"Our military is simply too small to do everything that is being asked of it."

...I'd spot you the entire 101st Airborne .... Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Don't need 'em...

You're 100% Looney Tunes, Barleybrains. I'd spot you the entire 101st Airborne and you'd flop because of the time factor to get them in place before the ambassador was killed! You know-nothings are just whiners looking for another stupidly ignorant way to bash Obama. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

+1

That's all they've been doing since 2010. They're on a mission from god.

Are you aware that our current 285 ships can carry out the duties of 600 ships from just a few years ago?

Romney has proposed increasing the Navy to more than 300 ships from the current fleet size of 285 ships. A Defense official pointed out today that the Navy’s 30 year shipbuilding plan presented to Congress earlier this year will result in 300 ships by 2019. [ So in other words Romney just promised what was already requested.]

However, the official also said that while numbers are important when talking about a globally deployed Navy it’s important to look beyond the numbers at a ship’s capabilities when it’s deployed.

“When you look at an Arliegh Burke Class destroyer it’s missile defense capable, it can fire cruise missiles, it can conduct anti-submarine warfare, it has a gun on front for anti-surface warfare. It can patrol the coast of not only the U.S. but off the coast of other countries. That’s a pretty capable platform,” the official said.

Adding that these destroyers can also carry helicopters the official said, “It’s not single use, that’s been the evolution of not just the Navy but of our platforms as well.”

The official said today’s ships can carry out the capabilities of the 600 ship Navy envisioned by the Reagan administration.

Keep trying to convince the Neanderthals that technology has made a lot of things unnecessary. Like more soldiers, planes and ships. This is one area where it's OK to be replaced by a machine...

Isn't it cute when young uns like Louise try to act like adults. How many helicopters does an Arlieght Burke class destroyer carry? We know you don't know, you're just cutting and pasting again. Here is a good question, this defense official (employee of Obama) says that this plan will solve all known problems and it was presented to Congress this year...did it pass? If it didn't pass then it is not going to happen. If it had passed then why didn't Obama mention it? What is the guarantee that if passed this year that it won't be gutted next year? How does sequestration affect this plan?

This will help bring you up to speed. http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/0...-ships-032812/

Heard it before Whatzup. After Korea the supersonic plane was the answer to everything. The US invested in lots of fast, shiny jets and then Vietnam happened. Suddenly they found that boots on the ground needed a slower plane that could put ordinance on the ground with more accuracy than a football field.
We go through this after every war and they have to relearn that only boots on the ground hold territory. Ships crews can fight and repair battle damage keeping the ship in the fight while remote control equipment can't get the job done when it doesn't work.

We go through this after every war and

... they have to relearn that only boots on the ground hold territory. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You haven't figured them out yet have you ....

Premise: War is bad.
Strategy: Reduce the ability to conduct a War.
Result: No War, because we lack the capability to conduct a War.
Response: We must NEGOTIATE because we lack the capacity to engage in War.

It's the same "logical" philosophical discussion that supports "gun bans."

"Get rid of the guns and no one can shoot!"

Simple-minded people come up with simplistic "resolutions" to complex issues.

The current U.S. naval fleet has the same relative capacity as that of the U.S. Navy at the close of WWII, which was engaged in two fronts, but ... the U.S. cannot fight two wars at the same time today because our military is incapable of doing it. Someone is not being truthful.

... in other words Romney just promised what was already requested. Originally Posted by BigLouie

That's why he'll get my vote. If the military requests it, he'll give it.

[..including "backup" when caught up in a fire-fight trying to save an ambassador!]

You haven't figured them out yet have you ....

Premise: War is bad.
Strategy: Reduce the ability to conduct a War.
Result: No War, because we lack the capability to conduct a War.
Response: We must NEGOTIATE because we lack the capacity to engage in War.

It's the same "logical" philosophical discussion that supports "gun bans."

"Get rid of the guns and no one can shoot!"

Simple-minded people come up with simplistic "resolutions" to complex issues.

The current U.S. naval fleet has the same relative capacity as that of the U.S. Navy at the close of WWII, which was engaged in two fronts, but ... the U.S. cannot fight two wars at the same time today because our military is incapable of doing it. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Dimo's have the same simplistic ideas about war and peace they've always had. Essentially, if only America was dissarmed, there would be no more war.

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Just think. Those hot babes have on nylons and garters!

Just think. Those hot babes have on nylons and garters! Originally Posted by LexusLover

The second one from the right is Joanne Woodward. She was fairly hot when she was young. Paul Newman could have had his pick of all the starlets in Hollywood. It always sort of puzzled me that he didn't choose someone truly beautiful.

The central truth is in the latter part of the statement. The military is being asked to do more than it should be. The military should not be asked to be world's disaster relief agency, it's food distribution agency, it's police force. Nor should it be asked to proselytize democracy around the world.

A great deal of money is wasted on "smart" weapons when cheaper, "dumb" weapons would work as well simply to minimize "collateral" damage to local populations who support our enemies.

The military is designed to do two things, kill people and break things, anything else dilutes it capabilities and endangers our people needlessly.

Just think. Those hot babes have on nylons and garters! Originally Posted by LexusLover

The trouble is that the guys probably are to. . .

The central truth is in the latter part of the statement. The military is being asked to do more than it should be. The military should not be asked to be world's disaster relief agency, it's food distribution agency, it's police force. Nor should it be asked to proselytize democracy around the world.

A great deal of money is wasted on "smart" weapons when cheaper, "dumb" weapons would work as well simply to minimize "collateral" damage to local populations who support our enemies.

The military is designed to do two things, kill people and break things, anything else dilutes it capabilities and endangers our people needlessly. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

We should be more concerned with minimizing the death of our troups than with collateral damage to "innocent" civilians. The collateral damage to Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortened the war and saved American lives. That's a good thing.

You haven't figured them out yet have you ....

Premise: War is bad.
Strategy: Reduce the ability to conduct a War.
Result: No War, because we lack the capability to conduct a War.
Response: We must NEGOTIATE because we lack the capacity to engage in War.

It's the same "logical" philosophical discussion that supports "gun bans."

"Get rid of the guns and no one can shoot!"

Simple-minded people come up with simplistic "resolutions" to complex issues.

The current U.S. naval fleet has the same relative capacity as that of the U.S. Navy at the close of WWII, which was engaged in two fronts, but ... the U.S. cannot fight two wars at the same time today because our military is incapable of doing it. Someone is not being truthful. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Back when I was a republican it seemed like the only way a democratic president could stimulate the economy was a war.Now it seems like the rolls have reversed.If we aren't at war with someone lets start one.Only diff it doesn't stimulate the economy anymore.then borrow the money to pay for it.It is bullshit in my book...

Actually it is not the war that stimulates the economy, it is the build up and replacements. We could have the same affect by building a military and then trashing it every ten years to rebuild it again. Our military would always be top of the line and the defense industry would be humming. Goes along with the idea that we have a military so strong that no one wants to take us on.