idiotic and Obama correctly pointed out why. No-one in their right mind thinks Obama meant that the US Navy is not relevant. But I'm not expecting you to understand. You hate Obama and will see what you want to see. The hate the right has for Obama does not balance with the hate the left has for Romney. The US is screwed due to the mindset on show by the OP.

Just for a bit of balance here...between your calls for the banning of the OP for expressing his/her opinion, and the hate-speak (who hates who more, etc.)...here is what Romney actually said...

"Our Navy is old -- excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now at under 285. We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That's unacceptable to me.

I want to make sure that we have the ships that are required by our Navy. Our Air Force is older and smaller than at any time since it was founded in 1947."

www.foxnews.com...

Obama's retort (horses and bayonets) was cute and all...but missed, I think, the central point.

The actual experts on the subject...the Navy...say they need a compliment of 313 modern ships in order to fulfill the mission they have been given by the POTUS. They are light some 30 units at the moment - and going in the opposite direction.

I am quite sure that Navy commanders have not requested more horses or bayonets...they have probably asked for a few shiny new things like those new-fangled ships that operate under the sea, or the ones that have planes landing on their decks.

It was a comical moment in the debate to be sure...but Obama's comeback was meaningless in terms of the modern military's needs...and was actually just a low-blow attempt to belittle his opponent.

is everyone forgetting that we have missiles that with the press of a button can hit pretty much anywhere in the world????.. and besides this is ats...what about all the fun new tech they haven't told anyone about? i mean with military spending how it is you gotta remember we just see the shallow pieces.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Perhaps you should have posted the full quote, rather than just half of it?

"You mention the Navy, for example, and the fact that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets. We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets"

God this is pathetic...even for a conservative.

For the special people who just did not get it...Obama "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916" meaning that Romney was comparing the 2012 Navy to the 1916 one.

Obama "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets" saying that compared to 1916 ...the US does not rely on those items as much.

He was telling Romney you cannot compare 1916 needs to 2012 needs.

Originally posted by mobiusmale
between your calls for the banning of the OP for expressing his/her opinion, and the hate-speak (who hates who more, etc.)...

The intolerance by certain members here towards those with a different opinion or 'take' on what was said by politicians is remarkable. Isn't it? Lots of hate and rhetoric pouring out .... kinda like the politicians themselves. :shk:

The actual experts on the subject...the Navy...say they need a compliment of 313 modern ships in order to fulfill the mission they have been given by the POTUS. They are light some 30 units at the moment - and going in the opposite direction.

The Commander In Chief isn't listening to the military in the field (or in this case .. in the ocean).

US Armed Forces Journal - Why The Navy Needs More Ships

The Navy needs a larger number of ships, not only for winning a war at sea against a stronger opponent but also for carrying out diverse missions in peacetime, ranging from humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, security assistance, enforcement of maritime agreements, counterpiracy, vessel traffic service, multinational exercises, countersmuggling and counterdrug, to regional deterrence through forward presence in selected parts of the world’s oceans. In operations short of war, the Navy’s mission includes prevention of transnational terrorist acts on the high seas and in international straits and larger ports, support of counterinsurgency or insurgency, and peace enforcement operations.

The Navy today lacks both the numbers and the type of combat ships to successfully carry out all its diverse missions in times of peace and war. The reasons for such a long-standing unfavorable fleet structure include the Navy’s preference for building an ever-larger number of high-capability but large and expensive ships optimally suited for operations on the open ocean; the associated costs of building such large ships; the use of purely business considerations in determining fleet size/composition and deployment patterns; the belief that new technologies are a substitute for numbers; and a false reading of the future strategic environment.

From the Iron Ship Builders Magazine - why the Navy needs more ships

.... the U.S. Navy has been shrinking for two decades. As recently as 1987, the Navy had 594 ships. At that time, we were not at war. Since then, despite growing threats from around the globe — the Middle East, Korea, China — we have built an average of only six ships a year, while decommissioning 20.

The Navy’s fleet is now only 281 ships, less than half its size in 1987. Although there is support within the military for a larger Naval fleet, the Department of Defense (DOD) has shown little interest in building the ships key to our arsenal. For example, numerous reports recommend a fleet of 55-75 submarines, but the Navy is building only one a year. Our submarine fleet has shrunk from 100 in 1990 to 53 today. The American Shipbuilding Association estimates that at current rates, China will have twice as many submarines as the United States in only five years.

The DOD’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), issued on Feb. 3, calls for a return to building two submarines a year by 2012. Issued every four years, the QDR outlines DOD goals for the next 20 years.

The Case for More Submarines by CDR Mark L. Gorenflo, USN, and CDR Michel T. Poirier, USN

In the five domains where our military forces operate - on land, in the air, on the sea, beneath the sea, and in space - undersea operations are the least visible. For this reason, they offer the ultimate in stealth and surprise while influencing events in all five domains with minimal risk. Unfortunately, because submarine operations are virtually invisible and highly secretive, they are least understood and most frequently under-valued by the public at large. This article discusses the unique value of the U.S. Submarine Force today and why it warrants more defense investment for the future.

The Diplomat Magazine - The US Navy's Quantity Problem
AOL Defense - Navy Needs Both LCS Types for War with China and Iran

ETA - Obama Got Military Tech Wrong

reply to post by FlyersFan


Obama didn't say that he wanted to weaken the Navy. He believes in intelligently utilizing the armed forces for 21 century warfare rather than go in with the mindset of previous generations. He's saying that making huge numbers of ships is what we did back in the early 1900's to the 1980's and isn't an effective tactic for today warfare. Just because you don't increase the amounts of ships the Navy all of a sudden you have a weak navy.

So how about for the sake of logic and common sense we take a look at the US Navy of today and compare it to the rest of the world from 1916 to now. From the 1916 into the WW2 the US did not have the largest navy and it would not until the end of second world war. The Navy faced direct surface threats for the last time in its history at this point. Post WW2 came the cold war and the arms race with the USSR. The USN remained dominate but once again had a real threat. Once the Cold War ended any real threat to the USN did as well. In fact never has a Navy been so completely dominate in modern history as the US Navy currently is. The only Navies of note belong to are allies in the UK and France. Most of the Russian navy has rusted away and while China has a large navy it is old and designed to operate in its own waters and does not have power projection. If China ever decided to try and challenge the US Navy it would require massive amounts of spending and time and the US would have plenty of time to prepare for it. So for the first time in the last 100 years the US Navy does not have a direct threat and it is by far the most dominate navy on earth. What does all this mean? That comparing how many ships we have now to any other time in the last 100 years is a complete waste of time unless to take into account the sizes and capabilities of the rest of the world. Never in our history has the USN been so completey dominate. I am pretty sure we do not need more ships.

Originally posted by jimmyx
i'm still amazed on how the right can twist words and meanings. i listened last night, and for someone (the OP) to twist what he said into this, is truly pathological and disturbing.

I agree, and it saddens me that a line has been crossed right here on ATS. Disturbing indeed.

reply to post by FlyersFan
Seriously? That's what you took from that remark?
If I wasn't speechless, I'd get whacked with a T&C for going ad hominem because that's the dumbest thing I've heard in this election.

Originally posted by MrSpad
So how about for the sake of logic and common sense we take a look at the US Navy of today and compare it to the rest of the world from 1916 to now. From the 1916 into the WW2 the US did not have the largest navy and it would not until the end of second world war. The Navy faced direct surface threats for the last time in its history at this point. Post WW2 came the cold war and the arms race with the USSR. The USN remained dominate but once again had a real threat. Once the Cold War ended any real threat to the USN did as well. In fact never has a Navy been so completely dominate in modern history as the US Navy currently is. The only Navies of note belong to are allies in the UK and France. Most of the Russian navy has rusted away and while China has a large navy it is old and designed to operate in its own waters and does not have power projection. If China ever decided to try and challenge the US Navy it would require massive amounts of spending and time and the US would have plenty of time to prepare for it. So for the first time in the last 100 years the US Navy does not have a direct threat and it is by far the most dominate navy on earth. What does all this mean? That comparing how many ships we have now to any other time in the last 100 years is a complete waste of time unless to take into account the sizes and capabilities of the rest of the world. Never in our history has the USN been so completey dominate. I am pretty sure we do not need more ships.

And I'm pretty sure that Mr.Romney would do well to read your post. Alas, he didn't, and his team didn't bother to read up, digest, and use the facts in a way comparable to yours.

Long story short, I'd rather vote you into the President's office, and not the unprincipled, opportunistic, lying POS that Romney is.

OP your interpretation of a single sentence is bordering on hallucination

I dont even think OP watched the debate.

You're just taking a couple of lines without what followed and you're focusing on them. Nowhere did Obama imply that the navy is obsolete or that he is going to scrap it or cut it. Are you even serious? He mentioned that we have fewer ships in 2012 because 100 years later we have capabilities with nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers which make spending billions on new ships a bad idea. We already have dominance in that area. It isn't 1933 where battleships rule the roost, guys.
Jeez, maybe the Battleship board game was a fitting joke by TPOTUS. It really does seem that some here don't understand reality.

Funny how people want cruisers but loathe food stamps. You cannot make this stuff up.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

OP's a victim of the power of words and their emotional programmings.

"Blah blah blah blah blah NAVY blah blah blah blah ."

The OP is just aping the faux-outrage right-wing talking points that 'conservative media' is desperately trying to turn into a 'binder of women' meme - and failing miserably at it, since, as usual, it require badly misquoting what Obama said. Desperate and pathetic.

As a side note, I'm a US Navy vet, and routinely stay in contact with Navy friends, and we have a shortage of skilled personnel for our ships, more ships will only exacerbate those shortages. (and this has been true for ages). What Romney and apparently his vapid right-wing faux-outrage 'Bayonets and Horses' meme-pushing idiots fail to realize is the composition of the US Navy has changed drastically since 1917 - a direct comparison between old steam-driven ships of yore and the modern Carrier Strike Group of today is utterly laughable.