Obama Dustbins US Navy with the Bayonets and Horses

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   


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.
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Yes I'm afraid they do as much, that's what's called a blue-water navy.




posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   


According to experts in geopolitics, the US has the best (and by far the best) blue water Navy in the world.
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Really? How many Type45's has the USN purchased?



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   


and they've also got 3,700 aircraft that they didn't have in 1916.
reply to post by vox2442
 


That would equate to about 3,200 (Minus F-18s, P-3 and Hawkeye) helicopters, which is obviously far too generous an estimate.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Renegade2283
 


Yes, and when you consider that #2 and #3 put together are the only real potential wartime "enemy" of our nation, along with the fact that #4 through the top of the list (with the possible exception of India and Brazil) are basically US souzereins (or allies, if you'd prefer), then what is the point?

As far as what Obama said, if you (not the poster I'm replying to, but rather the OP and others of his/her mindset) really think that's what he meant, then I guess you should be just as disgusted with government money going to other wasteful ventures, like propping up "Detroit" (as metanymy for the US auto industry) and doling out oil subsidies for "R&D" (as euphamism for Oil Company CEO bonuses).

If it truly has become obsolete to only count on battleships, then why is it any different for the gov't to subsidize the ship building industry when compared with the US automobile industry? It's still government cheese for no-bid contractors.

I'm not drinking Obama's coke or Romney's pepsi, but I fail to see how this is an issue, other than kindling for partisan boilers.

Anyone else find the republican critique of high-speed rail in the midwest ironic in light of the second installment to the film version of Atlas Shrugged? Then again, Rand's anarcho-entrepreneurialism is no match for US Corporate Fascism, whether the CEO in Chief is a real CEO or not. Just makes you wonder, though...



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by Renegade2283
Enough said.
Those numbers are pure BS. Please post the link and get the latest numbers if possible.


The fact that you think it's BS shows how well the military industrial complex has worked people over the years.

Year after year, regardless of the president, we hear these fears that our military is on the verge of being soooo weak, and if we don't start spending more soon, we are going to be completely helpless to defend ourselves. Since fear is such a strong emotion, and nothing is more scary than war, some people really eat it up.

I guess it makes sense that you would outright dismiss these numbers as BS, it's just seems so unbelievable, how could america outspend the next 10 countries combined, if we are constantly told we are in dire need of more money to keep us safe from the other countries? Isn't the world catching up to us? No, not really, but people make profits off the belief so it won't ever go away. Pumping these fears of weakness is a vital part of their job.

The warning from the general was on point, and we've ignored it.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by Renegade2283
Enough said.
Those numbers are pure BS. Please post the link and get the latest numbers if possible.


Erm... Are you curious to make sure the data are good yourself? Hint: google "us military spending vs other countries".

And I thought certain things were easy /facepalm/



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by aethertek

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by Renegade2283
Enough said.
Those numbers are pure BS. Please post the link and get the latest numbers if possible.

All you had to do is look.

Learn to use it.
edit on 23-10-2012 by aethertek because: More links

Dude/Dudette...where does the chart for china come close to 140 Billion plus?
Thats the reason I was asking for a link and latest numbers. Perhaps 'all you had to do is look' at my response and your graph and the real numbers (billions of dollars). Stop using google for everything or copy paste too much as I'm sure you've 'learned to use it very well'



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by mahatche
 
See my response to aethertek.

1. What are China's long-term defense spending plans?
Although China's official 2012 defense budget is $106 billion, an 11 percent increase over last year and a fourfold increase from a decade ago, the Pentagon places China's total military spending at somewhere between $120 and $180 billion. "Estimating actual PLA military expenditures is difficult because of poor accounting transparency and China's still incomplete transition from a command economy," the report notes, referring to the People's Liberation Army.

LINK
edit on 24-10-2012 by hp1229 because: add link and content



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 
See my response to aethertek. No need to immitate/follow someone else
edit on 24-10-2012 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-10-2012 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-10-2012 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Komonazmuk
Lord knows you have no bias.

My bias is that I have come to the conclusion that I can't stand Obama or Romney.
How about you people admit your pro-Obama bias and that you can't see the
fact that he dis'd our Navy. It would be the adult thing for you to do.


Everyone interprets reality in different ways. I, unlike you, I find no disrespect to the navy in the remark. It may have shown some disdain for Romney and his ignorance of military hardware. but your take on it looks to be a stretch that just won't fit. As a matter of fact, I'm guessing you've got a political agenda. Come on now tell it like it is.

You say you can't stand Romney or Obama. Looks like you don't have much regard for facts either, throwing your knee jerk reaction around and giving it this elevated status of fact.

While you might find an audience for this, we're not all fools out here.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


OP, I hope they were listening as well. If I was in the Navy, I would want to be part of a group of the most advanced ships in the world, rather than an emerging markets-style naval format of slapping together a bunch of boats with guns and hoping that by outnumbering the enemy you might slip a win in here and there.

A single US carrier group could likely wipe out most other nation's entire navies on its own.

The president paid a great compliment to the Navy and to the shipbuilders, in indicating that we don't NEED to have the gaudy numbers, because our quality and technology, and people/training just plain smoke the rest of the world.

I understand that neocons prefer we spend ourselves into oblivion to the benefit of a few select corporations than to have a highly effective, efficient military, despite their claims of "conservatism", but reality is reality, no matter how badly certain pocket-lining Republicans may want to starve our nation and weaken our military by leaping backward in technology.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by hp1229
reply to post by buddhasystem
 
See my response to aethertek. No need to immitate/follow someone else


Indeed. Also there is no need to make remarks without any supporting facts, while in reality some facts were offered to you. And so I'm not imitating anyone when I'm saying well, you are ignoring the facts that aren't compatible with your chosen view of reality, so damn the facts. Do you know of better sources? What's more important, can you show that the real numbers differ by an order of magnitude from the diagram shown? That would be interesting, because my own googling always showed the same ballpark for numbers. So you either need to source some data or stop the empty talk.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by js331975
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.


I think O still wants to spend some of those military billions on something else:




posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
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.


You came oh so close to getting it right my friend. Hopefully soon you will realize that the game has changed and it is no longer about right versus left but in and out. You're either one.of the elite insiders getting kickbacks and corporate welfare from your government buddies or you are an outsider which is all.of us getting screwed by the insiders and bernanke and his boys. Doug Weed does a great explanation about the in versus out.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Logman
The world (and ATS) does not need another neocon paraphrasing, misquoting, and simply lying about what Obama said just because they hate him so much.

1 - Don't tell me how to post. I know how much better than you do. You overquoted.
2 - I didn't lie or misquote. I posted EXACTLY what he said. He owns it.
3 - I'm not a 'neocon'. Just because someone exposes Obama doesn't mean they are pro-Romney.

Did he really say the US Navy was a thing of the past?

Yes. By putting it in the dustbin with bayonets and horses. By directly implying that we need the navy as much as bayonets and horses. OBAMA doesn't understand the mission of the US Navy and it's needs. Either that or he doesn't care. Pretty dangerous thing for a Commander in Chief.

You are just simply lying and it is outrageous.

Wrong.

Incredible mindset. Grow up.

Right back atchya.
edit on 10/23/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)


you sir, are clearly a biased retard. everyone can see it. you twist anything you hear into what you want it to be so you can spout off about it and make yourself feel good. hillarious



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Can I chime in here for a minute?

Take a look at this:


There are more than 430 ships believed to be in active service with the United States Navy, on reserve, or under construction, based on public reports compiled in this list. The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined. This list includes both U.S. Navy owned and leased ships; both ships that are formally commissioned and other ships that are used by the U.S. Navy without the ceremony of commissioning.

Wikipedia

Now, before I get slammed for Wikipedia being run by "a bunch of liberals" -- let's assume that information is correct.

This information would conclude that we have a larger Navy than the other 13th largest Navy's combined


I'm pretty proud of our men and women on the seas. My uncle was a retired enlisted WWII Navy vet, nice guy too.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Seriously? That's what you got from the "horses and bayonets" comment? Did you miss the part about "we have aircraft carriers now and they are really, really big?"

The Navy DIDN'T "get smaller"....the frickin' BOATS GOT BIGGER and faster. And then we put a bunch of long medium and long range bombers on top of them just for fun.

A SINGLE Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier has more firepower on it than the sum total of ALL THE FIREPOWER used by ALL SIDES during WWII COMBINED...including the nukes we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. WE HAVE 10 OF THEM. That's 10X as much explosives, bullets, and nuclear weapons as was used by the US, Japan, Germany, Italy, Russia, Great Britain, China, France, Spain, North Africa, and French Indo-China (modern day vietnam) COMBINED that is ready to spring into action at any time.

In addition we have 22 cruisers, 62 destroyers, 29 frigates, 3 littoral combat ships, 9 amphibious assault ships, 2 amphibious command ships, 9 amphibious transport docks, 12 dock landing ships, 53 attack submarines, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 4 guided missile submarines, 14 mine countermeasures ships, 11 patrol boats, and 1 technical research ship (military intelligence ship, the USS Pueblo, which is currently held by North Korea).
Support ships include 2 hospital ships, 4 salvage ships, 2 submarine tenders, 1 ammunition ship, 5 combat stores ships, 4 fast combat support ships, 9 dry cargo ships, 15 replenishment oilers, 4 Fleet Ocean Tugs, 11 large harbor tugs, 4 ocean surveillance ships, 4 container ships, 16 cargo ships (used for pre-positioning of Marine and Army materiel), and 7 vehicle cargo ships (also used for prepositioning).

However...that can be a little misleading because what we call "amphibious assualt ships" are actually larger, faster, and store more firepower, and hold more helicopeters/fighter jets than the what OTHER countries call "aircraft carriers". All in all there are about 436 ships total (238 USS ships, 198 USNS, MV, SS and other ships) that meet this definition of current ships.

But guess what? That ALSO doesn't include the miniture Navy that the Air Force maintains (sometimes referred to as the Tynndale Navy), the 164 logistics, intelligence, and light combat ships maintained by the Military Sealift Command, The 51 war ships operated by the US Army, and the 1,850 lightly armed patrol boats in the US Coast Guard.

Let me ask...how many more war ships do you feel that we really need?



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
Can I chime in here for a minute?

Take a look at this:


There are more than 430 ships believed to be in active service with the United States Navy, on reserve, or under construction, based on public reports compiled in this list. The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined. This list includes both U.S. Navy owned and leased ships; both ships that are formally commissioned and other ships that are used by the U.S. Navy without the ceremony of commissioning.

Wikipedia

Now, before I get slammed for Wikipedia being run by "a bunch of liberals" -- let's assume that information is correct.

This information would conclude that we have a larger Navy than the other 13th largest Navy's combined


I'm pretty proud of our men and women on the seas. My uncle was a retired enlisted WWII Navy vet, nice guy too.


Yep. The count might be off by a ship or two...but it's fairly accurate.

The reality is that our COAST GUARD could take about 80% of the world's the Navy''s.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by Renegade2283
Enough said.
Those numbers are pure BS. Please post the link and get the latest numbers if possible.


Erm... Are you curious to make sure the data are good yourself? Hint: google "us military spending vs other countries".

And I thought certain things were easy /facepalm/


Yeah...but this here is 'merica and we ain't much a-one's for no sorta fancy book-learnin'.

Props on the correct grammar w/ "data are" too. Nothing drives me more batsh^t insane than when I hear people say that "the data is _________" instead of "data are __________".



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



As others have said, there is already a thread on this particular debate exchange. Guess your shouting in the oher thread was being drowned out by reason.

Are we telling you where or how to post? Not really, just pointing out that there is already a thread on this topic and the policy at ATS is to keep the same subject topic to one thread as much as possible, hence we are pointing out what good ATS form is.

As for your OP, as others have said, you're making a false claim about what Obama said. He didn't say the navy should be thrown in the dust bin; his point was that technology advances and the needs of the military changes. And he pointed out the logical fallacy in Romney's statement regarding the number of ships. That you can't see this or intentionally ignore this shows how biased and irrational you are on this issue -- not to mention plenty of others.

Also you address Navy personnel and ship builders, but how about the rest of voting US citizens? The US doesn't have unlimited resources, yet you want the Navy to have more ships than its leadership says are necessary. There are better ways to spend the defense budget than on more carrier groups, and there are even better ways of re-budgeting US government spending in general. We spend too much on the military, including the Navy. Besides which, technology is evolving and it appears that missiles are gaining more primacy, so that aircraft carriers are going to end up becoming obsolete just like battleships did. But you want the US to squander vast quantities of money on unneeded and likely-already-obsolete naval systems.

Your claim that the US Navy needs more carriers is even more miopic given the advent of drones/UAV. Seems smaller craft -- say light carriers or other ships with small landing platforms -- could house many more drone craft than can a modern carrier house piloted vehicles. This would be a cheaper and more efficient projection of power, if that is your thing.

Love your sources in one of your later posts. Hmm, the magazine for steel ship builders -- not too biased a source. And as for the statement in one of these articles about how the US fleet size is about half of what it was in 1987, this fails to account for the fact that The Cold War officially ended in 1989 and the former Soviet Union's fleet -- the USN's main adversary at the time -- is no more. Russia has a much smaller fleet, which is not much of a threat to the US anymore. The Chinese fleet is also relatively small and certainly hasn't become the threat that the USSR's navy was. And Iran has: SPEED BOATS and a few subs and other larger surface craft. The US does not need more ships to counter these threats. And if we make the fleet bigger, it will just entail borrowing more money from China, which doesn't seem to be a smart thing to do as China could just call in its loans and destroy the US economically, not having to lift a finger in violence.

And for someone who says he/she is neither a Obama or Romney fan, you sure have a lot more venom for Obama than for Romney in this late campaign season. And for someone who claims he/she isn't a Romney supporter, you sure seem to swallow his lame bogus political rhetoric.

Reading through many of the posts in this thread, I am heartened by the preponderance of comments calling shenanigans on the OP's incredibly false statement and the incoherence of his argument. Flyersfan, you've been powned and served. Game over, dude.
edit on 25-10-2012 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-10-2012 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join