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

reply to post by primus2012


No the draw down has been in full effect for a long time.

Try and enlist in the military now and see how difficult it is. They are allowing fewer in and kicking more out.

None of this has anything to do with Obama.

Here is something pretty to look at, to put things in perspective. I don't actually believe that any of the conservative voices here will actually look and respond. I mean sheesh, I posted a ton of information already from Stripes on the current use (non-use) of bayonets. It seems people would rather bicker back and forth over personal attacks instead of the facts.

So here are pretty pictures. These even have colors!

reply to post by buster2010


Thanks for the graphic, last night I posted one from Global Security that showed our carrier strength in comparison to all other nations with carriers.

It even showed how big the Battlestar Galactica was in comparison



"Mr. Romney, we have these things called Battlestars ... and they go into space and stuffs, yo."

reply to post by buster2010

The ships the USA has now do a lot more and project a much larger footprint than they used to, no?

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Your absolutely right! People do NOT care about the facts and this is especially true of the USA military machine that has been spoiled to death with decades of mismanagement and corruption. The military cries and the government bends over.

It would be nice if the government could show the same sensitivity TO OTHER INDUSTRIES that have been decimitated with the WTO global trade agreements and try to cut down on military waste. I means its like wwwwaaaaaayyyyyyyy over due, correct?

Just goes to show any problem can be solved JUST by throwing money at it, and the military throws millions back to the inside trading politicians.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


But I want more ships! Whaaaaaa!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I just can't believe reading through this discussion how back and forth people are!

No one even takes a moment to comment on actual material presented, and instead just harps away at each other.

I'm not sure if we've disagreed or not in the past, but your avatar clearly makes you perma-cool in my book.

Prior: We are beacons on the road to enlightenment.
Mitchell: No, you're a dark side intergalactic encyclopedia salesman and unfortunately the home office hasn't been up front with you. ...
Jackson: Nice work on the metaphor.
Mitchell: Thank you.

Originally posted by buster2010
Ryan: "I just don't understand" bayonet remark

Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan defended his running mate's positions following Monday's third and final presidential debate and took aim at the president for comparing Mitt Romney's military budget strategy to the game "Battleship." "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916," Mr. Obama said in response to Romney's critique of the administration's military spending. "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. "The question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting ships," he added. Appearing on "CBS This Morning," Ryan suggested the president was being petty: "To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets - I just don't understand that comparison. "Look. We have to have a strong Navy to keep peace and prosperity and sea lanes open," he continued. "The president's, all these defense cuts, if all these defense cuts go through, our Navy will be smaller than it was before World War I. That's not acceptable. And, yes, the ... the ocean hasn't shrunk. You still have to have enough ships to have a footprint that you need to keep sea lanes open, to keep our strength abroad where it needs to be."

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.

No sh^t. The Navy didn't get SMALLER...the BOATS GOT BIGGER!!!

reply to post by NewAgeMan


"You get none!"

Okay, you can have some more ships. Only on two conditions. First, I get to be the captain of one and wear the Captain Crunch hat. Secondly, we are to install gambling tables and stripper poles and sail only in international waters.

Originally posted by earthdude
Why do you think other countries would do things differently if they decided to be invaders. I ment "we" as in the human race. When was the last time we intercepted a ship full of troops? Man, everybody is stuck in the 1940's. We don't even need to man ships, they can be remotely controlled.

Hardly any ships that I know of Military or Commercial are remotely controlled. That day is not here. You must be stuck in the Titor age.

You are proving my point. The reason you don't see anyone ship infantry and armor by sea around is twofold:

1. Only the U.S., U.K. and France have shown the ability to do so large scale. Other countries lack the air/sea lift capacity and infrastructure, base agreements ect to do so. No other countries have EVER demonstrated the ability to move large numbers of Troops, Ships and vehicles halfway around the world. It's not a very easy thing to do.

2. The U.S.N. No nation would attempt to move troops by sea, which is the most economical way of doing so, with the threat of the U.S.N. sinking them far from their destination. Our Navy controls the Seven Seas. It is precisely because we have such a strong navy that NO ONE even attempts Naval engagements anymore. The Pax America we have on the high seas is due to the U.S.N. Quite literally the U.S.N. could take on the combined navies of the rest of the world and most probably win if not outright dominate the battle. When you have such power and advantage, you need to maintain it. I know that will come as a shock to some on this board, but it's the truth.

reply to post by buster2010


But but the guarding of our coasts goes to the coast guard not the Navy.

reply to post by ColeYounger


I am a democrat and even I yelled at the TV the other night for him to be a gentleman. Not nice. It wont make me vote for Romney but I can still say bad boy.

reply to post by Vitruvian


And in an ever changing military Navy is more often Naval Air these days. As in Norfolk Naval Air station here in Hampton roads. Or the Naval Air station in Pensacola Florida. The Navy maintains more planes than ships these days.

I just signed up to post this...have monitored ATS for quite some time, and am now disappointed at the responses that have been generated on this topic, so I signed up with the alias kantakenomore to post this: This site has become like a high school forum. I thought of all people, the ones on the ATS forum would get the "cavalry and bayonet" remark. He's just telling us, without telling us, that it's old technology. If you at all follow what's written and spoken about on the internet concerning black budget military planning and agendas, you would be aware that the U.S. military almost certainly spends a great portion of its trillions on technology that is decades to a thousand years ahead of its time. While the navy remains effective at enforcing policy on a regional basis with 90-some percent of the world's nations, in hypothetical future confrontations with Russia and China specifically, it's outdated technology. He was telling Romney that navies are becoming quaint and outdated. Why can't anybody, not just on ATS, but anybody anywhere see this? It's so obvious it's corny. To support my point you only need to read many of the articles on black projects on ATS and other sites that have been written over the years.

Another thing - although they're entertaining, can everyone tone down on saying "this is going to happen on this date"...earthquakes, nuclear wars, comets. We all know those days come and pass without incident (although the Lightbulb has hit on at least one earthquake that I know of). If we can know one thing with reasonable certainty, it's that we need to expect the unexpected. Look at the major events that have impacted this planet and its people so far in this century - 9/11, the 2002 tsunami and Fukushima. They were all completely unpredictable (well, 9/11 was to some), but they all caught the general public completely by surprise. We should expect that more than anything...expect the unexpected. Whatever comes will probably come out of nowhere. Maybe it's not that important to decode and predict these disasters in order to merely improve our chances of survival. I certainly don't want to live in a bunker for months and years through a nuclear winter, solar flare or pole shift or whatever else just to survive. Maybe it's better to do what the new-age ascension proponents are saying and fill our lives with love and compassion and live in the moment. I once asked my buddy from Texas what he would do if he knew the Russians had just lobbed a megatonner into his neighborhood. He said, true to form: "I'd get out in my back yard with my glove and try to make an over-the-shoulder Willie Mays highlight catch". A nice piece of humor for sure, but my point is that many of you are letting these depressing scenarios get the best of you and rob you of precious moments of your lives. Even if our time is short, so what? Reach out - visit your grandma, pet your dog, grow some flowers. This fragile life is still here for us to enjoy, and even the simple things can be fun and have a lot of meaning.

Thanks, sorry to be bitter, but it's not just about platoons and battleship armadas anymore. Aircraft carrier technology is 70 years old man! So is nuclear technology. When it gets heavy, it will be about laser-oriented weapons on-world and off, and a myriad of other potential advanced technologies, some of which we have some clue about and some which we probably have no idea about. THAT'S what Obama was saying. If you need evidence, just read up on the Gary McKinnon case and why it's such a big deal.

Thanks again, I sure feel better. Wait a minute, no I don't!

reply to post by kantakenomore


I've said several times that if I see a prediction on ATS, I can sleep easy knowing it won't happen.

reply to post by karen61057
It was a bit belittling of him to call Romney out like that, but it had to be done. Romney's lack of knowledge in the field of foreign affairs and modern warfare needed to be made evident.

Obama did just that.

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by buster2010

 

But but the guarding of our coasts goes to the coast guard not the Navy.

It is part of the Navy's job also. You know defending that little thing called the Constitution. Kind of hard to do when they are halfway around the world don't you think.

Originally posted by campanionator
Obama's remark was a masterful way to say a lot without having to use a bunch of words to do so.

Such as, we do not depend on telephone poles to make phone calls

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

Great! It's like saying our phone coverage is not as good as it was in 1916....well we don't use telephone poles any more....

Well, yes that is true, BUT we still need more coverage....lol

reply to post by MystikMushroom


It's like you got your head in the sand...lol

In about 5 years China will have 9 carrier groups all of advance design. Our Navy in 1917 was in really bad shape and today it is about the same...the funny part is the Chinese will think our Navy in 10 years WILL be like horses and bayonets to them, BUT today...lol

Many of you don't have a clue, BUT hell you need to agree with the President stupid statement no matter what...sad.

Originally posted by Sek82

 

It was a bit belittling of him to call Romney out like that, but it had to be done. Romney's lack of knowledge in the field of foreign affairs and modern warfare needed to be made evident.

Obama did just that.

Lol really? Obama's lack is not? AND he just happens to be President....geez