Ryan: "I just don't understand" bayonet remark

reply to post by buster2010

"To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets - I just don't understand that comparison. "

He doesn't understand that what he said actually just reiterated the point Obama was making? Exactly, modern American battleships are not bayonets. It doesn't take nearly as many of them as it took in 1914. They aren't sinking due to common manufacturing defects, or fires, or diesel submarines and mines. It takes a lot more bayonets to fight a war than it does cruise missiles, and it takes a lot more wooden sailboats than it does steel destroyers.

Not only did Ryan say something stupid, he said something that supports the other guy's point.

reply to post by ararisq


Advancements in guidance systems, missiles, radar, and the use of satellites, and an increase in aircraft capabilities has actually made it possible to reduce the amount of Naval ships which were once required. In fact, Battleships have become nearly obsolete worldwide, and are replaced by aircraft carriers, missile cruisers, and ballistic submarines. Your argument is invalid.

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
You'd have to be quite dumb to not understand.

Bayonets are not as necessary as they used to be because the battlefield has changed, war has changed, technology has changed, tactics have changed, etc. so therefor we use less bayonets.

Yes. I had a customer who's daughter sat in an office in the states monitoring drones. She would remotely zero in on a target - - get an official OK - - then "bang".

Bayonets are hand-to-hand combat.

Didn't an Afghan or Iraqi leader state "we didn't fight fair" - - because we didn't "fight like men in ground combat" (or something like that).

Of course we still have ground troops - - but we don't need to be reckless.

We needed all those ships back in the day.....to transport the horses.

Ask yourselves this question:

How often, in any battle during the Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, have you heard the command 'Fix Bayonets'?

Pffft

reply to post by darkhorserider


I really wanted to like Romney but the president just owned him.
Romney has no clue about foreign policy or the military.

Originally posted by darkhorserider
He doesn't understand that what he said actually just reiterated the point Obama was making? Exactly, modern American battleships are not bayonets. It doesn't take nearly as many of them as it took in 1914. They aren't sinking due to common manufacturing defects, or fires, or diesel submarines and mines. It takes a lot more bayonets to fight a war than it does cruise missiles, and it takes a lot more wooden sailboats than it does steel destroyers.

Not only did Ryan say something stupid, he said something that supports the other guy's point.

It is amazing how many people are jumping on this talking point. This discussion has been going on for years and never has the argument 'our new ships are meaner and badder than the old ones' been a reason used by the Obama administration.

Romney brought it up because he wants to win Virginia and Obama has been decimated the port cities of Virginia. That is why it is in the news. It doesn't mean Romney disagrees but he wants people in Virginia to recognize that Obama has hurt their economy.

The reason stated for years has been to 'balance the deficit' which he still can't seem to do because he can't stop SPENDING. I don't think its hard, but they all have an agenda and no one will ever ask them what it is.

We just accept that INSANITY is sane now.

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
reply to post by ararisq

 

Advancements in guidance systems, missiles, radar, and the use of satellites, and an increase in aircraft capabilities has actually made it possible to reduce the amount of Naval ships which were once required. In fact, Battleships have become nearly obsolete worldwide, and are replaced by aircraft carriers, missile cruisers, and ballistic submarines. Your argument is invalid.

edit on 23-10-2012 by illuminated0ne because: (no reason given)

It isn't. We aren't the only ones with this technology and we have to maintain a larger navy than the opposing Axis combined (China, Russia, and so on). We may not be enemies but we may one day and if they have a 2-1 or 3-1 advantage then all our missiles, radar, and satellites won't matter because they have them as well.

Originally posted by KoolerKing
reply to post by darkhorserider

 

I really wanted to like Romney but the president just owned him.
Romney has no clue about foreign policy or the military.

Well Obama had to be schooled by the ex-CIA guy. Hes been learning on the fly himself.

The battlefields of the modern era may have changed, but I'd be willing to bet that we face more potential threats today than we did in 1916. Our naval fleet may be far more sophisticated today but that still doesn't mean that fewer ships in more places doesn't leave our forces stretched thinner. Our ships aren't invincible from attacks from enemy forces either. The USS Cole didn't fare very well from a terrorists bomb. Just imagine if that would have been an aircraft carrier that was actively engaged in battle being attacked by another Navy or state sponsored force. That would be quite a blow. I also recall reading a posting here a while back discussing how many of our ships and subs are currently being refueled or serviced therefore being out of commission for periods of up to a couple years. Romney's point had a lot validity to it even if Obama's counter argument did too. The difference is that Obama can say nothing wrong and Romney can say nothing right.

obamanator is wrong AND stupid..........those stupid remarks will come back to haunt him big time..........makes no diff tho - he has already lost the race for the WH to MR and PR ha ha ha

reply to post by KoolerKing


Before being elected to President, Obama's greatest accomplishment was being a Senator from Illinois. He too had no experience with the military or foreign policy. All the experience and knowledge he has was developed in the last 4 years. Romney brings as much to the table as Obama did 4 years ago and everyone seems to think he has done an excellent job.

Of course he doesn't understand the remark because he knows nothing of the military. If it isn't game of counting ships the why is he and Romney complaining about fewer ships? "To keep our strength abroad" this says he supports our Navy protecting other nations instead of protecting our coastal waters which is their main job. Ryan is clueless and this interview shows it.

reply to post by buster2010
Actually the prez showed the lack of understanding. A aircraft carrier is vulnerable without a escort. Imagine the effect if one of our carriers went down, the loss of life would be staggering. That's why we have destroyers and battleships, to protect carriers for one. And honestly why bother with a carrier when the guns on a battleship deal more damage then risking the life of a pilot. The carrier mentality is more appearance then practical. "Look at all the planes" Plus the bad news is that we as a nation have made certain alliances and treaties that do require us to go beyond our coast. Like was pointed out in the debate over Poland and the missile defense system. We have a coast guard for our coastal waters, the navy to deal with our interests abroad.

reply to post by ararisq


Your argument is still invalid, and your new reply is a straw man argument.

We are arguing that advancements in technology, and changes on the battlefield, require less Naval ships than previously required in the past. We are not arguing about one side needing a larger naval force than the other side.

If both sides have the same technology, than both sides would require less ships.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by butcherguy
Obama's problem may be that he is out of touch with the military.... if it isn't a 'drone' that is being talked about.

He is familiar with those. They filmed the Benghazi terrorist attack with one, and he uses them to execute the people on his 'kill list'.

Out of touch with the military? Funny how you bring up drones you do know that is just a continuation of the program started under Bush.

Indeed it is!
Funny thing that the man Obama continues doing what is bad.

Originally posted by ColeYounger
Obama's remarks were undignified in the extreme and unbefitting a president.
"We have things called aircraft carriers that planes land on." It was immature, really bush-league.

If Govenor Romney doesn't want to be spoken to like he is ignorant then I suggest he stop making ignorant arguments. President Obama is the Commander and Chief of the US Military and gets his advice from the Joint Chief of Staff and Commanding Generals. Mr. Romney gets his advice from campaign hacks. At some point the Presidents tolerance for BS is going to get spent.

reply to post by illuminated0ne


We are arguing that maintaining the worlds foremost naval force doesn't rely solely on technological advancements. Two opposing forces can have the same number of ships sharing the same technology, but the first side to suffer a casualty of a ship is going to succumb to a snowball effect. We are not the only military making advancements, but we are the one that demands absolute superiority. Superiority requires having the best technology and having the largest fleet, not just one or the other.

Originally posted by ColeYounger
Obama's remarks were undignified in the extreme and unbefitting a president.
"We have things called aircraft carriers that planes land on." It was immature, really bush-league.
Our society has become so ignorant that rude, snotty, and mannerless people are looked upon as "assertive" or "confident".

Seriously...it was like watching some smarmy, know-it-all college brat.

While I do agree with your assessment, Obama's point was made and received.

Certainly there was a better way to say it, but the fact is our military has changed and the needs have changed as well. We don't need more ships today than we had in 1916. Romney's point was just silly. We can strike anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes. We do not need more ships. We do not need more bases world wide. We can strike anywhere in the world in minutes.

Disclaimer: I am not a Romney supporter and I sure as hell am not an Obama supporter. I am simply calling a spade a spade. Romney's point was silly. Obama's response, while on point, was immature and silly as well.

GOP can make any commen tlook bad

reply to post by thefurryone


Not sure what your point is. I would rather have the current president in office if we went to war with iran or japan than romney. He sounds like howdy dowdy. words words words with no meaning or substance.
He sounds like a stick of wood.