Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV
That may well be your argument. But that's not what you said. Here's what you said:
I have challenged you repeatedly to support this statement of yours, and you can't or won't. You have a different argument, what you were trying to say was, a ship can't be in two places, look at the video of the debate, etc etc etc. Whatever.
I ask you directly, do you reaffirm or reject this statement of yours?
|
I support it, of course. I try and re-write it so you can grasp it, but maybe one more time, and this IS the last time:
Cutting the number of ships in our Navy, reduces our ability to get the ships we need to move to a hotspot - to that hotspot, in a short amount of time.
Of course, we want to save $$$ by not over-spending on our Navy, but we have been cutting down the number of ships, quite a bit. We need to stop cutting down the number of ships in our Navy.
Think about this: The US Navy escorts almost all of the worlds oil tankers, as they leave the Gulf of Persia, loaded with oil. Not the French, not the UK, not anybody else. The Iranians have threatened on several occasions to attack those tankers (that's why they've all been reregistered as US ships, so they have US Naval protection).
Oh, and btw., the South Korean dissidents HAVE released a bunch of helium balloons with leaflets attached, into North Korea. These ARE the leaflets that the North Koreans said they would begin merciless artillery fire on the South, if they were sent. No one is sure what may happen as a result, but I'm sure the Navy will want to keep a couple Carrier groups nearby, just in case.
In light of this, do you REALLY believe this is the best time to continue cutting Navy ships?