Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,838,455 times
Reputation: 6438
Advertisements
The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority" because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947."
We can survive with less military spending, we were able to do it 10 years ago with nearly half the budget.
I am a strong advocate of a superior military, one that can adequately handle any threat. What I do not like is waste -- which is what we have right now.
The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority" because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947."
As far as the carriers go, it is also worth noting:
A) We have more in service (11) than the rest of the world combined (10).
B) Of those 10 carriers deployed by other nations, the majority (6) are deployed by NATO allies.
C) Of those four foreign carriers deployed by non-NATO countries, the majority (3) are deployed by countries with which we have no strategic rivalry (India, Thailand and Brazil).
D) Of the 21 carriers currently in service in the world, only 11 of them are supercarriers -- all of which belong to the United States.
[quote=70Ford;25441952]The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority" because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947."
We have 11 aircraft carriers in service. Everybody else has 1 or 2 or 0. Guess how many of those countries are our allies.
Aircraft carriers were not in existence in 1917. We also have more nuclear submarines (which were not in existence. Of course we have more now, as they now exist. Liberals, of course, are always wrong. It is hilarious when they claim something is false (which is true), villify the person that made the true statement, then deny they ever debated the factual information. It must be tough to be a liberal. Next time, actually read the facts, then make a statement, otherwise you just appear silly. Here is the link to the actual data, which shows Romney is right. You, on the other hand, are wrong.
The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority" because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947."
I believe that only one other AC Carrier battle group exists in the world and it's a cooperative effort of the EU. The US as you said has 10 on patrol at all times circling the globe on various missions. To go along with our dominant, unmatched submarine force which alone could defeat any military in the world.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,838,455 times
Reputation: 6438
[quote=hawkeye2009;25443044]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Ford
The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority" because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947."
We have 11 aircraft carriers in service. Everybody else has 1 or 2 or 0. Guess how many of those countries are our allies.
Aircraft carriers were not in existence in 1917. We also have more nuclear submarines (which were not in existence. Of course we have more now, as they now exist. Liberals, of course, are always wrong. It is hilarious when they claim something is false (which is true), villify the person that made the true statement, then deny they ever debated the factual information. It must be tough to be a liberal. Next time, actually read the facts, then make a statement, otherwise you just appear silly. Here is the link to the actual data, which shows Romney is right. You, on the other hand, are wrong.
I guess Romney is right . The navy is the smallest it's ever been since 1917, since Obama was president in 2007 ..oh wait, that was Bush. Nevermind. Say what? YOur link shows it increasing under Obama after that low in 2007? No way.
Mitt Romney; because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917."
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Ford
The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority" because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947."
The US Navy is many multiples stronger than whoever is in 2nd place. Probably stronger than all other navies combined.
Romney, who very conveniently was able to skip out on military service while loudly singing the praises of the Vietnam war, is now some kind of military analyst?
I want the strongest military. I want the most navy ships. I will agree to pay to acheive this.
I will not pay for a bunch of do nothings on the government payroll instead of this.
Do NOT even go there with me as far as anyone dodging the draft in the 60's unless you were there. If you were in college, you were not part of the lottery. If you were married, you were not part of the lottery. If you had children, you were not part of the lottery.
Obviously little destryers etc ships have been replaced by carriers, missiles etc. Romney's comment is naive at best.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mitt Romney; because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917."
