"Horses and Bayonets"

[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.....

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

what his intentions were was not what I criticized.

I criticized the morons post where he claimed that Romney was comparing todays navy with the navy of 1916.

 

[del]

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.

Reading Is Fundamental

 

[emptystep]

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.

I had a brain, not enough of a brain for the Air Force however, U.S. Army all the way.

Where and when did you see a bayonet? Don't want to sound like wimp but those things are heavy. You dragged those things around with you?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Do we have fewer bayonets than in 1917 or not?

Just so you know, our military still has horses too.....but a lot fewer than 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.

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.

Sure...I agree...it was a debate talking point. Obama had many of them...like talking about his trip to Israel when he was campaigning...saying that means he is 100% pro Israel...it means nothing....it means he knew going to israel while campaigining will get him votes....

But as I already said...why Romney said it was not my point. The fact that the moron I quoted thought Romney was comparing the two navys was my criticism.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

what his intentions were was not what I criticized.

I criticized the morons post where he claimed that Romney was comparing todays navy with the navy of 1916.

Why else would you compare the size of the Navy in 1916 to today?

What was his point?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

I had a brain, not enough of a brain for the Air Force however, U.S. Army all the way.

Where and when did you see a bayonet? Don't want to sound like wimp but those things are heavy. You dragged those things around with you?

lol...never.

But they were part of regular inspection.

 

[Steelplate]

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.

Yeah...I had bayonet training in the 80's when I was in too....never saw one again either....I wasn't a grunt though....I was in electronics. I am sure they get used on occasion in combat, and they are a handy tool to have....but I doubt you hear calls of "fix bayonets" very often these days.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

You're fixated on it not Mitt Romney.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

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.

You're fixated on it not Mitt Romney.

yyyyeah. That's true.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXLRFAZqMbI]Baby Emma laughing hysterically and shaking her head NO - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You're fixated on it not Mitt Romney.

Mitt has brought up the same idiotic point before

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I think it also showed his ignorance of naval history.

What the great powers figured out after World War I was that battleships were in fact a waste of resources. Germany and the UK engaged in a very expensive arms race for dreadnaughts that ended rather anti-climatically when after the Battle of Jutland, they proved largely unimportant to the eventual outcome of the war.

The first order of business after World War I was signing the Washington Naval Treaty, where the powers on the winning side all agreed to limit the number of battleships they built so they wouldn't bankrupt themselves.

The fact is, Naval power is kind of unimportant We have 12 aircraft carriers, more than the rest of the world combined, and most of the rest of the world's nations that operate them are either allies or have a common interest with us.

The one thing we have learned, or should have learned in the last decade, is that even minor wars are economic back-breakers. No one could afford a major war in our interconnected, global economy.

Investing in schools instead of warships would do more to improve our international position.

Agreed....Never before in US History was there a tax cut during a war, until George W "What's His Name." I remember when he managed to pass his tax cuts, I could not believe we were doing that...

Well, I'd argue that Reagan's escalation of the Cold War while cutting the taxes needed to pay for that would predate Bush.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

I think a single aircraft carrier today could take out a fleet of ships in 1916.

 

[tyroneweaver]

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.

coulda been a great comeback line.
at least in 1916 we passed a budget.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Yeah...I had bayonet training in the 80's when I was in too....never saw one again either....I wasn't a grunt though....I was in electronics. I am sure they get used on occasion in combat, and they are a handy tool to have....but I doubt you hear calls of "fix bayonets" very often these days.

They use them for everything now. It's not just a sharp piece of metal these days. They have knife edges and saw teeth for cutting branches during E&E survival.

Unless you were combat-arms you probably wouldn't know this.

 

[emptystep]

Never saw it again?

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

I had a brain, not enough of a brain for the Air Force however, U.S. Army all the way.

Where and when did you see a bayonet? Don't want to sound like wimp but those things are heavy. You dragged those things around with you?

lol...never.

But they were part of regular inspection.

Green tighties are also part of inspections but that doesn't mean I used them.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

coulda been a great comeback line.
at least in 1916 we passed a budget.

We also had a surplus in 1916.

 

[Steelplate]

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.

Yeah...I had bayonet training in the 80's when I was in too....never saw one again either....I wasn't a grunt though....I was in electronics. I am sure they get used on occasion in combat, and they are a handy tool to have....but I doubt you hear calls of "fix bayonets" very often these days.

They use them for everything now. It's not just a sharp piece of metal these days. They have knife edges and saw teeth of cutting branches during E&E survival.

Unless you were combat-arms you probably wouldn't know this.

Yeah...I've seen pictures of the newer ones....good tool, even mentioned that in the post you quoted. Not debating that though, are we?

 

[emptystep]

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.

Yeah...I had bayonet training in the 80's when I was in too....never saw one again either....I wasn't a grunt though....I was in electronics. I am sure they get used on occasion in combat, and they are a handy tool to have....but I doubt you hear calls of "fix bayonets" very often these days.

They use them for everything now. It's not just a sharp piece of metal these days. They have knife edges and saw teeth for cutting branches during E&E survival.

Unless you were combat-arms you probably wouldn't know this.

Like I said I was not a SF Bravo. I have no doubt they are used in training but I doubt the SF guys carried a standard issue bayonet then they went wherever they go when the go on 'vacation'.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I think a single aircraft carrier today could take out a fleet of ships in 1916.

One carrier could destroy the entire 1916 Navy