It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The U.S. Navy: 1916 vs. 2012

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
So Romney loves to say that the US Navy is at its smallest point sense World War I. He is looking at total ships. However, has any ever stopped and actually compared that a Navy can do today compared to 1916? The USN is much more powerful then back then and is the world's best fighting force. In 1916, it was the 3rd best overall compared to Great Britain and Germany. Why does Romney need to resort to such desperate tactics? Personally I think he should just try and sell people on the crummy economy...but if he wants to make a fool of himself...fine by me!


thediplomat.com...




posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by travis911
 


How would either Romney or Obama know about the U.S. Navy or the military in general? Has either one of them woke up in a rack to GQ? Ever had to work an UNREP? Stood a 12 hour watch? I didn't think so. How about these two knuckleheads quit trying to scare the American people with fears of an underfunded military. I served in the late 90's early 2000. The U.S. was spending around 300 billion a year, almost half of what we spend today not even including the Afgan and Iraq wars. I never worried about being unable to preform my duties because I was ill equipt.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by travis911
So Romney loves to say that the US Navy is at its smallest point sense World War I. He is looking at total ships. However, has any ever stopped and actually compared that a Navy can do today compared to 1916? The USN is much more powerful then back then and is the world's best fighting force. In 1916, it was the 3rd best overall compared to Great Britain and Germany. Why does Romney need to resort to such desperate tactics? Personally I think he should just try and sell people on the crummy economy...but if he wants to make a fool of himself...fine by me!


thediplomat.com...


He is right. He did not say the US Navy is weak. His concern is that it will BECOME weak, and we have to stop that now, we have to maintain our dominance. The fact other nations have decided not to have a large Navy because they are now our allies doesn't change that fact.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by travis911
So Romney loves to say that the US Navy is at its smallest point sense World War I. He is looking at total ships. However, has any ever stopped and actually compared that a Navy can do today compared to 1916? The USN is much more powerful then back then and is the world's best fighting force. In 1916, it was the 3rd best overall compared to Great Britain and Germany. Why does Romney need to resort to such desperate tactics? Personally I think he should just try and sell people on the crummy economy...but if he wants to make a fool of himself...fine by me!


thediplomat.com...


He is right. He did not say the US Navy is weak. His concern is that it will BECOME weak, and we have to stop that now, we have to maintain our dominance. The fact other nations have decided not to have a large Navy because they are now our allies doesn't change that fact.


We could cut our Navy in half and easly remain the most powerful navy on earth for decades to come. A single Carrier battle group could take out any other navy on earth. If people want to increase military spending use on something the military wants not on more stuff they do not. How about instead of wasting money on more ships we do not need we spend that money on the VA where the money could be to put to good use. If Romeny wants to waste money he should at least let the military decide what he waste it on instead of making them take more stuff they do not want.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


Awesome, now show me the Navy says they should be cut in half, or they do not need or want any more funding. I'll wait for your sources.
edit on 18-10-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by MrSpad
 


Awesome, now show me the Navy says they should be cut in half, or they do not need or want any more funding. I'll wait for your sources.
edit on 18-10-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)


What are you blathering about? The Navy has not said it should be cut in half or that it want less funding. Do try and read the posts you respond to. The Navy would love more funding, what the Navy would not want is more ships they would be responsible for funding the manpower and upkeep. Unless of course we are some how going to come up with they money to fund that for the next 20 years the Navy is going to have to cut money from something else to do so. The Navy already has 37 ships under construction with more planned. By retiring old ships and adding new ones the Navy plan to stay the same size over the next decade. What they have not planned on is getting bigger and how they would fund that. Because if Romney becomes President he will not be able to cut taxes, keep every program he says he will, increase military spending and reduce the budget.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Bring back the Battleships...nothing says America then a giant boat with the largest possible gun on it




Almost our key to defeating alien invaders
edit on 19-10-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by MrSpad
 


Awesome, now show me the Navy says they should be cut in half, or they do not need or want any more funding. I'll wait for your sources.
edit on 18-10-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)


What are you blathering about? The Navy has not said it should be cut in half or that it want less funding. Do try and read the posts you respond to. The Navy would love more funding, what the Navy would not want is more ships they would be responsible for funding the manpower and upkeep. Unless of course we are some how going to come up with they money to fund that for the next 20 years the Navy is going to have to cut money from something else to do so. The Navy already has 37 ships under construction with more planned. By retiring old ships and adding new ones the Navy plan to stay the same size over the next decade. What they have not planned on is getting bigger and how they would fund that. Because if Romney becomes President he will not be able to cut taxes, keep every program he says he will, increase military spending and reduce the budget.


Maybe you need to read your post.

Originally posted by MrSpad
If people want to increase military spending use on something the military wants not on more stuff they do not.


You claim they don't want the funding Romney proposes. Then you claim they can have their funding cut in half and be fine. Surely if they are fine with half the funding they have been saying they are overfunded. Show me where the Navy has stated they DON'T want the funding Romney proposes. Thanks.







 
2

log in

join