What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Navy leadership is a bunch of traitors

Inthemiddle

Rookie
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
6,354
Reaction score
675
Points
0
They want 315 ships. That's it? That would make us weak! After all, in 1864 the navy had 700 ships in its fleet!! The navy today wants to be less than half as strong as it was in 1864! What a bunch of traitors they are. We need Mitt Romney as President, so he can build 1000 ships!
 

occupied

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
28,328
Reaction score
9,043
Points
900
LOL Maybe we can build enough where they can just anchor them end-to-end and the soldiers can walk to our many foreign wars.
 

Nosmo King

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
26,381
Reaction score
7,267
Points
290
Location
Buckle of the Rust Belt
They want 315 ships. That's it? That would make us weak! After all, in 1864 the navy had 700 ships in its fleet!! The navy today wants to be less than half as strong as it was in 1864! What a bunch of traitors they are. We need Mitt Romney as President, so he can build 1000 ships!
Let's review. The Naval Chief of Staff isn't as wise, knowledgeable and pragmatic as you are because you and Mitt have a real grasp of Naval readiness and capabilities. Any view that diverges from yours is treasonous. And we should take you seriously.

:eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle:
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
122,968
Reaction score
38,767
Points
2,290
We have roads and bridges, do we really even need a navy?
 

Saigon

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
11,434
Reaction score
882
Points
175
Location
Helsinki, Finland
It's no coincidence Mitt used 1916 as a point of comparison - his energy policy dates from the same year.
 

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,865
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
Romney thinks we need a navy like the one in Master and Commander...

...more rum and young boys!!!
 

blastoff

Undocumented Reg. User
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
21,493
Reaction score
2,862
Points
280
Location
In a galaxy far far away...
We didn't build those ships! And we won't build any of the new ones either after Mitt's elected. I know because I listen to the president.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
122,968
Reaction score
38,767
Points
2,290
It's no coincidence Mitt used 1916 as a point of comparison - his energy policy dates from the same year.

Moron.

We will be totally energy independent during Romney's first term.
 

Imnukingfutz

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
178
Reaction score
23
Points
66
Location
Kingdom of Nigh
They want 315 ships. That's it? That would make us weak! After all, in 1864 the navy had 700 ships in its fleet!! The navy today wants to be less than half as strong as it was in 1864! What a bunch of traitors they are. We need Mitt Romney as President, so he can build 1000 ships!

There is a reason the Navy only needs 315 ships.

The 700 ships we had in 1864 would be wiped out of existence with just 1 of our aircraft carriers and never receive a scratch in doing so.

They can also bombard inland targets from hundreds of miles away with pin point accuracy.

In addition to that, in 1864 the ONLY military we had was the Navy. Technically that is the only military allowed by Constitution....but another topic for another day.

So comparing the 1864 navy ship count to our present day ship count is like comparing apples to donkeys.
 

Imnukingfutz

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
178
Reaction score
23
Points
66
Location
Kingdom of Nigh
We will be totally energy independent during Romney's first term.

I doubt that in reality. We will most definitely be piping in oil from Canada tho....helping obtain a much more secure energy source.
 

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
84,532
Reaction score
16,077
Points
2,180
Building ships creats jobs. donut?
 

Mad Scientist

Feels Good!
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
24,196
Reaction score
5,426
Points
270
Building ships creats jobs. donut?
That's the "Military Industrial Complex" that Eisenhower warned us about. If building ships creates jobs then we should be at war all the time right?

Also, it is true that modern ships are more power full than ever, but that doesn't necessarily mean we need less of them. Because if we have say 3 Super Powerful ships and one gets sunk we've now lost 1/3 of our Navy.

No one else sees a problem with that?
 

Saigon

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
11,434
Reaction score
882
Points
175
Location
Helsinki, Finland
It's no coincidence Mitt used 1916 as a point of comparison - his energy policy dates from the same year.

Moron.

We will be totally energy independent during Romney's first term.

Ha! That really is very, very funny!

Whenever you post ontopic I understand why you generally stick to spamming!

The US uses 20.59 million barrels per day.

The US produce 8.37 million barrels per day.

Top World Oil Producers, Exporters, Consumers, and Importers, 2006 — Infoplease.com

So, Frank - exactly where is the 12 million barrels per day of oil??

And all of that oil can be accessed and drilled within 4 years, and done economically?

Because 12 million barrels of oil per day would be a find bigger than that of Saidu Arabia, woulsn't it?
 

Wehrwolfen

Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
2,750
Reaction score
340
Points
48
What the president didn't mention last night is that yes, we do have those things called Submarines and Aircraft Carriers that need support anywhere they go. Both are expensive to build and maintain and we have no plans to build any real soon . Then there's aircraft that although briefly mentioned production is being cut under "Sequestration". That's including the drastic reduction in number of cargo craft, fighters, and bombers. The F-22 production was cut and so has the F-35 been cut.
Not matter what, in the end you need boots on the ground and if that is the case you need cargo ships, cargo aircraft and all sorts of vehicles to support and advance our troops.
 

Saigon

Gold Member
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
11,434
Reaction score
882
Points
175
Location
Helsinki, Finland
What the president didn't mention last night is that yes, we do have those things called Submarines and Aircraft Carriers that need support anywhere they go. Both are expensive to build and maintain and we have no plans to build any real soon . Then there's aircraft that although briefly mentioned production is being cut under "Sequestration". That's including the drastic reduction in number of cargo craft, fighters, and bombers. The F-22 production was cut and so has the F-35 been cut.
Not matter what, in the end you need boots on the ground and if that is the case you need cargo ships, cargo aircraft and all sorts of vehicles to support and advance our troops.

Given the US currently spends 4 times that of China, and more than double what China and Russian spend combined - how much do you feel would be enough?

Maybe 10 times what China spends?
 

tjvh

Senior Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
6,893
Reaction score
918
Points
48
Breaking... Barack Hussein Obama's Navy spotted:
images
 

Bigfoot

NRA
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,067
Reaction score
580
Points
48

occupied

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
28,328
Reaction score
9,043
Points
900
What the president didn't mention last night is that yes, we do have those things called Submarines and Aircraft Carriers that need support anywhere they go. Both are expensive to build and maintain and we have no plans to build any real soon . Then there's aircraft that although briefly mentioned production is being cut under "Sequestration". That's including the drastic reduction in number of cargo craft, fighters, and bombers. The F-22 production was cut and so has the F-35 been cut.
Not matter what, in the end you need boots on the ground and if that is the case you need cargo ships, cargo aircraft and all sorts of vehicles to support and advance our troops.

Given the US currently spends 4 times that of China, and more than double what China and Russian spend combined - how much do you feel would be enough?

Maybe 10 times what China spends?
Give it up, republicans do not care about making our military efficient and formed to meet the real world threats we face, it's never big enough and expensive enough to suit them while they rush around crying that we are broke and the government can't do anything right on everything but the bloated, corrupt and incredibly wasteful MIC.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$191.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top