In response to:

Barack and Mitt: The War for the U.S. Navy Has Just Begun

BIGSKYER Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 12:03 PM
Which would be cheaper, to wait and fight an attack on U.S. soil, or keep any major aggressor at arms length and fight him on his own turf? So far in history except for 9/11 and our own civil war and revolution, there have never been any conflict fought on the continental U. S. of A.
Joseph64 Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 4:10 PM
Any person who resides in this country who will not take up arms in it's defense in the event of an invasion does not deserve to live here at all and should be executed for treason by the ones who do take up arms in it's defense.
BIGSKYER Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 12:08 PM
Should have mentioned a thought about should this country be invaded and attacked by a major power, how many in this country with it's current mind set, take up arms against the invader, or follow the example of the Danes during WWII capitulate to the Nazi's? How many Quislings would have?
Monday night's final 2012 presidential election debate included a brief but fierce naval battle. The candidates exchanged close-combat broadsides over the size of the U.S. Navy, then fired provocative salvos in the direction of two complex subjects, the capabilities of modern weapons and the deleterious effects of funding cuts required by sequestration on the defense budget, especially planned ship-building programs.

Gov. Mitt Romney opened the engagement. "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 under 285. We're headed down to the low 200s if...

Tuesday, June 18 | 02:46 AM ET
Tuesday, June 18 | 02:46 AM ET
Tuesday, June 18 | 02:46 AM ET
Tuesday, June 18 | 02:46 AM ET