Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumObama To Romney: We Have Fewer Horses And Bayonets In Our Military Too
&feature=player_embeddedBarbara2423
(460 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)mzteris
(16,232 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....sheeze! It almost looks like he's listening to a tune in his head.
Donny and Marie?
pam4water
(2,916 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)She's not as much of a political junkie as I am, either.
Classic.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)jerseyjack
(1,361 posts)Alcibiades
(5,061 posts)The US navy in 1916 was a particularly obsolete one compared to the other "world powers," a navy that only became less obsolete because of Woodrow Wilson's massive shipbuilding program. It was largely irrelevant in WWI.
More to the point, one US destroyer today, say an Arleigh Burke class ship, could take out every capital ship in the 1916 inventory from over the horizon. This capability is a big reason why we don't need as many ships today as back then.
That being said, I do disagree with the substance of Obama's remarks, which is that the US Navy is powerful and that's a great thing. It's too powerful: you could cut it in half and it would still be the most capable navy in the world. Plus, when you factor in the fact that most of the other large navies belong to our allies, it seems downright silly. We are in a naval arms race with ourselves.
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)what a burn. I think Mitt pooped his undies a little.
mopinko
(70,178 posts)i'm fucked, aren't i?