"Horses and bayonets" sounded good but

[ChinaBandit]

Romney is actually correct in that the US Navy wanted 313 ships (from the year 2006) versus 287 in service now. They dialed it down to 300 earlier in 2012. Moreover, a bi-partisan blue ribbon committee completed an evaluation of the Pentagon's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and recommended a 346 ship fleet.

Still, the US Navy wants more ships (at least 13) Mr. President and, apparently, you don't agree.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

that's not fair lol

 

[ChinaBandit]

It was an opportunist remark by the POTUS.

Tell anyone who ever spent time in 1034B Light Infantry and Weapons of the USMC that they don't need a bayonet...

 

[mercury14]

Romney is actually correct in that the US Navy wanted 313 ships (from the year 2006) versus 287 in service now. They dialed it down to 300 earlier in 2012. Moreover, a bi-partisan blue ribbon committee completed an evaluation of the Pentagon's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and recommended a 346 ship fleet.

Still, the US Navy wants more ships (at least 13) Mr. President and, apparently, you don't agree.

Link?

 

[Busybody]

Link?

fuck you loser asshole

 

[mercury14]

Here's a story from March 2012 saying the Navy has 285 ships and specifically does not want more ships or cash. It's a fun article because it has Secretary of the Navy Mabus and Admiral Greenert telling the House that the Navy is fine, while Republican House members sit there and imply that the Navy doesn't know what the Navy needs. They even go as far as to make up nonexistent problems in order to tell the Navy it needs more ships.

“How are we going to accomplish what need to accomplish in the Asia-Pacific with so few ships?” asked Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen. “How do you have one ship in two places at the same time? That’s always tough,” observed Rep. Ander Crenshaw.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/congress-navy/

 

[Busybody]

who cares?

repeat after me LOSER

PRESIDENT ROMNEY!

 

[Busybody]

Here's a story from March 2012 saying the Navy has 285 ships and specifically does not want more ships or cash. It's a fun article because it has Secretary of the Navy Mabus and Admiral Greenert telling the House that the Navy is fine, while Republican House members sit there and imply that the Navy doesn't know what the Navy needs. They even go as far as to make up nonexistent problems in order to tell the Navy it needs more ships.



http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/congress-navy/

hey TURDFACE

where the hell are you in the ISLAMIC CUNTRY thread, telling us how NICE Indonesia is?

WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU, TURDBALL?

Loser fucking asshole

 

[ChinaBandit]

Link?

http://thediplomat.com/the-naval-di...itch-if-romney-wins-does-the-u-s-navy-expand/

 

[mercury14]

http://thediplomat.com/the-naval-di...itch-if-romney-wins-does-the-u-s-navy-expand/

That article says that Romney is counting beans instead of assessing actual Navy capability. That was the point of the horses and bayonets comment.

A massive nuclear-powered aircraft carrier counts as one of those hulls; so does a dainty minesweeper.

Moreover, the Quadrennial Review you're referring to (aside from being 2 years more out of date than my link and therefore less accurate), is a panel of congressmen who see shipbuilding as economic stimulus... While many of them also insist that the government doesn't create jobs. I would advise reading up on the Navy's own assessment of its needs in 2012 rather than listening to a 2010 congressional group that routinely overfunds the Navy's requests.

 

[ChinaBandit]

That article says that Romney is counting beans instead of assessing actual Navy capability. That was the point of the horses and bayonets comment.


Moreover, the Quadrennial Review you're referring to (aside from being 2 years more out of date than my link and therefore less accurate), is a panel of congressmen who see shipbuilding as economic stimulus... While many of them also insist that the government doesn't create jobs. I would advise reading up on the Navy's own assessment of its needs in 2012 rather than listening to a 2010 congressional group that routinely overfunds the Navy's requests.

The Secretary of the Navy is a political appointment.

It's no surprise that Obama's Secretary supports no increase while the former one with the Romney campaign does.

In my opinion, what's really changed though since the 2006 Pentagon recommendation of 313 ships is a president who's soft on ship building. Why? Well, he talked a lot about teachers. Great! Get the Federal government further involved in education. I believe this should be left to state and local government. Have we learned nothing from the failure that is "no child left behind"?

 

[mercury14]

The Secretary of the Navy is a political appointment.

It's no surprise that Obama's Secretary supports no increase while the former one with the Romney campaign does.

In my opinion, what's really changed though since the 2006 Pentagon recommendation of 313 ships is a president who's soft on ship building. Why? Well, he talked a lot about teachers. Great! Get the Federal government further involved in education. I believe this should be left to state and local government. Have we learned nothing from the failure that is "no child left behind"?

Also Admiral Greenert, Chielf of Naval Operations. It's not accurate to dismiss this as just a political appointee's opinion when the Navy's own head of naval operations is saying it. And as long as that's the case there's isn't any evidence that Obama is soft on shipbuilding. If you had some evidence showing that the Navy is currently asking for more ships in order to address their mission then you would have a point I think.

But the fact is the Navy is not asking for more ships. Romney just thinks he knows better than the Navy, while having no qualifications whatsoever to make that assessment.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

That article says that Romney is counting beans instead of assessing actual Navy capability. That was the point of the horses and bayonets comment.


Moreover, the Quadrennial Review you're referring to (aside from being 2 years more out of date than my link and therefore less accurate), is a panel of congressmen who see shipbuilding as economic stimulus... While many of them also insist that the government doesn't create jobs. I would advise reading up on the Navy's own assessment of its needs in 2012 rather than listening to a 2010 congressional group that routinely overfunds the Navy's requests.

The government does create bonafide stimulus at times, and military spending is one of them. The trouble comes along when the money is wasted. I'd prefer to see the army & navy perform as responsibly as the Coast Guard and USMC, and I'm unhappy Obama forced the USMC to buy a fleet of Volts.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Romney is actually correct in that the US Navy wanted 313 ships (from the year 2006) versus 287 in service now. They dialed it down to 300 earlier in 2012. Moreover, a bi-partisan blue ribbon committee completed an evaluation of the Pentagon's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and recommended a 346 ship fleet.

Still, the US Navy wants more ships (at least 13) Mr. President and, apparently, you don't agree.

He has the freedom to say whatever comes to the top of his head because no one will call him on it.

He was even trying to get Bob to do the Candy for him...

We have MORE Benghazi emails...

He just lies.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The government does create bonafide stimulus at times, and military spending is one of them. The trouble comes along when the money is wasted. I'd prefer to see the army & navy perform as responsibly as the Coast Guard and USMC, and I'm unhappy Obama forced the USMC to buy a fleet of Volts.

Good luck finding a charge on the beach with those things...

What you need is Geo. Washington in a Dodge Charger!


Mo' Pa-a-a-a-a-r-r-r-r!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It was an opportunist remark by the POTUS.

Tell anyone who ever spent time in 1034B Light Infantry and Weapons of the USMC that they don't need a bayonet...

Preferably two!

You wanna take away the Army's dressage!

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Good luck finding a charge on the beach with those things...

What you need is Geo. Washington in a Dodge Charger!


Mo' Pa-a-a-a-a-r-r-r-r!

Running on whale oil, no doubt.


How many octane is that stuff anyway?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Isn't it about the same as kerosine?



Cap'n Ahab!



port



bow

 

[mercury14]

The government does create bonafide stimulus at times, and military spending is one of them. The trouble comes along when the money is wasted. I'd prefer to see the army & navy perform as responsibly as the Coast Guard and USMC, and I'm unhappy Obama forced the USMC to buy a fleet of Volts.

So how come infrastructure work isn't a stimulus?

 

[ChinaBandit]

So how come infrastructure work isn't a stimulus?

Can it be done some other way than the Big Dig?

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

When I joined the Marine Corps the Navy had over 900 ships. The fact is 200 plus today do not have the same lift capability they did then and that is really what the Navy is all about, projecting power. We do it today by contracting private vessels and aircraft and pressing them into service. Most of our war material moves by sea, not by air. BTW, according to the Constitution it's the Congress who decides what kind and size of a Navy and Army we're going to have, not some pencil neck political appointee.

How the hell is Obama gonna keep shooting Somali pirates?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Can it be done some other way than the Big Dig?

You are having a conversation with a person whose view of economic activity stops with the glazier...

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So how come infrastructure work isn't a stimulus?

I like to call it COMMONWEALTH. Bridges are good. Dams are good. Harbors are good. National Parks are good. Its good when the Marines got all the bullets, beans, blankets, and burros they need.

Volts, not so good. Modern Art masterpieces using organic biological waste, not so good. Michelle O vacations, not so good.