"Horses and Bayonets"

[longknife]

And what was NOT discussed by either is how many of the ships have served beyond their designed time frame and are all but falling apart.

All one has to do is check the various milblogs to see posts by naval personnel of the problems they are having keeping many ships afloat. Leaks, breaking parts, lack of spares, and so on. If it weren't for some of the amazing sailors we have, we would find far less vessels in service.

Also, I found the president's snide remarks immature.

In addition, check out this for more: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...nt+(Big+Government)&utm_content=Google+Reader

 

[mudwhistle]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Obama doesn't understand the importance of a Navy. Most of our power overseas is projected thru sea-power. If he thinks we can transport a massive Army with air assets he doesn't have a clue.

Every large deployment begins with moving the equipment by rail to the sea ports and then over sea to whatever destination they need to go. Small deployments depend on air cargo, but Desert Storm wouldn't have happened without the ship that moved everything.

Obama failed on this issue badly.

10 MORE WARSHIPS ON THE DOCKET IN THE CURRENT BUDGET....link on previous page. But hey, spin away....

Obama doesn't have a budget. That budget was passed during the Bush administration. Obama has not passed a budget yet. We're still working off of the previous administrations budget and will be for at least another year.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Paul Ryan jumping in to the fray, sounding just as stupid.


"I don't understand how you compare Ships to Bayonettes." (newsflash, Romney Junior. He wasn't)

"The ocean hasn't shrunk" Again having no clue about the difference in capability of a 1917 warship, and a modern aircraft carrier or submarine.

Do you know how long it still takes to go from stateside to the ME?

An Aircraft Carrier still has to steam to the Persian Gulf from where ever they're stationed. Ships still need resupply. Aircraft Carriers do not operate alone. The operate as part of a Battle group, not independently.

Average speed of Aircraft Carriers area about 35 Knots.
Average speed of a 1917 battleship about a little over 30 Knots.

Exactly what is your point? The Navy today is not made up of only Aircraft carriers. Nor is the speed of the "flagships" of the Navy all that different. But the supporting craft is faster, longer range, and more heavily armed. They have much larger effective use footprints now, than they did in 1917. That was, of course, the point in the first place.

 

[Lovebears65]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Hate to tell you but the Marines and Army still use bayonets

 

[Steelplate]

Obama doesn't understand the importance of a Navy. Most of our power overseas is projected thru sea-power. If he thinks we can transport a massive Army with air assets he doesn't have a clue.

Every large deployment begins with moving the equipment by rail to the sea ports and then over sea to whatever destination they need to go. Small deployments depend on air cargo, but Desert Storm wouldn't have happened without the ship that moved everything.

Obama failed on this issue badly.

10 MORE WARSHIPS ON THE DOCKET IN THE CURRENT BUDGET....link on previous page. But hey, spin away....

Obama doesn't have a budget. That budget was passed during the Bush administration. Obama has not passed a budget yet. We're still working off of the previous administrations budget and will be for at least another year.

Did you read the link?

 

[RDD_1210]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Hate to tell you but the Marines and Army still use bayonets

And?

 

[Cheddarmelon]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Hate to tell you but the Marines and Army still use bayonets

What is it with the constant inability of right wingers from understanding simple statements?

Act of Terror, not Optimal, No Bayonettes, etcetera. it's mindboggling at how far off from the actual statements they go! Is it deliberate, or deficiency?

 

[mudwhistle]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Obama doesn't understand the importance of a Navy. Most of our power overseas is projected thru sea-power. If he thinks we can transport a massive Army with air assets he doesn't have a clue.

Every large deployment begins with moving the equipment by rail to the sea ports and then over sea to whatever destination they need to go. Small deployments depend on air cargo, but Desert Storm wouldn't have happened without the ships that moved everything.

Obama failed on this issue badly.

He understands that anyone comparing our Navy in 1916 to today is a moron

Anyone who pays attention to 1917 alone is short-sighted.

What wars happened after 1917?

Why did Japan attack us?

If you can answer that then you'll understand why he mentioned it.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Obama doesn't understand the importance of a Navy. Most of our power overseas is projected thru sea-power. If he thinks we can transport a massive Army with air assets he doesn't have a clue.

Every large deployment begins with moving the equipment by rail to the sea ports and then over sea to whatever destination they need to go. Small deployments depend on air cargo, but Desert Storm wouldn't have happened without the ships that moved everything.

Obama failed on this issue badly.

He understands that anyone comparing our Navy in 1916 to today is a moron

Anyone who pays attention to 1917 alone is short-sighted.

What wars happened after 1917?

Why did Japan attack us?

If you can answer that then you'll understand why he mentioned it.

Then Perhaps Mittens shouldn't have fixated on the state of the navy in 1917.

 

[Jarhead]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Hate to tell you but the Marines and Army still use bayonets

yep...they do.

And Aircraft carriers have CSG's....usually consist of 2 GM cruisers, 2 AA warships and 2 destroyers.

Seems our CiC needs a lesson in what he commands.

 

[emptystep]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

We used horses in Afghanistan, numbnuts.

And we still have bayonets, idiot.

You're as ignorant regarding the military as Obama is.

Native horses become a mode of transportation. Pack animals, especially donkeys, also become familiar partners.
...
“That’s why the only horses we get, that the government buys, are what we call dead broke,” Rossignol says. “We can’t afford to have anyone get hurt.”
...
Yet despite the benefits of maintaining a select group of horses for military training, the horses associated with Fort Bragg have faced some budget cuts. Land originally used for pasture was deemed too valuable for grazing, and horses were moved from the actual military base to their current home at Smith Lake Stables, a few miles away.

“Yes, that land on Fort Bragg proper was deemed prime real estate. It’s now home for the 3rd Brigade of the 18th Airborne,” Rossignol admits.

Nonetheless, the horses doing duty for Fort Bragg continue in their roles, serving their country in a vital way, much like their cavalry predecessors. They may be the unsung heroes of today’s U.S. Army.


http://www.horsechannel.com/horse-exclusives/fort-bragg-military-horses.aspx

 

[Jarhead]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Actually, only a fucking moron would think he was comparing Navy's of now to 1916.

He used 1916 as a point of reference as "lowest amount of ships since 1916"

That was not comparing...it was an actual point of reference.....

 

[Steelplate]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Hate to tell you but the Marines and Army still use bayonets

your point? You and ladycumslinger ought to get a room.

Guess what? There are still horses in service too.....But the Calvary now is about tanks and armored transport vehicles and neat stuff like that.

Bayonets are used....but the actual usage of them is nothing like it used to be when close combat was the norm, not the exception.

I know....you feel the need for another "you didn't build that" moment...but you guys look stupid as hell trying to find one....reaching beyond your grasp is a sure way to fall off of a mountain when climbing.

 

[mudwhistle]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Hate to tell you but the Marines and Army still use bayonets

What is it with the constant inability of right wingers from understanding simple statements?

Act of Terror, not Optimal, No Bayonettes, etcetera. it's mindboggling at how far off from the actual statements they go! Is it deliberate, or deficiency?

Obama is playing games. He studied up on military terminology but he doesn't understand it. His comment on sea power sums it up.

Until we find a way to transport Armies across the globe instantly sea power is very important. Obama thinks two dimensional and does not understand everything that goes into military power. But what can you expect from a Harvard Lawyer/Community-Organizer........

 

[Steelplate]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Actually, only a fucking moron would think he was comparing Navy's of now to 1916.

He used 1916 as a point of reference as "lowest amount of ships since 1916"

That was not comparing...it was an actual point of reference.....

spin...nice try. It was a fear mongering tactic....trying to lead the American people to believe that our Navy is weak.

 

[del]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

We used horses in Afghanistan, numbnuts.

And we still have bayonets, idiot.

You're as ignorant regarding the military as Obama is.

You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

Read more: Transcript: Presidential debate, Oct. 22, 2012 (text, video) - Politico Staff - POLITICO.com

jesus, warbler, i knew you were stupid, but i thought you knew what fewer meant. let me help you out...

few (fy)
adj. few·er, few·est
1. Amounting to or consisting of a small number: one of my few bad habits.
2. Being more than one but indefinitely small in number: bowled a few strings.
n. (used with a pl. verb)
1. An indefinitely small number of persons or things: A few of the books have torn jackets.
2. An exclusive or limited number: the discerning few; the fortunate few.
pron. (used with a pl. verb)
A small number of persons or things: "For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14)

here's an example of fewer used in a few sentences-

warbler has fewer brains than a goat.

warbler gets fewer chances to blow young men since he got out of the navy.

warbler has fewer balls than richard simmons.

hope this helps, asswipe!

 

[emptystep]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Hate to tell you but the Marines and Army still use bayonets

your point? You and ladycumslinger ought to get a room.

Guess what? There are still horses in service too.....But the Calvary now is about tanks and armored transport vehicles and neat stuff like that.

Bayonets are used....but the actual usage of them is nothing like it used to be when close combat was the norm, not the exception.

I know....you feel the need for another "you didn't build that" moment...but you guys look stupid as hell trying to find one....reaching beyond your grasp is a sure way to fall off of a mountain when climbing.

Like I said in another post I learned how to fix and swing a bayonet in basic training and never saw one again. I was an armorer in Germany and supply person, quartermaster , for a SF unit in the States.

 

[Jarhead]

Hate to tell you but the Marines and Army still use bayonets

your point? You and ladycumslinger ought to get a room.

Guess what? There are still horses in service too.....But the Calvary now is about tanks and armored transport vehicles and neat stuff like that.

Bayonets are used....but the actual usage of them is nothing like it used to be when close combat was the norm, not the exception.

I know....you feel the need for another "you didn't build that" moment...but you guys look stupid as hell trying to find one....reaching beyond your grasp is a sure way to fall off of a mountain when climbing.

Like I said in another post I learned how to fix and swing a bayonet in basic training and never saw one again. I was an armorer in Germany and supply person, quartermaster , for a SF unit in the States.

Never saw it again?

Not true...or you were not a Marine.

 

[RDD_1210]

I cannot believe Willard decided to compare the number of ships in the 1916 Navy to our forces now. The debate coach that came up with that assertion is an idiot.

It did illustrate just how backwards Willard's thinking is, though. He made a good point for Obama.

Actually, only a fucking moron would think he was comparing Navy's of now to 1916.

He used 1916 as a point of reference as "lowest amount of ships since 1916"

That was not comparing...it was an actual point of reference.....

And even that statement was incorrect so what was Romneys point exactly?

He was trying to paint a picture that Obama has reduced the size of the military by pointing out that we have fewer ships than in 1916. It's a simplistic concept that is both incorrect and dishonest. Only a fucking moron wouldn't see that.

 

[rightwinger]

Obama doesn't understand the importance of a Navy. Most of our power overseas is projected thru sea-power. If he thinks we can transport a massive Army with air assets he doesn't have a clue.

Every large deployment begins with moving the equipment by rail to the sea ports and then over sea to whatever destination they need to go. Small deployments depend on air cargo, but Desert Storm wouldn't have happened without the ships that moved everything.

Obama failed on this issue badly.

He understands that anyone comparing our Navy in 1916 to today is a moron

Anyone who pays attention to 1917 alone is short-sighted.

What wars happened after 1917?

Why did Japan attack us?

If you can answer that then you'll understand why he mentioned it.

He mentioned it because he has no concept of Naval operations. If he did, he would realize that ship quantities needed in 1917 have no bearing to today's needs

We actually have ships you can land airplanes on Mitt