• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

Jonsa said:
Actually its more than the next 15 countries combined. It used to be next 18 countries, but china and a few others started spending a bit more.
Click to expand...

No one knows the defense budget of China. The defense budgets of Russia, Saudi Arabia and india which are also in the top 10 are just guesses.
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

and Obama has never passde a budget period.....How pathetic Obama is.. that way he cant be over budget and cant juat use CRs...
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

disneydude said:
At least we have a President that actually stands for something. Romney flip flops all over the place on every issue. Seriously, how anyone can take anything the man says with any credibility is nothing short of amazing. He actually endorsed everything Obama has done last night.
Click to expand...

Obama stands for something? He can't make up his own ****ing mind. He'll run Bush into the ground over his 'lack of policy assertiveness' but does the same himself.

Don't oppose one only to give way to the other when they engage in the same behavior - and don't take my vehement disapproval of his poor presidential behavior, lack of leadership and absence of integrity as outgoing and lush support for Romney.

Because Romney's not president - he's only a candidate . . . Obama however, has superseded that mark and done nothing but air his own plans (A, B and C) and detracted his own statements and decisions in numerous ways for a kaleidoscope of reasons and excuses. . . and then wonder why people don't approve of his torched bill-of-sale.
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

MaggieD said:
Well, I don't claim to know much about our military, but it certainly won't keep me from weighing in. Here's Romney's comment that elicited the bayonet comment from Obama:



And here's Obama's bayonet response:



Smart-assed-unresponsive hip-pocket-written-by-someone-else-not-spontaneous-baloney.

The only take-away that matters:
Click to expand...

And what about Mitts 14 days comment and his smarmy attitude when he thought he had Obama.

The problem is that Obama was right and Mitt was just showing his ignorance of modern warfare. Granted Obama could have said it better but I think he was just exasperated at Romneys's stupidity.

As I understand it one US aircraft carrier can deliver more damage than all the conventional bombs dropped in WWII. One nuclear sub can deliver more destruction than in all the European theatre if not more.
The days of the drednaught are gone. WHo gives a crap if we have less when the power they can deliver is more than any of us can imagine.

In this case less is more (compared to the past)
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

jerry7 said:
You're repeating an Obama lie. For the record:

■Obama wrongly claimed Romney called Russia the “biggest geopolitical threat facing America.” Actually, Romney called Russia a “foe” and not a “threat.” He said “the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran.”
Romney, March 26, 2012: [T]his is to Russia, this is, without question, our No. 1 geopolitical foe. …

Blitzer: But you think Russia is a bigger foe right now than, let’s say, Iran or China or North Korea? Is that – is that what you’re suggesting, Governor?

Romney: Well, I’m saying in terms of a geopolitical opponent, the nation that lines up with the world’s worst actors. Of course, the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran. A nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough.
FactCheck.org : False Claims in Final Debate
Click to expand...

I guess you are right. A foe isn't necessarily a threat.

But from a geopolitical perspective romney is completely wrong. Russia is not longer an ideologically driven threat. They are at best attempting to "regain" the diplomatic weight of the Soviet years, but it its influence beyond its borders is minimal.

China is a far greater geopolitical threat and they are implementing a non military, non ideological strategy of economic resource acquisition. They are investing massive amounts of money in Africa, South America, South-East Asia, and Russia. They are investing in infrastructure, roads/ports/waterways/rail in these countries. They are investing in schools. They are Brazil's largest trading partner. They have secured energy resources from Russian, Iran, Iraq. they have purchased a Greek shipping port. they have tried to buy their way into the Canadian oil patch and have even offered tobuild the pipeline and port from Alberta to BC coast. they are quitely and methodically acqiring the resources they will need to feed their people, power their industry, acquire natural resources, and ship finished product.

Its a strategy that transcends the knee jerk four year plans of the west and they are very very effective at it. But it seems nobody wants to admit they are kicking ass in the third world.
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

Mithros said:
The battleship was the pinnacle of naval superiority leading into WWII. They were such a point of pride that the nations built super-battleships to be their flagships. The Germans built the Bismark, the English built the Hind. Then WWII happened and the naval commanders found that the aircraft carrier was the most powerful vessel.

In fact, the last time battleships were used in a major naval battle was on October 23-26, 1944 at the battle of Leyte Gulf. The rest of the time battleships have been support vessels or naval bombardment. Their principle offensive role today is carrying tomahawk cruise missiles.

In the aftermath of WWII and at the onset of the cold war, the US developed a policy of maintaining enough of a military to fight two large scale simultaneous conflicts. This allowed the US to engage fully in one theatre (eg Vietnam) without compromising the ability of the military to fend off a full scale attack from another power.

But with the advent of more powerful nuclear weapons, and more intelligent and precise guidance systems, the entire construct of war has evolved. In a real conflict, large numbers of assets concentrated in any one area serves only as a larger target without providing any increased offensive ability.

Large numbers are not an asset, in fact, large numbers act only as a liability. In the modern military paradigm, stealth and secrecy combined with operational flexibility are the biggest difference makers. One stealth bomber that can move into an enemy space undetected, deliver targeted munitions, and exit is worth far more than a fleet of B52's carpet bombing a city.
Click to expand...

I believe you are in error. Battleships, if I remember were used in Korea and perhaps even Viet Nam for a short time.
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

wolfman24 said:
And what about Mitts 14 days comment and his smarmy attitude when he thought he had Obama.

The problem is that Obama was right and Mitt was just showing his ignorance of modern warfare. Granted Obama could have said it better but I think he was just exasperated at Romneys's stupidity.

As I understand it one US aircraft carrier can deliver more damage than all the conventional bombs dropped in WWII. One nuclear sub can deliver more destruction than in all the European theatre if not more.
The days of the drednaught are gone. WHo gives a crap if we have less when the power they can deliver is more than any of us can imagine.

In this case less is more (compared to the past)
Click to expand...

The Secretary of the Navy appointed by President Obama cares.

The U.S. Navy can meet global defense needs, including the increased emphasis in the Pacific, with a 300-ship fleet, down from the 313 previously planned, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said April 16.
SECNAV: U.S. Navy Can Meet Mission With 300 Ships | Defense News | defensenews.com
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

What got me and this may be a bit off topic is that both seemed to believe we HAVE to be the worlds babysitter that nations that have been around alot longer than us can't go to sleep at night without mommy (USA) tucking them in. This is arrogance of the highest order.
What we need to do is make sure the shipping lanes are safe, protect our shorelines and interests overseas and let the others figure it out for themselves. You will notice i said Interests, this includes treaty obligations. If our help is needed then let them go through the UN or NATO and ask for it.
Mommy needs to get a real serious migrane.
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

jerry7 said:
No one knows the defense budget of China. The defense budgets of Russia, Saudi Arabia and india which are also in the top 10 are just guesses.
Click to expand...

Actually, as big a info sieve as the US is, china ain't far behind. Pretty good intel estimates are available.

Yep in decending order: china, russia,Uk, France, japan, saudi, india, germany, brazil, italy, Skorea, Australia, Canada Turkey.
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

MaggieD said:
I don't claim to know, Wiggen. I don't know that much about our defense resources. But I do know one thing: the importance of our Navy has little to do with taking on every other Navy in the world and defeating them. That's not how armageddon is going to go down.
Click to expand...

Armageddon is a mythic future Christian war. We souldn't be spending money to ready for some mythic war.
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

H. Lee White said:
Every soldier is issued a rifle.
Every rifle is issued with a bayonete.
Today's army is larger than that in 1916, and so there are -more- bayonetes today.

The fact that The Obama does not know this will be lost on those that support Him, especially in context.
Click to expand...

That's funny. When i was in Desert Storm and I took my issued M-16A2 rifle over there, I was never issued a bayonete. Maybe prior military folk like myself should just cede this topic to your far superior backround?
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

wolfman24 said:
And what about Mitts 14 days comment and his smarmy attitude when he thought he had Obama.

The problem is that Obama was right and Mitt was just showing his ignorance of modern warfare. Granted Obama could have said it better but I think he was just exasperated at Romneys's stupidity.

As I understand it one US aircraft carrier can deliver more damage than all the conventional bombs dropped in WWII. One nuclear sub can deliver more destruction than in all the European theatre if not more.
The days of the drednaught are gone. WHo gives a crap if we have less when the power they can deliver is more than any of us can imagine.

In this case less is more (compared to the past)
Click to expand...

We give a crap, that's who. Your post assumes the rest of the world has stood still since WWII. Here's a hint - they haven't.
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

I don't understand either. The navy is defined by the ships they have. The rest of the military is not defined by the bayonets and horses. They are defined by the best killing machines in their arsenal.
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

poweRob said:
That's funny. When i was in Desert Storm and I took my issued M-16A2 rifle over there, I was never issued a bayonete.
Click to expand...
:lol:
Yeahok.
:lol:
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

poweRob said:
That's funny. When i was in Desert Storm and I took my issued M-16A2 rifle over there, I was never issued a bayonete. Maybe prior military folk like myself should just cede this topic to your far superior backround?
Click to expand...

I was issued one in DaNang. Perhaps your supply officer didn't like you all that much. :mrgreen:

Also could be the supplies just weren't there to issue everyone a bayonet.
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

wolfman24 said:
And what about Mitts 14 days comment and his smarmy attitude when he thought he had Obama.
Click to expand...

Romney did have him. The President did not call Libya a terrorist attack until September 25. From September 11th to the 25th is 14 days. What he said in the Rose Garden was:

"No Acts Of Terror Will Ever Shake The Resolve Of This Great Nation."
Click to expand...

After that "supposed" call that Libya was an act of terrorist (which is NOT what he said), the Administration continued, on numerous occasions, to tell us that the UTube video was responsible for the attacks. On September 25th, President Obama, for the first time, said the Benghazi incident was an "act of terrorism." I've posted up the timeline twice on DP showing even the Chief of Staff referring to the UTube video as being the cause. I'm not going to go look for it again. Believe what you will. The facts prove otherwise.

Oh, all right, just for you:

Sept. 12. The president, in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, uses the word "terror." He says: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

The CIA station chief in Libya reports to Washington within 24 hours of the attack that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about the anti-Islam video.

Sept. 16. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice goes on television to say the attack was the work of individual clusters of extremists but began as a spontaneous protest. She says evidence gathered to that point showed no indication of a premeditated or coordinated strike.

Sept. 18. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney says the White House doesn't have any indication the Benghazi attack was premeditated, but adds it's still under investigation and the assessment could change. The president on the "Late Show" with David Letterman describes the anti-Muslim film and then says: "Extremists and terrorists used this (as) an excuse to attack (a) variety of our embassies, including the one — the consulate in Libya."

Sept. 20. The president says that extremists used the anti-Islam video as an excuse to assault U.S. interests overseas, including the attack in Benghazi. Secretary of State Clinton says she's appointing an independent accountability review board to review the circumstances of the attack. Retired diplomat Thomas Pickering will lead the panel.

Sept. 24. Romney leads a chorus of Republican criticism of the administration's foreign policy, accusing the president of minimizing the killings in Libya as a mere "bump in the road" rather than part of a chain of events that threatens American interests. Carney calls the accusations "desperate and offensive."

Sept. 25. The president, in an address to the United Nations General Assembly, says that attacks on U.S. citizens in Libya "were attacks on America" and calls on world leaders to join in confronting the root causes of the rage across the Muslim world. Romney calls the attack an act of terrorism and says the United States must use foreign aid to bring about lasting change in such places.

Sept. 26. Carney says that Obama considers the deadly assault a terrorist attack.
Click to expand...


Timeline of events, comments surrounding Benghazi - CBS News
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

clownboy said:
I was issued one in DaNang. Perhaps your supply officer didn't like you all that much. :mrgreen:

Also could be the supplies just weren't there to issue everyone a bayonet.
Click to expand...

I think they were phasing out. the M16a2 still had the attachment for a bayonet and I had attached one before to the M16A2... none of us in my unit were issued one and didn't carry one to Desert Storm.
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

Obama's comment was unpresidential and, frankly, dumb. Anybody who thinks the NAVY doesn't use SHIPS is an absolute nincompoop.

Navies use ships.

That's like saying the Army doesn't use guns, and the Air Force doesn't use planes.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.


poweRob said:
Last night Obama got a point in about Romney's claims that our navy is weaker because it's amount of ships have decreased since WWI


"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916," Obama said. "Well, Governor, 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," he said.
link...​


Today Paul Ryan responded:


"To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets, I just don't understand that comparison," Ryan said in an interview that aired Tuesday on CBS' This Morning.
link...​


Congressman Ryan, regarding your sharp eye on US military needs such as wanting $2 Trillion in increased spending that the military didn't ask for and implication on how bayonets are an irrlevant military tool... weeeellllll the Navy doesn't use battleships anymore either because they also were phased out. So you are right. You just don't understand.
Click to expand...
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

AdamT said:
I'm starting to thing that Ryan isn't just playing dumb.
Click to expand...

He's being deliberately obtuse. I understood what Obama was saying, so if he seriously doesn't get it...wow....

I don't even want to think or joke about him actually being that dumb.
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

Peter Grimm said:
Obama's comment was unpresidential and, frankly, dumb. Anybody who thinks the NAVY doesn't use SHIPS is an absolute nincompoop.

Navies use ships.

That's like saying the Army doesn't use guns, and the Air Force doesn't use planes.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Click to expand...

You are stating here that Obama said "the NAVY doesn't use SHIPS"? Strawman?
 
re: Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

Peter Grimm said:
Obama's comment was unpresidential and, frankly, dumb. Anybody who thinks the NAVY doesn't use SHIPS is an absolute nincompoop.

Navies use ships.

That's like saying the Army doesn't use guns, and the Air Force doesn't use planes.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Click to expand...

That's not what he said though. You know it too. It was all about keeping things up to date, and things have been moving away from large battleships battling each other in the water for some time. Aircraft carriers and subs are what is needed. Romney just wanted to play numbers.

Think about what he's promising -- cut taxes and raise spending. Does that sound like a good idea to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom