Ryan "I don't understand" bayonets comment [W:233]

poweRob said:

Last night Obama got a point in about Romney's claims that our navy is weaker because it's amount of ships have decreased since WWI

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916," Obama said. "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed.

"We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines," he said.
link...​

Today Paul Ryan responded:

"To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets, I just don't understand that comparison," Ryan said in an interview that aired Tuesday on CBS' This Morning.
link...​

Congressman Ryan, regarding your sharp eye on US military needs such as wanting $2 Trillion in increased spending that the military didn't ask for and implication on how bayonets are an irrlevant military tool... weeeellllll the Navy doesn't use battleships anymore either because they also were phased out. So you are right. You just don't understand.

Click to expand...

poweRob said:

Last night Obama got a point in about Romney's claims that our navy is weaker because it's amount of ships have decreased since WWI

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916," Obama said. "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed.

"We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines," he said.
link...​

Today Paul Ryan responded:

"To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets, I just don't understand that comparison," Ryan said in an interview that aired Tuesday on CBS' This Morning.
link...​

Congressman Ryan, regarding your sharp eye on US military needs such as wanting $2 Trillion in increased spending that the military didn't ask for and implication on how bayonets are an irrlevant military tool... weeeellllll the Navy doesn't use battleships anymore either because they also were phased out. So you are right. You just don't understand.

Click to expand...

poweRob said:

Last night Obama got a point in about Romney's claims that our navy is weaker because it's amount of ships have decreased since WWI

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916," Obama said. "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed.

"We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines," he said.
link...​

Today Paul Ryan responded:

"To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets, I just don't understand that comparison," Ryan said in an interview that aired Tuesday on CBS' This Morning.
link...​

Congressman Ryan, regarding your sharp eye on US military needs such as wanting $2 Trillion in increased spending that the military didn't ask for and implication on how bayonets are an irrlevant military tool... weeeellllll the Navy doesn't use battleships anymore either because they also were phased out. So you are right. You just don't understand.

Click to expand...

ROMNEY: Our Navy is old - excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now at under 285. We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That's unacceptable to me.

I want to make sure that we have the ships that are required by our Navy. Our Air Force is older and smaller than at any time since it was founded in 1947.

We've changed for the first time since FDR - since FDR we had the - we've always had the strategy of saying we could fight in two conflicts at once. Now we're changing to one conflict. Look, this, in my view, is the highest responsibility of the President of the United States, which is to maintain the safety of the American people.

Click to expand...

You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

Click to expand...

The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now at under 285. We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That's unacceptable to me.

Click to expand...

poweRob said:

Last night Obama got a point in about Romney's claims that our navy is weaker because it's amount of ships have decreased since WWI

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916," Obama said. "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed.

"We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines," he said.
link...​

Today Paul Ryan responded:

"To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets, I just don't understand that comparison," Ryan said in an interview that aired Tuesday on CBS' This Morning.
link...​

Congressman Ryan, regarding your sharp eye on US military needs such as wanting $2 Trillion in increased spending that the military didn't ask for and implication on how bayonets are an irrlevant military tool... weeeellllll the Navy doesn't use battleships anymore either because they also were phased out. So you are right. You just don't understand.

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

Well, I don't claim to know much about our military, but it certainly won't keep me from weighing in. Here's Romney's comment that elicited the bayonet comment from Obama:



And here's Obama's bayonet response:



Smart-assed-unresponsive hip-pocket-written-by-someone-else-not-spontaneous-baloney.

The only take-away that matters:

Click to expand...

Data from the U.S. Navy shows that in 2011, the Navy had 285 ships -- the fewest number of ships since 1916, when it had 245. In 1917, it had 342 ships. The number of ships reached a low point in 2007, at 278.


The Navy had said since 2005, as Romney stated, that it needed 313 ships to meet global defense needs. However, in April of this year, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said the Navy could meet its needs with a 300-ship fleet.


Mabus in April also responded to Romney's critique of the Navy's relatively small fleet -- like Mr. Obama, he said the comparison was pointless because of today's advanced technology. "It's like comparing the telegraph to the smartphone. They're just not comparable," he said, the Navy Times reported.


As for the assertion that the U.S. Air Force is older and smaller than at any time since 1947, Politifact finds the closest answer in a report published in 2010 by the Mitchell Institute, an organization founded by the Air Force Association. The report says the Air Force had 5,988 aircraft in 2009, lower than any year going back at least to 1950. However, security experts told Politifact that, as is the case with the Navy, the Air Force's advanced technologies more than make up for its smaller fleet.

Click to expand...

Wiggen said:

The fact that a guy running for Vice President doesn't know that the last American battleship was built during the Second World War and that there are no battleships left anywhere in the world is frightening.

Click to expand...

Wiggen said:

Maggie - we now spend more money on defense that the next ten nations combined. How much is enough? We simply don't need a 300+ ship Navy any more. As a former Navy man, I can tell you the Navy we have is capable of taking on every other navy in the world and defeating them. Isn't that enough?

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

I don't claim to know, Wiggen. I don't know that much about our defense resources. But I do know one thing: the importance of our Navy has little to do with taking on every other Navy in the world and defeating them. That's not how armageddon is going to go down.

Click to expand...

Tettsuo said:

Here's a fact we can all agree on, Liberal or Conservative. America doesn't need to be the world's police, free of charge. We already have a fleet so large, no other country even coming to close.

I truly doubt we need even more, and this is what Romney is suggesting we do. Spend money on defense we don't need (smells like wasteful spending doesn't it?). In fact, it could do with a lot of cutting, but neither man had the nuts to say that.

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

Well, I don't claim to know much about our military, but it certainly won't keep me from weighing in. Here's Romney's comment that elicited the bayonet comment from Obama:



And here's Obama's bayonet response:



Smart-assed-unresponsive hip-pocket-written-by-someone-else-not-spontaneous-baloney.

The only take-away that matters:

Click to expand...

Mithros said:

The battleship was the pinnacle of naval superiority leading into WWII. They were such a point of pride that the nations built super-battleships to be their flagships. The Germans built the Bismark, the English built the Hind. Then WWII happened and the naval commanders found that the aircraft carrier was the most powerful vessel.

In fact, the last time battleships were used in a major naval battle was on October 23-26, 1944 at the battle of Leyte Gulf. The rest of the time battleships have been support vessels or naval bombardment. Their principle offensive role today is carrying tomahawk cruise missiles.

In the aftermath of WWII and at the onset of the cold war, the US developed a policy of maintaining enough of a military to fight two large scale simultaneous conflicts. This allowed the US to engage fully in one theatre (eg Vietnam) without compromising the ability of the military to fend off a full scale attack from another power.

But with the advent of more powerful nuclear weapons, and more intelligent and precise guidance systems, the entire construct of war has evolved. In a real conflict, large numbers of assets concentrated in any one area serves only as a larger target without providing any increased offensive ability.

Large numbers are not an asset, in fact, large numbers act only as a liability. In the modern military paradigm, stealth and secrecy combined with operational flexibility are the biggest difference makers. One stealth bomber that can move into an enemy space undetected, deliver targeted munitions, and exit is worth far more than a fleet of B52's carpet bombing a city.

Click to expand...

Travis007 said:

yea the Navy Loves Obama... too bad Obama is a moron

PS: the Navy hates Obama..

Obama gets 'corpsman' wrong - YouTube

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

Yes, it is; and you'd think President Obama would know that. Perhaps he should step down.

Romney never mentioned the word "battleship." Jeez Maries.

Click to expand...

poweRob said:

Last night Obama got a point in about Romney's claims that our navy is weaker because it's amount of ships have decreased since WWI

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916," Obama said. "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed.

"We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines," he said.
link...​

Today Paul Ryan responded:

"To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets, I just don't understand that comparison," Ryan said in an interview that aired Tuesday on CBS' This Morning.
link...​

Congressman Ryan, regarding your sharp eye on US military needs such as wanting $2 Trillion in increased spending that the military didn't ask for and implication on how bayonets are an irrlevant military tool... weeeellllll the Navy doesn't use battleships anymore either because they also were phased out. So you are right. You just don't understand.

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

I don't claim to know, Wiggen. I don't know that much about our defense resources. But I do know one thing: the importance of our Navy has little to do with taking on every other Navy in the world and defeating them. That's not how armageddon is going to go down.

Click to expand...

AliHajiSheik said:

Ships don't go underwater, boats do.

Click to expand...

zgoldsmith23 said:

As do submarines!

Click to expand...