Naynay and 4eyes

[naynay]

why do we want to be in two wars at once?

[A+]

According to history.navy.mil.org (probably a bias website) there were 342 active ships as of April 1917. As of April 2012 there are 282 active duty ships, the same amount of active ships when GWB was in office......

[A+]

Not at all. IT's merely an example of him being factually wrong.

There were a lot more things he was wrong about then the use of bayonets in war time

[majorownage]

bush caused 9-11.. you think he was randomly reading dr. seuss to little kids that morning? that was an alibi!

Years of piss-poor foreign policy is what mostly caused 9/11. That and failing to act on intelligence.

The neo-cons had plans of going into Iraq way before 9/11 ever occurred. They just needed an excuse.

[Forever_frost]

Years of piss-poor foreign policy is what mostly caused 9/11. That and failing to act on intelligence.

The neo-cons had plans of going into Iraq way before 9/11 ever occurred. They just needed an excuse.

Drink more water

[Forever_frost]

why do we want to be in two wars at once?

Want to? We don't want to. Need to be able to? Oh hell yes. If we get tied up in one fight, you think our enemies won't take advantage of the fact we can't face them? Hell, China and Russia are working to turn out new ships to handle our existing fleet

[4eyedwillie]

Romney's point was that our military strength has been reduced to pre-WW2 levels. We also have been reduced from an ability to fight 2 wars at once to just one. THAT was Romney's point

You want to talk about out of touch with the military? Obama's handing a pink slip to hundreds of thousands of troops (Army and Marines) AND told the DoD and Congress he would sign no budgets that did not increase the fees and copays of Tricare. He's also cut our missile defense shields, cut back our nuclear arsenal and has been trying to push treaties that would weaken us further.

You really want to discuss this?

What does the navy need more ships for? Any war we have is going to be a land war not a sea war. Plus I bet quite a few of the 60 ship difference is in either small craft or transport ships. Small craft don't make diddly squat difference in our war fighting ability. Transports other than what the marines use to base their expeditionary units on are pointless now too. In 1917 we didn't have aircraft to transport our people to the war area, now we do.

As for the not being able to fight two wars at once it seems we've been doing fairly well for the last 10 years with that many.

If we're not fighting two wars why do we need the extra troops? Isn't it a sacred republican mantra that fat needs to be trimmed in business? And that it's all about making a profit? Well get rid of some of the troops that we don't need since Iraq is basically done and same some money.
And before you bring up that the military is constitutionally mandated sure it is, but I'm sure that the force levels aren't in the constitution. As long as there's one company of troops and one ship the constitution is satisfied. Should it be that low hell no but it would be constitutional.

[Forever_frost]

Fact Check: U.S. Military Has More Bayonets Today Than In 1916

Wednesday, October 24, 2012
121022_POL_bayonet.jpg.CROP_.rectangle3-large_lightbox-550x335

From the department of picayune fact-checking: The U.S. Army has 419,155 bayonets in its inventory. The Marine Corps has about 195,334 bayonets (and has plans to acquire 175,061 more).

President Barack Obama said Monday night that the U.S. had fewer horses and bayonets than in 1916, by way of rebutting Mitt Romney’s charge that the Navy has fewer ships than any time since 1917.

http://patriotupdate.com/31515/fact-check-u-s-military-has-more-bayonets-today-than-in-1916

[Forever_frost]

What does the navy need more ships for? Any war we have is going to be a land war not a sea war. Plus I bet quite a few of the 60 ship difference is in either small craft or transport ships. Small craft don't make diddly squat difference in our war fighting ability. Transports other than what the marines use to base their expeditionary units on are pointless now too. In 1917 we didn't have aircraft to transport our people to the war area, now we do.

As for the not being able to fight two wars at once it seems we've been doing fairly well for the last 10 years with that many.

If we're not fighting two wars why do we need the extra troops? Isn't it a sacred republican mantra that fat needs to be trimmed in business? And that it's all about making a profit? Well get rid of some of the troops that we don't need since Iraq is basically done and same some money.
And before you bring up that the military is constitutionally mandated sure it is, but I'm sure that the force levels aren't in the constitution. As long as there's one company of troops and one ship the constitution is satisfied. Should it be that low hell no but it would be constitutional.

Actually, not true. The country would have to be able to be defended by that one company and one ship. As that's impossible, the Constitution would be violated. And yes, we believe in trimming fat. You cut everything that's not constitutionally mandated such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Foreign Aid, green energy subsidies, bailouts to GM LONG before you consider a single troop cut

[majorownage]

Drink more water

Paul O'Neill claimed this in the book "The Price of Liberty," and he was Bush's appointed Secretary of Treasury. This dude was CEO of the RAND corporation and long time republican. For some reason he was dismissed from office after only 1 year. Why would he be if he had real problems with the administration? He had much to gain to go along with the rest of his cronies.

Some proof that was accidentally declassified. Took me forever to find an actual picture. 99% of the links to the documents were dead, even the "internet time machine" sites.

[Forever_frost]

You do know nothing is 'accidentally' declassified, right?

[4eyedwillie]

Actually, not true. The country would have to be able to be defended by that one company and one ship. As that's impossible, the Constitution would be violated. And yes, we believe in trimming fat. You cut everything that's not constitutionally mandated such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Foreign Aid, green energy subsidies, bailouts to GM LONG before you consider a single troop cut

Since it doesn't specify the force levels the constitution wouldn't be violated. But that's neither here nor there, noone is seriously saying to reduce the manpower that much. But since we don't need as many people now then the extras need to be released into the reserves so they can get back to their families and get on with their lives. I'm sure that if a call for volunteers went out that plenty would sign up.
You want to cut SS fine but I want EVERY single penny plus interest that I put in over the last 34 years.

[Forever_frost]

Since it doesn't specify the force levels the constitution wouldn't be violated. But that's neither here nor there, noone is seriously saying to reduce the manpower that much. But since we don't need as many people now then the extras need to be released into the reserves so they can get back to their families and get on with their lives. I'm sure that if a call for volunteers went out that plenty would sign up.
You want to cut SS fine but I want EVERY single penny plus interest that I put in over the last 34 years.

Talk to the federal government. Barry added 6 trillion in 4 years and we are at an unsustainable debt load. He also cut defense programs like the missile defense shield (Remember him telling Russia he'd get it done?) and mothballed our space program. How many shuttles are flying now versus when he took office?

How many people are unemployed versus when he took office?

What is the national debt now versus when he took office?

What were our troop levels at when he took office versus now?

How many attacks on US soil happened in the 8 years prior to Obama's reign versus during his presidency?

I'll wait. Let me k now if you need help.

[majorownage]

You do know nothing is 'accidentally' declassified, right?

Something called scheduled declassification.

And let's not forget the Downing Street Memo that is dated 2002 in which military action in iraq was already planned.

You should probably read that document.

[Forever_frost]

Something called scheduled declassification.

And let's not forget the Downing Street Memo that is dated 2002 in which military action in iraq was already planned.

You should probably read that document.

You think Bush slammed planes into the WTC to start a war in Iraq. A country we got no oil from and made no money off of. And somehow kept it all secret for 11 years