Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV
Quote:
Cite.
You said Obama used as a defense in the foreign policy debate that a ship in the Pacific can help with a problem in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean.
I'd like you to provide a citation for this statement, please. Absent a citation I will consider it another one of your fearmongering smears.
|
Not quite. The idea is that a ship in the Gulf of Persia, can't help with a Naval issue in the Mediterranean Sea, and one in the Mediterranean Sea, can't help with a problem in the Sea of Japan, etc. Yet Obama believes it's OK to have fewer ships.
You can't rescue an oil tanker under attack, but firing long range ship to ship missiles at small boats nearby the tanker, from the Gulf of Persia. See what I mean?
Think about real life issues where the Navy has had to intervene in the last 10 years. How many times could a simple firing of a longer range missile from an advanced Cruiser, have been the solution to the problem? Almost never.
In the foreign policy debate, Romney argued that the decline in the number of ships in the US Navy, resulted in a weakening of our Naval military strength.
Obama then stated in a condescending tone, that we had these ships called Aircraft Carriers, and planes land on them, and the ships today were much more capable than ships in the past, so we have more strength, with fewer ships.
There was more; that's just an off the cuff highlight of that exchange in the debate. You can hear the debate in zillions of places on the net.
What's wrong with Youtube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tecohezcA78