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

page: 20
38
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join

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

Originally posted by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies



This is an actual photo taken by an AP embedded journalist with active deployed troops in Fallujah in 2006.

Not 2012, but it was also the first photo I found in one of my folders.


So when did Romney say we needed more horses and Bayonets?

He said we needed more ships to meet the mission today. Our Navy sucked in 1917 and we have a much larger mission today than 1917 AND we are heading in the direction to have a less of a Navy than 1917...you know the one that sucked in 1917...lol




posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Apparently I posted something "scary" to the GOP/Conservative/Republican people.

"Liberal fancy numbers and ****!"

Really GOP supporters? Please reply and address the numbers and graphs I have posted. Each hour that goes by that you do not reply only suports my personal opinion of the "trailer trash", war-mongering GOP. Brought to us and paid for via the rich elite. (via means "by" .. btw)

I mean, my graphs and charts are "pretty" -- they even have "colors"! (not that you like colors)

Sorry for my harsh tone. But I demand a reply to the graphs, factual non-partisan articles, and "pretty pictures with those things called numbers".

I'm pissed off and rightly so.

This entire thread has descended into nothing but back and forth bickering between members instead of the core issue. And what is that core issue? gasp

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



I have presented enough damming evidence in the course of this toxic thread to prove that, no -- Mr. Ryan does not understand the remark.

Do I need to really re-post all of the material that I presented in this PREVIOUS AND RELEVENT DISCUSSION?

Until I receive an intelligent, well thought out response to my "fancy graphs and numbers" -- I'll keep harping on the GOP/Republican stereotype of the "uneducated, redneck, stupid, uneducated, willfully ignorant and racist conservative".

Prove me wrong, look back through my posts on this discussion topic and the one I linked to. I know, it's hard to click a link in a new window (pst. Google Chrome is pretty sweet!).

Look! Here's another "pretty picture" (now with fancy colors and words too!)



Even the most interesting man in the world uses horses and bayonets to fight his battles! He must be right, I mean -- he drinks beer just like me!
edit on 24-10-2012 by MystikMushroom because: Formatting for you ignorant punks!



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Do you realize that an aircraft carrier sails as part of a, "Carrier Group"? This includes nuclear submarines with *gasp* nuclear weapons?

We could, "glass that country into the stone age" with just ONE of those subs.

Oh, and I forgot all the "planes" that land on the aircraft carrier. Yes, we have planes that land on these "boats".

Those planes carry laser and satellite guided air to surface missiles.

You conservative guys all loved and orgasmed with Bush Jr's "Shock and Awe" in Iraq ...



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom



So what is your point here....Our Navy in 1917 was in bad shape....Our Navy's mission today is much larger....if our Navy experts suggests we need 310 plus ships (modern ships) to do the mission and that number is dropping into the low 200s I guess it is safe to say our Navy will be smaller than the one in 1917...that just happened to be very small and not enough at that time...

Romney was not saying we just need to more ship...of any kind or age...we need a bigger/modern Navy to meet the mission today. To suggest our Navy is heading to be smaller than our crappy Navy of 1917 is just to put things in perspective.

The president didn't address it..he was just an ass with a smart ass remark.




edit on 25-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom

Do you realize that an aircraft carrier sails as part of a, "Carrier Group"? This includes nuclear submarines with *gasp* nuclear weapons?

We could, "glass that country into the stone age" with just ONE of those subs.

Oh, and I forgot all the "planes" that land on the aircraft carrier. Yes, we have planes that land on these "boats".

Those planes carry laser and satellite guided air to surface missiles.

You conservative guys all loved and orgasmed with Bush Jr's "Shock and Awe" in Iraq ...




So is that your "President being an ass" impersonation?

*gasp* I guess all we need to do is launch nukes if anyone gets near us...that would teach those Pirates...

I love people like you that want to lecture about something they have not a clue... AND *gasp* to people who spent 28 years in the military...lol

BTW call them aircraft and ships...if you don't know why...well I'm not going to tell you...lol

Do you realize China alone will have 9 Carrier groups in the near future to our future 13? AND that is just a start for them. Do you realize their Navy has surpassed us already in strength? Do you realize China is entering the age where they will become offensive in the far east?

This is the type of stuff we should debate and not you snide "presidential style" remarks.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by MystikMushroom



So what is your point here....Our Navy in 1917 was in bad shape....Our Navy's mission today is much larger....if our Navy experts suggests we need 310 plus ships (modern ships) to do the mission and that number is dropping into the low 200s I guess it is safe to say our Navy will be smaller than the one in 1917...that just happened to be very small and not enough at that time...

Romney was not saying we just need to more ship...of any kind or age...we need a bigger/modern Navy to meet the mission today. To suggest our Navy is heading to be smaller than our crappy Navy of 1917 is just to put things in perspective.

The president didn't address it..he was just an ass with a smart ass remark.

edit on 25-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


You really haven't been doing your homework, have you?

The capability of our modern ships far exceeds what was needed in 19xx. We have a TEN TO ONE advantage over any other Navy in the world.

We are building new ships. Are you perhaps a union member at one of the Virginia shipyards?

The Gerald R. Ford will be in service in 2015. This is a "new" class of "Super Carriers".

Here's a list of the new carriers being built:


There are expected to be ten ships of this class.[16] To date, three have been announced:
Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) (2015): scheduled to replace Enterprise (CVN-65).
John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)[1] (2020): scheduled to replace Nimitz (CVN-68).
CVN-80 (2025): scheduled to replace Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69).

Gerald R. Ford Class

You should check out the rest of that page, those new carriers sound awesome.

We already have these:


The Nimitz-class supercarriers are a class of ten nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in service with the United States Navy. The lead ship of the class is named for World War II Pacific fleet commander Chester W. Nimitz, who was the Navy's last fleet admiral. With an overall length of 1,092 ft (333 m) and full-load displacements of over 100,000 long tons,[1] they are the largest warships ever built.

Nimitz-Class Carrier

Then, on top of that there is this new "stealth" ship the USN has being built:


The expanded U.S. presence will include the Navy’s next-generation warship, the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer, named after the former chief of naval operations Adm. Elmo Zumwalt Jr. The first of these 600-foot, 15,000-ton vessels is being built by General Dynamics in Maine at the Bath Iron Works, which had to construct a $40 million facility to accommodate the project.

Introducing the USS Zumwalt, the Stealth Destroyer

It's even already been discussed here on ATS before. On October 18th, in THIS discussion thread.

Apparently, we're going to build another two more. Those things look like they'd do the job -- rail guns and lasers?

Lets look at what we're got going on with submarines! Everybody loves boats that go under water!



Ohio class (18 in commission) — 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBN'S), 4 guided missile submarines (SSGN's)
Virginia class (7 in commission, 3 under construction, 4 on order) — fast attack submarines
Seawolf class (3 in commission) — attack submarines
Los Angeles class (43 in commission, 2 in reserve) — attack submarines

Link

Look, we have 14 subs that can do a multiple nuclear strike on any country at any given time. Nobody but the military knows where they are.

If you really want to argue that our Navy is weak, I think I know a few sailors you'd find fascinating to say that to.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 





I mean, my graphs and charts are "pretty" -- they even have "colors"! (not that you like colors)


I have to tell you, this is one of the most ignorant remarks I have seen on these boards. The assumption you make, makes an "ass out of you and me" if you know what I mean.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


They won't have 9 "carrier groups" (which is a misnomer, each country organizes their groups differently) if they keep buying old, cold-war era carriers from Russia.

The fact is China has ONE carrier as of right now. It took them over 10 years to be put into service.

Stop fear mongering.
edit on 25-10-2012 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 





I mean, my graphs and charts are "pretty" -- they even have "colors"! (not that you like colors)

Sorry for my harsh tone.


I have to tell you, this is one of the most ignorant remarks I have seen on these boards. The assumption you make, makes an "ass out of you and me" if you know what I mean.


Well, at least I apologized in a disclaimer -- like a politician.
edit on 25-10-2012 by MystikMushroom because: punctuation!



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Just so you know people can read between the lines. I forgive you though I disagree with your opinion.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Do you realize that an aircraft carrier sails as part of a, "Carrier Group"? This includes nuclear submarines with *gasp* nuclear weapons?

We could, "glass that country into the stone age" with just ONE of those subs.




Again, not correct. Ohio class subs, the Boomers, are not parts of a Carrier Group. They run silent and deep. They try to be undectable. Why would they be part of such an obvious surface group. There are Los Angeles class subs that get attached to a CSG, but they are attack subs not balistic subs. They are nuclear powered but not nuclear armed.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


They won't have 9 "carrier groups" (which is a misnomer, each country organizes their groups differently) if they keep buying old, cold-war era carriers from Russia.

The fact is China has ONE carrier as of right now. It took them over 10 years to be put into service.

Stop fear mongering.
edit on 25-10-2012 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)


The latest I have seen is that they eventually want 4 carrier groups, with rather small carriers. All 4 would not equal one of the Nimitz or Ford Class complement of aircraft. I would agree, not a major threat.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
China will have 3 carriers by 2015, and I do not think they will stop at 4. Their one problem is training. I do not know if they have a facility like Russia does in Ukraine that simulates carrier landings on a runway, but it would be helpful since even their flight instructors have NEVER landed on a carrier. That is one of the more difficult tasks in aviation as anyone worth their salt well knows. So, with the former Russian Varyag and two more being built and scheduled to go into service in 3 years, there are a lot of pilots to train! This is one advantage the USN has over the Peoples Liberation Army Navy(Gotta love that confusing name). China has the luxury of being able to hide their plans and budgets much easier than the US, and it is foolish to believe they will stop at 4 carriers when they have the money for more.

In my previous post in this thread, I referenced the cliche of people fighting the last war. But in the last 10 years, we have sacrificed more than a few projects in order to rush projects needed for Afghanistan and Iraq, such as the MRAP and others. One of the cuts was the Seawolf class of subs, of which only 3 were built which is sad because it is incredible! The Ohio and Los Angeles class are getting a little old, though they are still the best. Also, because of the endless delays in the F-35 program, the Air Force and Navy will be facing a fighter gap in the middle of this decade as f-15s, 16s, and F/A-18 A/B/C/D models reach the end of their life spans. Both services will face a gap of at least 150 planes each unless something is done. Coincidentally, this is just at the time when China will have 3 carriers ready to sail, while we are losing what amounts to 3 of our own due to the lack of planes. Suddenly that 9/1 margin has become 6/3, or even 6/4. If you look at likely conflict zones, such as the disputed islands in the South China Sea, China would be able to use their land based planes as well, and the overwhelming superiority of the USN is suddenly gone, and perhaps we are even placed at a disadvantage.

Relations between our Allies South Korea, Japan and Vietnam and China are tense now, can you imagine how tense it would get with a Chinese flagged carrier or two thrown in the mix?

The one advantage we do have is that China has a green water navy, and lacks the overseas bases, supply networks and support ships that allow the USN to operate so smoothly. But it is only a matter of time before they get everything in place. 10-15 years from now this conversation will likely be a lot different. I am not saying we need two dozen carriers, I am happy with the numbers we have now... But I wish people would realize that this is a long chess game, and cuts now might bleed worse than anticipated 5-10 years down the road.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by steppenwolf86
 


China's military spending is only going one way and that is up. I agree with that. They carriers they are building are not in the same class as our Nimitz and Ford's, they just aren't. China's navy will expand and will present obstacles but we are many decades away from them being a threat.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
i'm sure the potus was referring to Fast and Furious gun walking to the cartels - he forgot to include the bayonets w/ those shooting thingies but remembered that there are "...ships that go under water...".



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Sorry Buster but you're clueless. The primary mission of the United States Navy has always been the protection of international sea trade routes. Its secondary mission is to provide support to land forces in a time of war as well as secure sea bound logistics.

While the Navy certainly does protect our costal waters, that is not their primary mission. The mission of the Navy hasn't changed since it was created. There's a reason we have a Coast Guard.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by primus2012
 


I never used my bayonet while clearing houses, did you?


No but you used a blade for damn near everything. If you say you didn't you're lying.





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join