Obama Dustbins US Navy with the Bayonets and Horses

Its amazing how Romney gets crushed and looks dumb, then they(foxjnews) trys to move heaven and earth to turn it around on obama.

Originally posted by technical difficulties
The are valid things to critcize Obama on, so why the need to make some up?

I guess you know the answer... Yes Obama screwed up here and there, but the right wings knows it's not enough to give them victory they want. So the propaganda machine is on, the dumber the better.

reply to post by Logman


Thank you I didnt want to type all that but well said ! And for the record we are still building ships , electric driven but still nuke . 2016 you should see them . As a nuke worker for the navy or govt. I have not seen any cuts in spending at all . In fact I have made more money in the last two years than ever before . Keep it real !

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

No that's NOT 'enough said'. China and the rest of the countries listed don't do nearly as much as our US Navy does. And our Navy does much of the protecting and policing for other countries. We need a strong Navy.

Don't you think this needs to stop? It's not America's job to police the world our Navy needs to be policing our shores not some other countries.

edit on 23-10-2012 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)

Amen brother. 600+ foriegn bases around the world. It's so outrageous it borders on comical to think that folks can justify why we need bases in Japan and Germany and just this year we added a base to Australia if I am not mistaken.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Our capabilities are greater than ever in history and no navy in the world could last a week against us!

reply to post by smurfzilla


That number is over 1,000 bases and installations, or as the Pentagon prefers, "military sites". Iraq and Afghanistan boast more than 400 (your figure is probably excluding those). So yeah... 1,000 'sites'. "Empire of bases", more here


Regarding Romney, he has most of the Bush/Cheney foreign policy cabinet back in place on his team - 17 of 24 positions belong to the same Neocons responsible for the Iraq war lies and jingoist, unilateral policies of Bush. So it's no wonder he is beating down the same path of past neocon presidents, and wondering why we don't have a 600-ship Navy.

As a navy guy myself,I really think that Obama was right.
I am not a voter for him,but in reality,I think that he truly had his # together.
Romney just way out of his league now.

Wow... Way to misinterpret a clear win moment for Obama against a militarily retarded Romney. Conservatives must have an extra chromosome dedicated specifically to seeing things no intelligent people do...

reply to post by FlyersFan


why should we protect anyone other than ourselves? the ships are pointless except for carrying air craft and with all of our bases world wide a jet can fly from one base to another quicker than you can run a few errands and return home. id rather our tax money go to improving education and the economy.

at 54% of our entire national budget, SCREW THE MILITARY. there will be plenty of contracts, always are.

and half of that 54% went right to corrupt contracters like black water, haliburton. who just happen to lose millions riding around a freakin desert with paper money in the hunderds of millions just blowin in the wind.

reply to post by FlyersFan


That is not what he said and we are still building ships; in fact there are more ships now than in George Bush's Navy. Voter's should be insulted by Romney's assumption that they can't grasp the fact that you can't measure our fleet's capabilities by the raw number of boats.

As a member of the military, your rhetoric turns my stomach. Why in a time of budget cuts would I want ships we don't need, when the money could be allocated to housing, cost of living pay adjustments, and improving on post education for our children? You sound like a shill for the bloated defense contractors; 'cause you definitely are not advocating for the members of the military.

\The Navy is building a new aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford (which will replace the soon-to-retire USS Enterprise) plus dozens of destroyers and littoral combat ships (agile ships designed to operate close to shore) that will be include all the latest warship technology.

and

So while some people argue about the number of warships, the Navy looks at it a different way. "It's about numbers and also about capability," said Navy public affairs officer Cmdr. Tamara Lawrence. "What a destroyer could do 25 years ago is not what it can do now. Our ships continue to get better."

security.blogs.cnn.com...

reply to post by ~widowmaker~


Should be "screw the military defense industry" who needs aircraft that costs 1.5 Trillion dollars? Infantry soldiers like myself are a bargin compared to ships and aircraft.

.
Actually he said we had "fewer horses and bayonets", so all the outrage over that is ridiculous as well. They're reaching for anything....

reply to post by beezzer


Get your facts straight; its cuts to the military contractors. There are no real cuts to the military itself. If you look around, you find information on alleged troop cuts; but honestly, most of that is going to be through normal attrition combined with reduced recruiting. It will also be dome through getting rid of as many problem soldiers as possible.

reply to post by staver


As an older soldier I do miss my bayonet....

reply to post by camaro68ss


Yeah, but I haven't been issued one since the 1990s. Don't know if that's because they have started giving us pistols when we deploy or what; but as a grunt, I would like to have a bayonet. I don't think my unit even has them in the arms room.

reply to post by Rastus3663


yah let me fix that, not screw the military, they are great, screw the contractor types,,, heh

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by Renegade2283

 

And our Navy does much of the protecting and policing for other countries.

Lol. Just lol.



Why? Who elected America for this role? Americans? The military industrial complex? NATO? The U.N.? Why must Americans take it upon themselves to enforce their rules and "safety" upon the world? Why does safety require so many billions of dollars worth of death machines? Are you a country or an Empire? Do you even know the difference anymore?

How much longer can you sustain this spending for? Do you even care? Is this solving anything at all? Is so much destruction necessary to maintain the "peace"? ...what is peace anymore, anyway?

No one wants America to police the world except for twisted radical patriots and people who profit from exploiting other people. But why bother telling you any of this? You won't listen. Have fun arguing for why war requires so much financial and moral expenditure not my cup of tea, but each to their own.

Wow great turn out guys, the rational thinkers here on ATS pretty much shut this # show down. With logic and intelligence the right side will prevail, which in this case happens to be the left. The total information given by the conservatives here to support Romney is laughable at best, I haven't seen one shred of information backing up Romney... none. What I have seen is a bunch of Deflect, deny, avoid types that don't contribute a thing and try more to insult Obama then to do anything credible. Thanks Flyersfan for making a thread and then not commenting to anyone's response since clearly you know by now your argument is futile! Also thanks to Beezer and all the other great republicans who came here to show us there vast wealth of knowledge.

reply to post by Renegade2283


That's clearly not right, China, Russia and the United Kingdom spending barely $40 billion on defence in 2003-2005?