Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Romney and Ships (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Romney and Ships
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
“In 2010, then-President Obama came to Pensacola. You probably weren’t there, but some folks were. And he took pride in saying, and I quote, that he had halted reductions in the Navy. That’s what he said. But today, he again has shrunk to a smaller version of the Navy and his view of the Navy’s role," Romney told a crowd of 10,000 supporters here Saturday, setting the scene.

"You may recall in our most recent debate I made the point that our Navy is now smaller than any time well, in almost a hundred years, and the president’s response was, well, you know, we don’t use bayonets and horses anymore. And, uh, in fact we do use bayonets, and a modern Navy is one of the critical elements that allows us to protect sea lanes and to keep the world more free and prosperous," Romney said.

NBC News

First, when someone says "then-President", they mean someone who was President at the time, but no longer is President. Is Romney playing some Jedi mind-trick, trying to make voters think he already won?

Second, absolutely everyone who knows anything about the Navy agrees that counting ships is the wrong way to determine the strength of the Navy.

Third, here is the link to the Navy's count of ships.

Note the minimum was in 2007, before Obama took office. It went up in 2009 and 2010. In 2011 it went back to 285, higher than any year in Bush's second term. So even if numbers of ships was a good measure, Romney would still be wrong.

And the current plan is to build 41 more ships in the next 5 years.

Fourth, Obama never said "we don't use horses and bayonets anymore". He said we use fewer. Romney was there. He heard it. He heard it quoted dozens of times. But he actively chose to misrepresent what Obama said so he could claim to have a "gotcha".

Impressive how much misinformation can be jammed into two paragraphs.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if Romney was right about the number of ships (and assuming it really does matter what the count is), then it would most likely be Bush's fault, since building new ships takes many years, and decommissioning ships only happens after a long review of naval and overall defense requirements. So, blaming Obama for this situation is exactly consistent with the dishonest kind of mendacious, even immoral, approach Romney has taken toward convincing people that they should elect him instead of Obama.

But, if Romney wants that kind of measure, then he should be accountable for whatever happened to companies he authorized investments in when he was the head of Bain that occurred after he left. Obviously those things take time, too.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
First, when someone says "then-President", they mean someone who was President at the time, but no longer is President. Is Romney playing some Jedi mind-trick, trying to make voters think he already won?

I think it's just some stilted verbiage coupled with election fatigue. It is, nevertheless, still a accurate way to reference the time and president.


quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Second, absolutely everyone who knows anything about the Navy agrees that counting ships is the wrong way to determine the strength of the Navy.

That is not true. Counting ships is a significant factor in assessing naval power. Sure, it's not the sole factor but it's very relevant in determining capability, particularly in regards to deployment tempo and the ability to support combatant ships while at sea.

quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Note the minimum was in 2007, before Obama took office. It went up in 2009 and 2010. In 2011 it went back to 285, higher than any year in Bush's second term. So even if numbers of ships was a good measure, Romney would still be wrong.

You're implying that Barry get the credit for building these ships. Do you have any idea how long it takes for a ship to reach operational status?

quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Fourth, Obama never said "we don't use horses and bayonets anymore". He said we use fewer. Romney was there. He heard it. He heard it quoted dozens of times. But he actively chose to misrepresent what Obama said so he could claim to have a "gotcha".

Again, election fatigue - you should see what Uncle Joe is saying lately but nobody seems to get worked about that. However, the point is still relevant - Barry is implying that the Navy is a largely outdated idea, like horses and bayonets, and in doing so indicates a rather significant misunderstanding of the military.

[ November 01, 2012, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You're implying that Barry get the credit for building these ships. Do you have any idea how long it takes for a ship to reach operational status?"

Then why are Romney and you attacking him for decreasing the number of ships, eh? Try, just for fun, to wrap your mind around that question.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, the point is still relevant - Barry is implying that the Navy is a largely outdated idea, like horses and bayonets, and in doing so indicates a rather significant misunderstanding of the military.

Well, no, that's neither what he said nor what he implied. You should try to support that contention with an analysis of his words - that could be entertaining. Do remember that Obama's budget included plans to increase the number of ships to 300 by 2019. Since this is smaller than Bush's goal of 313 by 2020, Romney could have argued that Obama was increasing the navy ship count less quickly, but increasing the number of ships is not consistent with the idea that the navy is a largely outdated idea.

quote:
You're implying that Barry get the credit for building these ships. Do you have any idea how long it takes for a ship to reach operational status?
LMFAO [Big Grin] Do you have any idea about the point you just made?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3,
I read your post. I believe you are not arguing in good faith, a habit you have demonstrated many, many times. I will not be addressing your arguments, since anyone with minimal intelligence, knowledge, and reasoning ability will see the truth for themselves.

I would encourage others here to also refrain from engaging G3, since it only encourages him.

If anyone has arguments in good faith, I will be happy to address them.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Number of ships is not the end all of naval power but number of ships can be important in projecting power.

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That depends on the type of ship and what each ship is capable of. If you are making that comment to support Romney's point that Obama is ignoring the navy then it is misdirected, since the current fleet strength and composition is the legacy of Bush's stewardship. Judge Obama in 2016 when his policies have had time to be implemented.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
G3,
I read your post. I believe you are not arguing in good faith, a habit you have demonstrated many, many times. I will not be addressing your arguments, since anyone with minimal intelligence, knowledge, and reasoning ability will see the truth for themselves.

I would encourage others here to also refrain from engaging G3, since it only encourages him.

If anyone has arguments in good faith, I will be happy to address them.

When proven wrong, I suggest you say nothing rather than acting out like that. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:

quote:
You're implying that Barry get the credit for building these ships. Do you have any idea how long it takes for a ship to reach operational status?
LMFAO [Big Grin] Do you have any idea about the point you just made?
ROTFLMAO [Big Grin]
I do, but suspect you have an ideological truth that you are holding onto that has misled you into thinking something else.

I think some of you guys feel this election is slipping away, it's making you crazy. [Big Grin]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
IOW, you don't have a clue as to what DonaldD was saying and how you disproved your own point, do you? [Big Grin]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I think some of you guys feel this election is slipping away, it's making you crazy."

I'm increasingly confident that Obama has the necessary Electoral College votes to win. I'm actually pretty relaxed about it after a couple of weeks where I felt anxious. I'm also very aware that you don't have a clue that you have an understanding of the world based on something that I think is not much different from magical thinking. Or, as someone once said, every village needs a shaman, but they also get an idiot. Don't take that personally, you could be the shaman after all. Let's wait until Nov 7 to make up our minds about that.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I certainly feel better now than I did right after Denver.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, only someone "with minimal intelligence, knowledge, and reasoning ability..." will "see the truth" as laid out in the opening post.

Both numbers, and quality count... unless possible threats have stalled on one or both of those metrics. The trend is torwards cheaper, and more numerous, counter-measures to our navy, This means that we need to accelerate technological advances in tandem with increasing vessels.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH,

Why should that make you "feel better"?

Are you taking this seriously?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe I covered that already.

The GOP has a decided strain of crazy in it these days.

So the Democratic party winning makes me feel better.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel,

Number of ships went up during Obama's term, compared to any year in Bush's second term. The numbers are slated to go up. This is a solid, documented fact.
Romney is wrong.
That is the truth that intelligent, knowledgeable, reasonable people see.

If you can somehow prove that the number of ships went down during Obama's term, then you will have a point. Other than that, there is nothing really to discuss on this particular point.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Msquared, there is also this:
quote:
In 1916, the US controlled roughly 11% of the world’s naval power. This is an impressive number that ranks the US third in naval strength behind the UK (34%) and Germany (19%), and just ahead of France (10%). What about the US navy in 2011? In 2011, the US controlled roughly 50% of the world’s naval power putting it in a comfortable lead in naval power ahead of Russia (11%).
Is that enough or do we need more?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
IOW, you don't have a clue as to what DonaldD was saying and how you disproved your own point, do you? [Big Grin]

No, I know what's he's trying. It's just too stupid to warrant a response. [Big Grin]
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's this trying bit? You just completely validated his point. You can't handwave that away by just calling it "stupid," you realize. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do people keep talking to G3?
Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In case any lurkers have any questions.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward,

I've been down that road. After the 4th time you have repeated the incredibly obvious, and knocked down the most desperate arguments, any lurker with half a brain knows the score. But anyone who wants to continue a meaningful discussion has long since given up.

Don't respond, and he will go away. Quantity of posts will indeed go down. Quality will go way up.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Why do people keep talking to G3?

[Roll Eyes] [LOL]
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mason Leege
Member
Member # 1371

 - posted      Profile for Mason Leege   Email Mason Leege   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Why do people keep talking to G3?

Gentle criticism: When you put it this way it makes you sound semi-desperate.

I recommend this amusing narrative instead: G3 is not G2 and is in fact a liberal sockpuppet engaged in an elegant demonstration of Poe's law.

Posts: 40 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have felt that way for some time. In fact, I decided this spring that the entire Republican lineup was a Democratic strategy. The real Republicans are tied up in their underwear in someone's basement.
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"... the entire Republican lineup was a Democratic strategy."...

... Won't the "real" Republicans be gratified to discover that they owe an electoral victory to Democratic parody. [Wink]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Velcro,

Did you notice that the Enterprise (CVN 65) was retired from service early last weekend? There was to be a one-for-one replacement by the Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), but the Ford will not enter service until sometime in 2015.

The problems with scheduling are manifest. First, and most obvious, is the immediate reduction in our capability to project force. Second, the new Ford class carrier is the only type that can support drone operations, and even that capability will not be present until the following sister ship, the John F. Kennedy enters service.

Do you know when that is scheduled to happen? [Smile]

This president will leave his successor in possession of a navy weaker, in relative terms, than the one he inherited. It is already in the pipeline.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you for that interesting tidbit.

The main point is that Romney's comment was nonsensical and factually incorrect, and your posts do not contradict that point in any way.

The current plan is to add 41 more ships in the next 5 years. If you think that is weaker, I don't see any reason to discuss this further.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Velcro,

Do you understand what it means, in strategic terms, to decommission a fleet carrier without replacement?

This is more than a "tidbit", and your man in the White House is responsible. Romney was right even without including the impact of budgetary sequestration engineered by Obama 1 1/2 years ago.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't understand what it means to decommission a fleet carrier, but the Chief of Naval Operations does. He wanted the Enterprise decommissioned ASAP in 2009. He was appointed by GWB in 2007.

Glad to correct yet another mistake. But could you please do me a favor? Can you at least do a little research before you throw these hail-marys? It would save us both a lot of time.

I repeat, the main point is that Romney's comment was nonsensical and factually incorrect, and your posts do not contradict that point in any way.

The current plan is to add 41 more ships in the next 5 years. If you think that is weaker, I don't see any reason to discuss this further.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"... the entire Republican lineup was a Democratic strategy."...

... Won't the "real" Republicans be gratified to discover that they owe an electoral victory to Democratic parody. [Wink]

I don't know - do they sound gratified?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
First, and most obvious, is the immediate reduction in our capability to project force.
Since we can current project more force than we have any remotely foreseeable need to, how is this anything but trimming a wasteful use resources?

quote:
Second, the new Ford class carrier is the only type that can support drone operations, and even that capability will not be present until the following sister ship, the John F. Kennedy enters service.
How is this even relevant? IF the ship being retired could not support such operations, then a new capability for upcoming ships has little bearing on the matter, other than to suggest that the ship being retired is near obsolescence.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Velcro,

The Enterprise became active in 1961. Some of its major systems are near the end of their useful life. Everyone interested knows this. Aknowledging that fact is not the same as acquiesce to a reduction of carrier battle groups.

The Enterprise remains, literally, twice as powerful as the largest ship in all European navies combined. To retire it "as soon as possible" is a conditional statement.

Are you going to try to assert that the CNO also wants to wait for CVN-79 until 2020?

[ November 08, 2012, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel, based on your statements:

Enterprise retired this year, Ford commissions in 2015, Obama leaves office at the end of 2016.

Number of carriers when Obama enters office: 11

Number of carriers when Obama leaves office: 11

Yet the Navy will be weaker?

[ November 08, 2012, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH,

The Navy that Obama inherited :

- Kitty Hawk (CV-63)
- Enterprise (CVN-65)
- Nimitz (CVN-68)
- Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
- Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
- Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
- Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
- George Washington (CVN-73)
- John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
- Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
- Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
- George H. W. Bush (CVN-77)... launched 9 October, 2006/commissioned 10 January, 2009

With decommissioning of Kitty Hawk on May 12, 2009, and the *early* retirement of Enterprise last week, the Obama White House has reduced the carrier force to ten... a modern all time low.

When CVN-78 is commissioned sometime in 2015, the fleet will return to its modern cyclic low of eleven carriers. By *extending* the procurement date for CVN-79 to sometime in 2020, the cyclic high of twelve ships will not be restored for at least five years... and it gets worse from there. Under the previous 30-year ship building plan, 12 carriers would be on the Navy's active duty roster 61% of the time, and 11 would be active 39% of the time. Under Obama's new 5-year procurement plan, 12 carriers will be active 39% of the time, and 11 carriers 65% of the time. He has essentially reversed the cyclic high/low numbers. This translates into the USN presence goal of 2.6 ships deployed (on average) 55% of the time, to 48% of the time, that will hold until 2023 when Nimitz is decommissioned. At this point, the ability to have six carriers deployed within 30 days falls off precipitously.

A Rand Corporation analysis published last year states the following:

"The five-year plan would extend the authorization plan of the 30-year SBP only slightly, resulting in relatively minor changes, especially in the next ten years. Beyond the early 2020s, the five year plan results in an increasingly smaller aircraft carrier force and lower probability of meeting deployed-carrier goals."

By 2042, our carrier fleet, the primary vehicle of U.S. force projection, will be at 10... and declining.

Velcro is not only wrong in his assertion that Obama has quantitatively enhanced our Navy, but fails to realize he has archived the opposite. It will take decades to reverse if the policy is in place for only 30 years. Given that the Pentagon is now claiming that it had no armed drones, attack helicopters, or fighter aircraft within seven-hours flight time to Benghazi, this is sobering.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"With decommissioning of Kitty Hawk on May 12, 2009, and the *early* retirement of Enterprise last week, the Obama White House has reduced the carrier force to ten... a modern all time low."

Noel, how long is the decision process to either commission or decommission ships? Was this so-called decline in sea power initiated by Obama or Bush?

"Given that the Pentagon is now claiming that it had no armed drones, attack helicopters, or fighter aircraft within seven-hours flight time to Benghazi, this is sobering."

Maybe the military should have thought of that ahead of time.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Msquared, there is also this:
quote:
In 1916, the US controlled roughly 11% of the world’s naval power. This is an impressive number that ranks the US third in naval strength behind the UK (34%) and Germany (19%), and just ahead of France (10%). What about the US navy in 2011? In 2011, the US controlled roughly 50% of the world’s naval power putting it in a comfortable lead in naval power ahead of Russia (11%).
Is that enough or do we need more?
Enough for what, Al?

Why do you suppose that naval capacity is about some sort of beauty contest against other countries?

The issue is whether we have enough to accomplish our objectives. To discuss whether we have enough navy without addressing the roles that the navy is currently fulfilling on the global stage, is like [insert offensive analogy here].

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

These decisions are/were entirely within Obama's control.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Pete:] "Enough for what, Al?"

Exactly. Who gets to decide, Obama, legacy decisions made by Bush, the Joint Chiefs then or now, or people like Noel?

[Pete:] "Why do you suppose that naval capacity is about some sort of beauty contest against other countries?"

Show me where I remotely suggested anything to justify that insult.

Noel, he can't budget, authorize and build ships in less than 4 years. Maybe he could stop a decommission, but maybe not, since the military decides how to deploy their forces. You really don't want to even allow that Obama doesn't control every decision that you choose to dislike, do you?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1