Obama’s Naval Nonsense
Last night’s debate hit its low point when Obama defended his gutting of the military by behaving like a snide adolescent not quite too old for a spanking:
“[Romney] mentioned that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well… we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines.” Obama added that it’s not about “counting ships,” it’s about “our capabilities.”
His tone was snarky and condescending, in stark contrast to Romney’s presidential demeanor.
Both the Marines and the Army still use bayonets, and horses have been used by our Armed Forces in Afghanistan. Also, submarines are not ships.
But the real point is, are people who would vote for Obama really clueless enough to imagine that because we no longer rely heavily on horses and bayonets, ships other than aircraft carriers are obsolete?
Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Mark Ferguson confirms the obvious — Romney is correct about the Navy needing ships:
“Our role is really about the flexibility of forces, that they can move to various regions… Should sequestration be enacted, the Navy would not be able to support the current national defense strategy and it would cause a reduction in the size of the fleet to the point that we would have to relook at the strategy. […The Navy] would be reduced both in size and in its presence around the globe.”
Not a problem, from Obama’s point of view.
On a tip from JWWright. Graphic compliments of Matryq.
Nice shot of a Marine Corps pistol. *grin*
I swear my buddy had a bayonet fixture on his coffee cup. ha ha ha
[from an old Air Force guy to all the brave souls in the Corps - Semper Fi!]
The fact that Romney couldn’t push back on this one was rather disturbing. Neither candidate has a military background, or even a strong intereste in the military.
The proof of it is right here: one says something stupid, and the other isn’t informed enough to point out “that’s stupid.”
Romney could have chosen from a dozen awesome retorts – many of which would have won him the debate and the election.
Submarines, Sir, are Boats – not ships…
I don’t believe we deploy M-16′s or even M-4′s with bayonets. We clearly have more bayonets deployed today than we did in 1916 – how wouldn’t you know that, Mr. Commander in Chief?
Do you propose we send Carrier Battle Groups without adequate escorts, Sir?
Any of these would have done it.
Our military must feel completely abandoned. We have two poseurs claiming to be “watching out for them.”
I’ll vote for the RINO, but only because the Empty Suit is an utter catastrophe. A true SCOAMF.
I just kept waiting for Romney to calming respond, “Is that how the Joint Chiefs explained it to you, Mr. President, when the Navy said it needed 313 ships?”
I just wish Romney would have looked at him with his nice peaceful presidential smile and simply said “Bless your heart”
Barack Hussein Obama is and has been systematically gutting our military.
Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force in the world my a$$. According to him It’s a thing of the past, like bayonets and horses. We don’t need to have a strong Navy.
We have these things, nuclear submarines…
If Obama had had more time to respond he would have expanded on that answer. He would’ve given away some of their GPS coordinates, crypto codes, etc. That way he can really look like he knows what’s what. Confidentiality be damned.
.
Re. the picture: PERFECT FOR CHICAGO!
.
.
hey, BARRY:
Soon you can play with your ships in the bathtub all night long.. Moose may even stop by to see how you are doing..
.
Missed opportunity : At the rate you’re sinking the economy,Barry,horses and bayonets may be all we can afford.
There are 3 bigger points that many miss in our Clown-in-Chief’s comments.
1. He compares the horses and bayonets to Navy. This is plain idiotic. The nature and the capabilities of the former two do not change. They still function the same way. Navy fleet on the other hand constantly undergoing upgrades. The increase in utility does not logically necessitate the decrease in quantity. In other words, just because the fleet units are capable of doing more, does not automatically mean that we need to have fewer of them. The military has more advanced guns now, does it mean we only need to give them to half the troops?
2. Secondly he talks of submarines and aircraft carriers as if they are not part of the Navy. You see we have those, so we can cut the Navy… Let them eat cake, said Antoinette Obama.
3. And thirdly, the clown just flat out lied to you. Navy is resisting the cuts.
http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/navy-no-2-budget-cuts-could-threaten-future-operations-1.185808
Barack Obama
RIPPED By Bayonet Co.
We’re Still Relevant!!!
http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/23/barack-obama-bayonet-company-relevant-debate/#ixzz2A9O6cQlE
LOL I have the same bayonet for my XD-45.
The war was going badly. As the new recruit arrived at the front, he learned that half of the men were being sent out without weapons. “Just cock your fingers like a gun and shout BANG!” they were told.
Trying to keep a very low profile, the recruit was ambushed by an enemy soldier jumping out at him. In panic he aimed his finger and cried, “BANG!” His attacker clutched his chest and fell over dead. The recruit looked at his finger in astonishment, then charged brazenly into the action.
“BANG! BANG! BANG!” he cried, dropping another enemy soldier with each shot of his finger.
Then he saw this big brute charging him from a distance. “BANG! BANG!” the recruit shouted. Nothing happened! The guy was still coming. Thinking that his finger had jammed, the recruit worked the action and cocked his thumb desperately, shouting again—”BANG! BANG!” The brute hadn’t slowed.
The last thing the recruit heard as the big, enemy soldier knocked him down and ran over him was the guy grunting, “TANK! TANK! TANK!”
Capabilities? WTF? So if we had just one really awesome aircraft carrier and one really awesome sub, that would be enough. We can’t remove this knucklehead from office soon enough.
I don’t think Obama was being condescending. He was sincerely explaining it to Romney the way Joe Biden explained it to him.
Not only do they not need bayonets but the powers that be have not allowed the troops to hold their weapons gangsta stylee.
I’m sure Governor Romney knows what ships are ships, and what boats are boats. At the moment Obama slapped him up side the head with those juvenile comments he might have been thinking, ‘and this guy is the leader of the free world’?
I thought later on that Romney did very well not giving in to the sophomoric and immature tirade of Obama. Let the world see what he really is, a petulant little man-child.
I trained in 1976 with a meter-long piece of wood called a “riot batton”; you know, A CLUB. There are many cases of modern solders throwing ROCKS at each other.
This comment from a Commander in Chief who calls corpsmen corpsemen.
Having served in submarines for 10 years and currently working as a civilian employee of the Navy, I know of what I speak. The fleet is already at its breaking point. The number of ships has decreased but the mission requirements, if not greater, have stayed the same. As a result, ships that used to deploy once every two years are now deploying yearly. There are not enough submarines to perform all the missions required without cutting something else out, and that something is usually the required maintenance periods. Our ships are literally wearing out from overuse, and Obama wants to cut more of them? If he gets his way, we’ll be deploying rowboats, and even they won’t be getting the proper upkeep to keep them afloat!
if your corpsman doesn’t get to you in time, you’ll be a corpse, man