Navy leadership is a bunch of traitors

[NLT]

This is amazing to anyone who ever served in the service fleet and especially to those of us who served on Vietnam Era Navy Destroyers.

What's a Vietnam-era destroyer, numbnuts? If you had half a brain you would call it a Fram-Class destroyer...

Or a Gearing class or a Adams Class.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=144

Served on the Fiske DD842 79-80 Decommed 1980
Served on the John King DDG-3 80-83

 

[whitehall]

Let'see, how many aircraft carriers and boomer subs did the US Navy have in 1864? Not many. The times are changing and destroyers and cruisers really aren't critical except to protect the carriers.

 

[NLT]

Only a MORON like you would try to impress others with esoteric language not relevant to an issue.

Only a MORON would think there's such a thing as a Vietnam-era destroyer, shitforbrains.

Congrats

This moron knows that the Kidd class of Destroyers are "Vietnam era" destroyers.

WRONG


The Kidd class guided missile destroyers (DDGs) were a series of four warships based on the hull of the Spruance class destroyers. These ships were originally ordered by the last Shah (king) of Iran for service in the Persian Gulf, in an air defence role. The Shah was overthrown in the Iranian revolution, prior to Iran accepting delivery of the ships, causing the United States Navy to integrate the vessels into its own fleet. Each ship in the class was named after a U.S. Navy Admiral who had died in combat in the Pacific in World War II:

 

[NLT]

This moron knows that the Kidd class of Destroyers are "Vietnam era" destroyers.

Not if one was serving on a Fram-Class, asswipe.

true or false:
The Kidd class of naval destroyer was developed and launched during the Vietnam War?

OOoo! an asswipe says what?[/QUOTE]

See above post

 

[bodecea]

It's no coincidence Mitt used 1916 as a point of comparison - his energy policy dates from the same year.

As does his gender issues.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Let'see, how many aircraft carriers and boomer subs did the US Navy have in 1864? Not many. The times are changing and destroyers and cruisers really aren't critical except to protect the carriers.

Wait, what? You mean that advances in Naval technology can offset sheer numbers!?! Shut the front door!!

 

[bodecea]

Currently we are pumping a little over 6 million barrels a day so your figure of 12 million barrels a day is spot on. Consider also that at our peak production we were at 10 million barrels a day.

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels per Day)

No doubt Mittens is talking out his ass and promising us the moon (like some other candidates I have seen)

You only have two weeks of Obama ass-tonguing to go, polesmoker, - then it'll be President Romney's balls you'll be washing.

Your little Libberhoid Socialist Lovefest is about to come to an end.

Warbler gets a hard on writing his posts.

 

[Warrior102]

This is amazing to anyone who ever served in the service fleet and especially to those of us who served on Vietnam Era Navy Destroyers.

What's a Vietnam-era destroyer, numbnuts? If you had half a brain you would call it a Fram-Class destroyer...

Or a Gearing class or a Adams Class.
The U.S. Navy

Served on the Fiske DD842 79-80 Decommed 1980
Served on the John King DDG-3 80-83

Adams Class kicked ass.
I never did a tin can.
Two shitbox Amphibs, a CVN and a BB

 

[bodecea]

What's a Vietnam-era destroyer, numbnuts? If you had half a brain you would call it a Fram-Class destroyer...

Or a Gearing class or a Adams Class.
The U.S. Navy

Served on the Fiske DD842 79-80 Decommed 1980
Served on the John King DDG-3 80-83

Adams Class kicked ass.
I never did a tin can.
Two shitbox Amphibs, a CVN and a BB

A mess deck is a mess deck is a mess deck, eh?

 

[rightwinger]

It's no coincidence Mitt used 1916 as a point of comparison - his energy policy dates from the same year.

So does his hairstyle

 

[rightwinger]

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!

We can just consider ourselves lucky we don't have to go up against the 1864 Navy.......that is a lot of ships

 

[NLT]

What's a Vietnam-era destroyer, numbnuts? If you had half a brain you would call it a Fram-Class destroyer...

Or a Gearing class or a Adams Class.
The U.S. Navy

Served on the Fiske DD842 79-80 Decommed 1980
Served on the John King DDG-3 80-83

Adams Class kicked ass.
I never did a tin can.
Two shitbox Amphibs, a CVN and a BB

I Served on the following


Uss Fiske 79-80
Uss John King 80-83 ( Beruit lebanon 1982)
Uss Bowen FF-1079 83 (volunteered as Fox Div LPO for the med/IO cruise to Beruit)
Uss Pegasus PHM1 85-87
Uss Moosbrugger DD-980 90-93 (operation desert sheild/storm)
Uss Holland AS-32 96-99

 

[GoneBezerk]

Obamination wants another $500 BILLION cut from the DoD budget to further weaken the military after doing a $480 BILLION cut last year.

He doesn't give a shit what the CNO, CSAF, etc say about their services....because he is a community organizer.

 

[rightwinger]

Obamination wants another $500 BILLION cut from the DoD budget to further weaken the military after doing a $480 BILLION cut last year.

He doesn't give a shit what the CNO, CSAF, etc say about their services....because he is a community organizer.

He knows better than to use 1916 as a benchmark for naval power

 

[Darkwind]

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!

I'm just wondering how many planes we had in 1864. How many missile launchers, how many drones, etc...

Oh wait. Maybe those 315 ships in TODAYS terms would be the equivalent of 1 million ships in 1864....Who knows, right?

 

[rightwinger]

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!

I'm just wondering how many planes we had in 1864. How many missile launchers, how many drones, etc...

Oh wait. Maybe those 315 ships in TODAYS terms would be the equivalent of 1 million ships in 1864....Who knows, right?

Damn....that is an excellent point

Maybe you can explain it to Romney

 

[kwc57]

We have roads and bridges, do we really even need a navy?

Someones got to take the Marines where they need to go.

With their imaginary (to the CiC) bayonets.

 

[g5000]

We have a lot more drones than we had in 1917.

We have a lot more laser- and radar-guided missiles, too.

We have a lot more satellites and radios and radars, as well.

And it is these weapons we need in the current warfighting environment as much as ships.

Romney did not prove we need more ships.

Okay, Mitt, we have less steel and aluminum floating thingies than when we had wooden floaty thingies. And?



.

 

[Darkwind]

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!

I'm just wondering how many planes we had in 1864. How many missile launchers, how many drones, etc...

Oh wait. Maybe those 315 ships in TODAYS terms would be the equivalent of 1 million ships in 1864....Who knows, right?

Damn....that is an excellent point

Maybe you can explain it to Romney

I'm sure that Romney understands it much better than you, or the military hating Obama.

After all, when our defense needs something, he counters with the imaginary war on women.

 

[Amelia]

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!

Why do you and Obama resort to snark instead of addressing the claim that we have fewer ships than the navy says we need?

Does anyone on the left have anything but snark in the face of serious questions?