Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Correcting Obama's Debate Comments on the United States Navy
Ward World ^ | 10/23/2012 | Ward World

Posted on 10/22/2012 9:41:46 PM PDT by kevinaw2

Earlier this evening in the Third Presidential Debate Mitt Romney raised legitimate concerns about the current and shrinking size of the United States Navy. The President responded snarkily by saying that size does not matter because we have these these "things" called Carriers that "planes can land on" and these "things" that go underwater.

This pathetic attempt at rebuttal by Obama is quite simple. The first submarine commissioned by the United States Navy was "USS Holland (SS-1)" on October 12, 1900.




The first Aircraft Carrier commissioned by the United States Navy was the USS Langley (CV-1) on March 20, 1922. 



Exactly how does the existence of Aircraft Carriers and submarines in a Modern American Navy nullify Mitt Romney's  just concerns about the size of the Navy? Obama spoke about both as if they were some new fangled advances in naval warfare. The existence of carriers in our fleet justifies its reduction even though they have been an integral part of our navy for 112 and 87 years respectively? I guess in Obama's world Jimmy Doolittle was bombing Tokyo with ELECTRONIC b-25 Mitchell bombers. How can he defend shrinking a navy whose history he is wholly ignorant?




TOPICS: Government; History; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: 2012debates; debate; navy; obama; romney

1 posted on 10/22/2012 9:41:55 PM PDT by kevinaw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kevinaw2

I just posted the quote I thought I heard: “Ships that go underwater.”


2 posted on 10/22/2012 9:43:08 PM PDT by ConservativeStatement (Obama "acted stupidly.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevinaw2
I think Obama was trying to be patronizing and condescending at the same time. The Langley had the distinction of being the first US Navy aircraft carrier(actually a converted collier) and the first Navy aircraft carrier to be sunk in the Java Sea in Feb.1942.
3 posted on 10/22/2012 9:46:08 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevinaw2

Anyone with a brain knows that logistical support still remains critical even in a high tech world. That requires X number of boats.


4 posted on 10/22/2012 9:49:01 PM PDT by DaxtonBrown (http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevinaw2

EXCELLENT POINT!!

I thought Romney should have said something along the lines of, “well, mr president, i’m glad you’ve learned what carriers and subs are....now, do you know what they’re used for??”


5 posted on 10/22/2012 9:49:18 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, border)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevinaw2
Good book.

Photobucket

6 posted on 10/22/2012 9:49:30 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Get the transcript Candy! - Barack Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevinaw2
Romeny should have noted that we do not cut "ships" anymore. We have to cut a battle group to make meaningful cuts. We have battle groups to send to the Mediterranean or off Japan, or anywhere we need to project power. Cutting a few ships would just leave one or more battle groups short. Cutting battle groups will leave us impotent for future conflict. We have been very "tight" in the recent past on battle groups when we have more than two fronts to worry about.

Now is not the time to be impotent when half of the world is pulling up their burka's.

7 posted on 10/22/2012 9:54:53 PM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevinaw2

Shhhhhhhh....

Obama just lost Virginia.


8 posted on 10/22/2012 9:56:19 PM PDT by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

“....and we have people called corpsmen, by the way Mr. President, the ‘p’ is silent. Can somebody get this poor man a teleprompter. He seems to be at a loss for words.”


9 posted on 10/22/2012 9:56:31 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kevinaw2
Also - WE had a cavalry unit in Afghanistan in 2001

U.S. Special Forces ride horseback working with members of the Northern Alliance, Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan, 12 Nov 2001

And

ALSO:

our Marines, as a Marine tweeted in - our boots on the ground - STILL use bayonets - Our soldiers cry is "UP BAYONETS"

10 posted on 10/22/2012 9:57:56 PM PDT by maine-iac7 (Christian is as Christian does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevinaw2
If the size of the navy shrinks, it will shrink by carrier groups. If a carrier group disappears, then where are Obama's planes going to land?

Romney is correct to be concerned about the navy, because that is our main means of projecting power. If we don't have a navy, then we don't fight, or at least we wait until we become the home team for a war.

11 posted on 10/22/2012 9:58:58 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaxtonBrown

And Obama totally ignored Romney’s point - as usual - which was that the Navy said they needed 200+ ships and only had 132 (or whatever the numbers were; I don’t remember) AND that we’ve been reduced to only being able to handle one conflict at a time instead of the 2 we could previously handle. That’s not keeping up - regardless of what actual equipment is involved.

Obama also kept trying to say that the DOD hadn’t asked for a larger budget. But if Obama’s SecDef really said that the defense budget cuts were “devastating” (as Romney said), then the reason for him to not ask for more is if he was ordered not to. The child who is truly abused is the one who would never dream of telling the world that she was abused. The fear of even ASKING for what was needed would say more clearly than anything just how badly Obama has screwed the military and all its patriotic leadership.


12 posted on 10/22/2012 10:00:27 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DaxtonBrown

Anyone with a brain knows that logistical support still remains critical even in a high tech world. That requires X number of boats.


So true, that’s why we send ships off the coasts to offer tactical and actual
Combat capability.

O thinks we are playing XBox war games.


13 posted on 10/22/2012 10:03:34 PM PDT by patriotspride
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

Another thing I don’t understand is why Obama has pushed to have women in combat and is forcing guys like the guy who supposedly went on the rampage in Afghanistan (but none of the details add up...) go on 3+ tours of duty even while injured - all supposedly because we don’t have the manpower to do the job without forcing these “non-optimal” situations..... and yet we’re cutting the defense budget and reducing the number of troops we will be able to have.

It’s like saying we have to eat cockroaches because we’re short of potatoes, even while we burn up all our potato plants. Makes no sense to me.

The only explanation I can think of is that there is an agenda to destroy the cohesiveness of our military through social engineering (for the sake of a feminist and pro-gay agenda) and kill off or imprison the battle-hardened guys who have proven their loyalty and skill already.

What am I missing here?


14 posted on 10/22/2012 10:06:02 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement
>I just posted the quote I thought I heard: “Ships that go underwater.”<

Well, the Titanic went under water, once...

15 posted on 10/22/2012 10:06:49 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (How do you insult an Obama Voter? Call them an Obama Voter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

Submarines are called boats, not ships. Obama shows so well the four years he has been anaffimative action standin, no intel briefings, no clue to what the job was, all he had to do was smile and sign Marxist socialistic agendas.


16 posted on 10/22/2012 10:12:02 PM PDT by Eye of Unk (OPSEC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chuckles

Your entire fleet can’t be deployed overseas all the time either. They need to rotate duties and refit from time to time.


17 posted on 10/22/2012 10:12:37 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

“Ships that go underwater.”


I just had an eerie thought. Knowing that Ozero had many of his zingers well-thought-out in preparation for this debate, what if his “Ships that go underwater” is a cryptic message to our enemies that one of our ships, or many of them, is/are about to be sunk by whoever?

Afterall, if Amb. Stevens death might be the result of a botched kidmapping for the purpose of Ozero coming to the rescue, why not step it up a notch to plan C?

An attack on our U.S. ship(s) for Ozero to order retaliation and look ‘Presidential’?

?.................................... oh, sorry, um, two pills and a glass of water....gulp... now what was I saying?


18 posted on 10/22/2012 10:12:52 PM PDT by AlexisHeavyMetal1981 (Chris Stevens.... a true 'corpseman'.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws
Shhhhhhhh.... Obama just lost Virginia. I couldn't be happier about Obama's stupid condescending comments on not needing more ships. The Norfolk Navy Shipyard is one of the largest civilian employers in the entire southeast part of Virginia. Romney - Bring on the ads. Let's see how Obama's words mocking the concept of more military ships plays in Virginia.
19 posted on 10/22/2012 10:14:25 PM PDT by RightStuff1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kevinaw2
Obama’s remarks about bayonets, horses, aircraft carriers, submarines, and the strength of the U.S. Navy were nothing less than ignorant foolishness taken to the worst levels possible.

Bayonets are still a vital piece of equipment included in the armaments of all combat personnel carrying rifles and many who don't carry rifles.

Horses were by our military personnel to go to war in Afghanistan. Patton would hive used more horses if he had not been foolishly overruled time and agin by his superiors.

The U.S. Navy commissioned ships strength has been reduced to the level of 285 vessels or only 122 surface warships where they could all be sunk by in a day or several days by enemy aircraft and missiles in a general war. Compare the present numbers to the 932 vessels or 304 surface warships the Navy had in 1968 or the 6,768 vessels or 833 surface warships the Navy had at the end of World War II on 14 August 1945. When you consider that as a rule of thumb it takes one warship undergoing reconstruction or maintenance and another warship of the same kind undergoing maintenance and crew training to keep a third warship of its kind on combat duty, having only 122 surface warships means only one-third or 40 warships are available for combat operations at any one time all around all of the seas and combat theaters of the Earth. Combat losses of just 20 ships would cut the combat operational capabilities of the Navy in half.

Obama also derisively claimed the Navy asked for no more warships. This was a lie. The Navy officers who asked for more ships and resources have had their careers cut short when they were retired or fired for not going along with the Obama policies.

Obama also said we have these ships that go underwater now. The ignorant fool disregarded how nuclear powered submarines are more than fifty years or a half-century old now, and conventional submarines are now more than a century old. Obama was also too ignorant as a Commander-in-Chief to respect the tradition of submarines being referred to as “boats” and not as “ships” which go underwater.

In military and naval matters, Obama demonstrates how he is simply a willfully ignorant fool. Every veteran should bring his foolishness and incompetence in such affairs to the attention of their families, friends, and neighbors before the election.

20 posted on 10/22/2012 10:21:51 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Corb Lund Horse Soldier.
21 posted on 10/22/2012 10:30:51 PM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kevinaw2

The President said that it’s a matter of capabilities. Which is why the new QDR (Quadrennial Defense Review) indicates that we need the capability to fight the last war we’ve been in. Of course, that’s what every QDR has said, every one of which has been wrong. For example, this QDR downplays the need for tanks. Didn’t need them in Afghanistan (the last war), so we won’t need them in the next war. What we’ll need is to fight an asymmetric threat, which means bad guys using terrorist tactics. So, we need more special operations personnel, civil affairs, drones, and so forth. Hopefully, the time the enemy will finally read our QDR and figure out what they’re supposed to do. Romney described the QDR as dialing down our defense capability from 2 (or rather 1 and 1/2 wars) to 1 war, when the QDR is actually for dialing down our defense from 2 wars to fighting asymmetric threats, transnational terrorist organizations and rogue nations. As to whether we will have the overwhelming force needed to deter any adventurism by North Korea, Iran or Venezuela is not really clear. Here’s what I say: the military and intelligence communities needs to give the President options so as to be able to deal with a wide range of contingencies, including unanticipated contingencies, without committing the country to actual war, and while leaving intact sufficient force to fulfill our far-flung commitments.


22 posted on 10/22/2012 10:36:38 PM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fella

Pretty cool. Thanks.


23 posted on 10/22/2012 10:49:53 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Get the transcript Candy! - Barack Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Yeah, I’m talking to my friend, an O worshiper, and I had to ask her to temper her glee about tonight.

She wanted to know why.

“Because, you’ve always been able to recognize when a go won’t hunt no more and I hate to see you standing on the deck, ankle deep in water and continue to play with the band”.

You’ve lost Florida a week ago, North Carolina yesterday and likely Virginia tonight.

Nevada is shifting and Ohio looks like it wants to be done with it as well and Pennsylvania could be a breakout surprise.

Tomorrow night we’ll have a party, at my home, with some dam bright people. One or two from the Hoover Institute.

They will be sure to speak upland I have fingers for both sides waiting. I think two on my side will have pretty intelligent observations and my friends on the other side will be pretty vapid as to why they are supporting Barry O


24 posted on 10/22/2012 10:54:21 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

That ‘vapid’ state is why I believe little barry bastard commie will pull a military maneuver before the election, so the ‘undecided’ (those are the truly vaid ones) will swallow the ‘shouldn’t change horses in the middle of battle’ crap.


25 posted on 10/22/2012 10:57:41 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

That ‘vapid’ state is why I believe little barry bastard commie will pull a military maneuver before the election, so the ‘undecided’ (those are the truly vapid ones) will swallow the ‘shouldn’t change horses in the middle of battle’ crap.


26 posted on 10/22/2012 10:57:53 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

They are morons and should be fitted with rfid tags so we can find them when they lose their as with their hands...


27 posted on 10/22/2012 11:14:15 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

They are morons and should be fitted with rfid tags so we can find them when they lose their “ass” with their hands...

See? I did it too...dang it...


28 posted on 10/22/2012 11:15:53 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

.


29 posted on 10/22/2012 11:37:32 PM PDT by cyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
It goes even further than that. There is safely in numbers. The USS COLE was what almost two days away from another US Navy ship that could render assistance. yemen had ben a hot spot for years. Better yet once upon a time COLE would have fueled at sea. The larger ships such as Amphibs or used to the old conventional carriers could fuel a ship at sea if a USNS oiler wasn't available.

We're taking some serious chances in this M.E. environment taking so many ships through the ditch. For 14 years 1967-81 all carriers stayed out of the Suez Canal. When we did start taking Super carriers through the SUEZ in 1981 we had 521 ships plus a two carrier group presence in the MED SEA 24/7/365. We had equal capabilities for WEST PAC. We had a lot more support for all ships concerned.

30 posted on 10/23/2012 2:26:49 AM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Cole was sent to refuel at Yemen because the State Department needed the Navy to show the flag. Due to SD’s normal incompetence, they failed to pass on to the ship several indicators that the local franchise of AQ was more active.

That is above and beyond the problem of having too few logistics force ships.


31 posted on 10/23/2012 5:10:47 AM PDT by Pecos (Double tap: the only acceptable gun control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

Those Special Forces on horses were the first sign that we were gonna kick some ass over there. That was a good day.


32 posted on 10/23/2012 5:13:51 AM PDT by McGruff (SNARKY is the keyword for today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Obama also said we have these ships that go underwater now. The ignorant fool disregarded how nuclear powered submarines are more than fifty years or a half-century old now, and conventional submarines are now more than a century old. Obama was also too ignorant as a Commander-in-Chief to respect the tradition of submarines being referred to as “boats” and not as “ships” which go underwater.

In military and naval matters, Obama demonstrates how he is simply a willfully ignorant fool. Every veteran should bring his foolishness and incompetence in such affairs to the attention of their families, friends, and neighbors before the election.


This vet will do that. Appreciate your comments

Reflecting on all of this it becomes clear that O can talk like he is knowledgeable but when it comes to game time he shows how small he is.

Debating him is like trying to have Charles Manson admit that he is a murderer.


33 posted on 10/23/2012 6:57:43 AM PDT by patriotspride
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pecos
Cole was sent to refuel at Yemen because the State Department needed the Navy to show the flag. Due to SD’s normal incompetence, they failed to pass on to the ship several indicators that the local franchise of AQ was more active. That is above and beyond the problem of having too few logistics force ships.

Yea I remember they sat n the message. One former Freeper named Sneakypete said it best years ago. Foreign Intel needs to be taken out of the SD and put under the sole supervision and coordination of the Pentagon. A good number of the Boo Boo's terrorist have been able to accomplish were because Intel was either ignored, not passed along to other need to knows, or the threat was not seen in diplomatic sense but was a clear threat military wise. State Department needs an enema and it's functions greatly reduced.

34 posted on 10/23/2012 4:40:54 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson