FACT CHECK: Romney claim about size of Navy is WRONG.

[Uncensored2008]

How many nations could just one of our nuclear submarines take out?

So, you're saying that our only response capability should be nuclear?

Really?

Or a carrier armed with nukes? How many nations have air forces that could stand up to just one of our carrier groups? How much is enough? How much is too much?

The President was far closer to the correct anology when he spoke of bayonets and horses. This is not 1916 or 1917. Just one of our missile frigates could easily defeat that whole navy without the navy of that time every seeing that ship. The fact that you people have to even think twice before seeing the nonsense of Romney's statement is indictive of how out of touch with reality that you truly are.

So we stopped using bayonets in 1917?

{While the bayonet dates to the 17th century, it has evolved through technological innovations over the years. In 2003, the Marine Corps replaced its standard-issue bayonet with a longer, sharper model, the OKC-3S. The new model, designed by New York's Ontario Knife Co., was also more effective when brandished as a hand knife - not to mention more ergonomically correct. Perhaps more vitally, the blades were also better able to pierce body armor, a concern particular to modern warriors. More than 120,000 bayonets were commissioned to supply one to each Marine, at an estimated price of $36.35 each, or $4,362,000 total. In addition to potential use in hand-to-hand combat, bayonets are said to be useful for keeping prisoners under control and for "poking an enemy to see whether he is dead."

The Marines aren't the only branch of the military to equip its soldiers with bayonets. The Army issues the M9 bayonet knife, which has been in use since the 1980s}

Does the U.S. military still use bayonets? » Latest News » The Tribune Democrat, Johnstown, PA

If you didn't have shit fer brains, you wouldn't be a leftist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am outraged. Today, BECAUSE OF OBAMA, we have the fewest bayonets in the military since 1850…

You are outraged because you are so stupid you believe everything Obama says? I suggest you try remembering that he lies.

A lot.

You will be a lot less outraged by ridiculous statements.

The reality is that the size of the armed forces is not measured in the number of assets that we have. In WW2, we had FAR more aircraft employed than we have today. Does that mean squat? No.

Actually, it does. It means that the US Air Force is less able to respond to threats than they were in WWII. Yes, we have planes that can outfight anything else currently available, but they weren't able to get them into Libya to protect our consulate from an attack or help the people that were under attack, even though that attack lasted 7 hours.

The comment was meant to highlight the cuts that the military is taking and that it is affecting our military might. It might have been a rather misguided way of highlighting it but it does work in a way. Welcome to the new way we elect presidents where a thought out accusation that included specifics would be wholly ignored (and actually hurt Romney) so instead, we get these one liners that actually bear little truth and even less relevancy.

The comments were meant to paint Romney as an idiot, they backfired by proving that Obama is the idiot.

 

[Darkwind]

and as I said in my previous post...in 2007, we had 279 and in '08 we had 282....there are 20 ships that were commissioned two years ago...which is probably why we're up from 282.... and there's an allotment for 10 more in the 2013 budget.....your boy lies.

As far as the budget cutbacks? both sides agreed to the rules of play on that shit. Guess they better work something out.

Now we know you are a liar.

There is no 2013 budget.

The question is this: Did we have fewer ships in 1917 than we do today?

the answer is: yes.

That was not the claim. The claim was " The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority" because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917" Word for word....

as far as me being a liar? Fuck you.

10 Ships for U.S. Navy in New Budget | Defense News | defensenews.com

Fuck you.

Has Obama signed a budget for 2013? No? Then you are a fucking liar.

The claim is that the military has as many ships today as 1917. You fucks moved the goal posts to 1916, but the truth is, we have fewer ships today, than we did in 1917.

It is a simple fact.

Why don't you concentrate on getting your side to sign off on a budget so you can quit lying about things.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The claim is that the military has as many ships today as 1917.

No, that's not the claim.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, that's not the claim.

That was Romney's claim, troll.

 

[Inthemiddle]

No, that's not the claim.

That was Romney's claim, troll.

Nope, it wasn't.

 

[Darkwind]

The claim is that the military has as many ships today as 1917.

No, that's not the claim.

That may not be the exact words, but the claim by the left is that the navy is not weaker than it was in 1917 based upon the number of ships. Clearly a lie.

There is a video link in this very thread to Romney's statement. I suggest you go look at it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The claim is that the military has as many ships today as 1917.

No, that's not the claim.

That may not be the exact words, but the claim by the left is that the navy is not weaker than it was in 1917 based upon the number of ships. Clearly a lie.

There is a video link in this very thread to Romney's statement. I suggest you go look at it.

Romney's claim is that we have fewer ships now than any time since 1917. That claim is untrue. I've called it out as being untrue, but played on words to give a false reason why it's untrue. And since, I've sat back and watch both sides dance and make fools of themselves.

As for the strength of our Navy, you're an idiot if you think our Navy is weaker now than it was in 1917.

 

[Billo_Really]

Not to quibble with your unbiased fact checking here, but how does this prove Romney wrong? His exact statement is that the Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917, we had 342 ships then.

So you're saying, in 1 year, we built almost 100 ships, with 1917 technology?

Right?

 

[Steelplate]

Now we know you are a liar.

There is no 2013 budget.

The question is this: Did we have fewer ships in 1917 than we do today?

the answer is: yes.

That was not the claim. The claim was " The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority" because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917" Word for word....

as far as me being a liar? Fuck you.

10 Ships for U.S. Navy in New Budget | Defense News | defensenews.com

Fuck you.

Has Obama signed a budget for 2013? No? Then you are a fucking liar.

The claim is that the military has as many ships today as 1917. You fucks moved the goal posts to 1916, but the truth is, we have fewer ships today, than we did in 1917.

It is a simple fact.

Why don't you concentrate on getting your side to sign off on a budget so you can quit lying about things.

Fuck...you....it's been approved already you fucking idiot....You are just too fucking enamored with your bullshit and too fucking proud to admit your fucking WRONG.

Romney's quote wasn't "less than 1917" it was that "they are at their lowest levels SINCE 1917"....Which is a fucking lie, and you fucking know it.....but you're too busy sucking the balls of your "Messiah" while he eats his caviar and sips his Perrier talking about poor folks' "personal responsibility and victimhood" That you simply keep on slurping and ignore the truth.

Now....you wanna be an asshole when you've been fucking proven wring repeatedly? So can I.....ya big bag of douche!

 

[Steelplate]

The claim is that the military has as many ships today as 1917.

No, that's not the claim.

That may not be the exact words, but the claim by the left is that the navy is not weaker than it was in 1917 based upon the number of ships. Clearly a lie.

There is a video link in this very thread to Romney's statement. I suggest you go look at it.

Based on number of ships? Fuck man.... gimme 1000 steamers and I'll take over THE WORLD!!!!! Muahaha.

let's see....one.....PERHAPS....at the most....Two. Carrier groups would destroy those 1000 WWI ships in two day's time......and nary suffer a scratch.

It's apples and oranges and a stupid fucking argument....go suck your Messiah's balls some more.

 

[Steelplate]

No, that's not the claim.

That may not be the exact words, but the claim by the left is that the navy is not weaker than it was in 1917 based upon the number of ships. Clearly a lie.

There is a video link in this very thread to Romney's statement. I suggest you go look at it.

Romney's claim is that we have fewer ships now than any time since 1917. That claim is untrue. I've called it out as being untrue, but played on words to give a false reason why it's untrue. And since, I've sat back and watch both sides dance and make fools of themselves.

As for the strength of our Navy, you're an idiot if you think our Navy is weaker now than it was in 1917.

wait....wait.....based on "number of ships" it is, ya know.

 

[Trajan]

So....you use one incident......and apply it across the board? OK.....Romney's Company sent jobs to overseas......so....by your rationale. he will send all of our jobs to China and other countries turning most of the 400 million of our population into peasants slaving away in the world's largest Banana Republic.

My assessment is not based on only one instance. My observations started with that and have been reinforced since then. Reinforced, for example, by Obama drawing down forces in the middle of fighting season, against the commanders' recommendations.


His unwillingness to discuss ship strength being up to recommended levels, resorting instead to a cheap shot during a national debate, is part of a broader pattern which causes concern.

OK....first off...the whole "fighting season" thing.....We have spent years training Afghani troops to provide for their own security....The "drawdown" is part of that transition of returning Afghanistan to it's own governance, as planned. Yes....SOME generals disagreed with this. But at the same time....we've been there for over a decade, spent many hundreds of billions of dollars, lost many American and allied lives....and have a defined plan to get the fuck out of there in two years. You really want an open ended war? We aren't going to change these people....the Soviet Union damn near Bankrupted themselves trying to change them....is that what you want from us? Plus....our continued presence in the country is a source of irritation and anger to many Afghanis....We need to stick to the plan.

285 ships.....plus the 20 that have been commissioned two years ago.....plus the 10 that are approved to be constructed in the 2013 military budget is....how many? According to my calculations? That's 315. Both of those numbers....20 and 10....have links......that I am not going search for the fifth or sixth time today....go ahead...help yourself.

Hint....the 20 are from a company in Wisconsin, I believe.....that one wasn't my research...

no not exactly, these add ons replace ships that go out of service, whether to say Susa bay or scrap, thats why the number keeps dropping. Example, the Enterprise is gone next year bringing us down to 10 Carrier battle grps., waiting till 2015 for the flagship of the new class, the GR Ford to bring us back to 11.

There after we may get 1 more, the JFK BUT,with 3 Nimitz class, over 30 years old and scheduled for out service in 3 years,( they have had their last RCOH, power-plant and heavy rebuilds for extended service) their life span says so, as they were launched in 75, 77 and 82, the Nimitz, Eisenhower and Vinson.

Another Example- 7 more Aegis are early retiring in the next 18 mmonths, 4 are laid up now. new builds?? didn't see any....*shrugs*
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not to quibble with your unbiased fact checking here, but how does this prove Romney wrong? His exact statement is that the Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917, we had 342 ships then.

So you're saying, in 1 year, we built almost 100 ships, with 1917 technology?

Right?

No, I am saying that the US Navy expanded from 245 ships in December of 1916 to 342 in April of 1917. That is only 4 months, not one year. If you don't like facts provided feel free to tell all the historians that keep track of these things they are full of shit.

 

[Billo_Really]

No, I am saying that the US Navy expanded from 245 ships in December of 1916 to 342 in April of 1917. That is only 4 months, not one year. If you don't like facts provided feel free to tell all the historians that keep track of these things they are full of shit.

So we added almost a 100 ships in 4 months? How did we do that? Did we build them? Commondere them? What kind of ships were they? Battleships? Cruisers? Dreadnots? Life rafts?

In WWII, it took us 30 days to build a Liberty ship. Just one ship.

Where's your link to back up this claim?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Not to quibble with your unbiased fact checking here, but how does this prove Romney wrong? His exact statement is that the Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917, we had 342 ships then.

So you're saying, in 1 year, we built almost 100 ships, with 1917 technology?

Right?

Do you know what happened in that one year? We entered into WWI. We might have beefed up our military at that point, no?

 

[Inthemiddle]

No, I am saying that the US Navy expanded from 245 ships in December of 1916 to 342 in April of 1917. That is only 4 months, not one year. If you don't like facts provided feel free to tell all the historians that keep track of these things they are full of shit.

So we added almost a 100 ships in 4 months? How did we do that? Did we build them? Commondere them? What kind of ships were they? Battleships? Cruisers? Dreadnots? Life rafts?

In WWII, it took us 30 days to build a Liberty ship. Just one ship.

Where's your link to back up this claim?

You're missing an important caveat: active ships. The Navy probably had plenty of non-active ships that were subsequently activated.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I am saying that the US Navy expanded from 245 ships in December of 1916 to 342 in April of 1917. That is only 4 months, not one year. If you don't like facts provided feel free to tell all the historians that keep track of these things they are full of shit.

So we added almost a 100 ships in 4 months? How did we do that? Did we build them? Commondere them? What kind of ships were they? Battleships? Cruisers? Dreadnots? Life rafts?

In WWII, it took us 30 days to build a Liberty ship. Just one ship.

Where's your link to back up this claim?

Like I said, if you have a problem with historical facts, take it up with someone else. Feel free to make a thread in conspiracy theories all about how we didn't actually build those ships, they must have come from aliens.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I am saying that the US Navy expanded from 245 ships in December of 1916 to 342 in April of 1917. That is only 4 months, not one year. If you don't like facts provided feel free to tell all the historians that keep track of these things they are full of shit.

So we added almost a 100 ships in 4 months? How did we do that? Did we build them? Commondere them? What kind of ships were they? Battleships? Cruisers? Dreadnots? Life rafts?

In WWII, it took us 30 days to build a Liberty ship. Just one ship.

Where's your link to back up this claim?

You're missing an important caveat: active ships. The Navy probably had plenty of non-active ships that were subsequently activated.

Facts don't matter to conspiracy nuts.

 

[Billo_Really]

You're missing an important caveat: active ships. The Navy probably had plenty of non-active ships that were subsequently activated.

That's a good point!

Ships can be re-commissioned.