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.
.jpg)
I just posted the quote I thought I heard: “Ships that go underwater.”
Anyone with a brain knows that logistical support still remains critical even in a high tech world. That requires X number of boats.
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??”
Now is not the time to be impotent when half of the world is pulling up their burka's.
Shhhhhhhh....
Obama just lost Virginia.
“....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.”
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"
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well, the Titanic went under water, once...
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.
Your entire fleet can’t be deployed overseas all the time either. They need to rotate duties and refit from time to time.
“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?
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.
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.