"Horses and Bayonets"

[Steelplate]

Of course our out of touch empty suit knows nothing about actual warfare. He thought his smug and condescending statement wouldn't be Fact Checked...LOL

Actually, Mr. President, Marines still use bayonets
As NBC’s Chuck Todd reports, while it’s true that the U.S. military doesn’t count on bayonets as much as it did a century ago, the weapon is still “actively used” by the U.S. Marines, according to their web site, noting that the rifle attachment as a “weapon of choice when shots can’t be fired.”

Actually, Mr. President, Marines still use bayonets - Video on TODAY.com

another moron who probably didn't watch the debate and thinks he said that Bayonets aren't used.

 

[mudwhistle]

FYI, SF has always been spread thin.

It's hard to find qualified soldiers to fill the teams.

Their solution was to relax the standards.

 

[clevergirl]

Of course our out of touch empty suit knows nothing about actual warfare. He thought his smug and condescending statement wouldn't be Fact Checked...LOL

Actually, Mr. President, Marines still use bayonets
As NBC’s Chuck Todd reports, while it’s true that the U.S. military doesn’t count on bayonets as much as it did a century ago, the weapon is still “actively used” by the U.S. Marines, according to their web site, noting that the rifle attachment as a “weapon of choice when shots can’t be fired.”

Actually, Mr. President, Marines still use bayonets - Video on TODAY.com

^

another fuckwit that thinks fewer means none.

does your head rotate to follow the sun?

The FACT is that we don't have fewer... we have just as many as we have marines you stupid moron.

But you keep trying to spin this as if Obama knows anything worth knowing regarding actual military facts. I am sure you spun his Navy "Corpseman" statement too.

 

[del]

Of course our out of touch empty suit knows nothing about actual warfare. He thought his smug and condescending statement wouldn't be Fact Checked...LOL



Actually, Mr. President, Marines still use bayonets - Video on TODAY.com

^

another fuckwit that thinks fewer means none.

does your head rotate to follow the sun?

The FACT is that we don't have fewer... we have just as many as we have soldiers you stupid moron.

But you keep trying to spin this as if Obama knows anything worth knowing regarding actual military facts. I am sure you spun his Navy "Corpseman" statement too.

no, i haven't.

you're pretty stupid.

keep up the good work

 

[mudwhistle]

Your comment is just as dumb as Mitts

Our military is in worse shape than pre-WWII?

Are you aware that our military forces are more powerful than the next seven countries combined?

Mitt didn't say that. BTW, the "shape" of the military covers several things. One of them being that we don't have the manpower in uniform nor the equipment we had on D-Day.

You said that...defend your assertion that our military is in worse shape than pre-WWII. Give us some numbers....then we can mock you

D-Day? Doubling down in Mitts WWI comparison?

You want to compare the lethality of todays force when compared to a 1944 capability with ten times the numbers? Want to guess who wins?

Again for the English impaired, it isn't a question of lethality alone but sustainablility. A smaller military may pack a wallop but they can't maintain that once the sustain heavy casualties or once limited stockpiles are expended. Obama went through most of our inventory on Libya alone.

 

[rightwinger]

Only if the entire Navy sat together waiting for it within 500 miles of the carrier.

With each comment you sound more and more retarded.

<Whispers to mudwhistle: You are aware that carriers can move?>

So can everyone else.

Your point?

<Whispers to mudwhistle: Can a 1916 ship move faster than a fully armed jet aircraft?>

 

[mudwhistle]

Let's not forget that liberals are going about systematically disarming us by placing every effective weapon we have off-limits. WP, Napalm, the list goes on.....

 

[clevergirl]

^

another fuckwit that thinks fewer means none.

does your head rotate to follow the sun?

The FACT is that we don't have fewer... we have just as many as we have soldiers you stupid moron.

But you keep trying to spin this as if Obama knows anything worth knowing regarding actual military facts. I am sure you spun his Navy "Corpseman" statement too.

no, i haven't.

you're pretty stupid.

keep up the good work

WOW you suck at comebacks as much as Obummer does. You sided with the president that we use fewer bayonets...we don't they ARE STILL STANDARD ISSUE fukwit

Obama called a Navy Corpsman a Corpseman.. Yeah, he's brilliant~

 

[rightwinger]

Mitt didn't say that. BTW, the "shape" of the military covers several things. One of them being that we don't have the manpower in uniform nor the equipment we had on D-Day.

You said that...defend your assertion that our military is in worse shape than pre-WWII. Give us some numbers....then we can mock you

D-Day? Doubling down in Mitts WWI comparison?

You want to compare the lethality of todays force when compared to a 1944 capability with ten times the numbers? Want to guess who wins?

Again for the English impaired, it isn't a question of lethality alone but sustainablility. A smaller military may pack a wallop but they can't maintain that once the sustain heavy casualties or once limited stockpiles are expended. Obama went through most of our inventory on Libya alone.

Are you aware of what it took to sustain a million man Army in WWII? Are you aware of how many bombs were needed to take out a target compared to the one bomb today? A smaller force is more sustainable than the million man Armies of WWII...much more mobile also

 

[emptystep]

OK, thanks. Relaxing standards became the standard. Causes so much damage. That is way many people stand by the all volunteer army.

I am sorry the missions suck. I do hope things get better.

A side note. I met Colonel Aaron Bank while with my unit. The fact that guy was still alive shows what one man can do. He did seem to have an aurora around him.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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 doubt that was a coaching move. Romney was actually onto something, rhetorically speaking. Obama just made an excellent out-manuveur.

 

[mudwhistle]

<Whispers to mudwhistle: You are aware that carriers can move?>

So can everyone else.

Your point?

<Whispers to mudwhistle: Can a 1916 ship move faster than a fully armed jet aircraft?>

How much faster can ships be? The point is getting in range to launch.

Carriers cruise at 22 knots. That's not much faster than the Titanic.

 

[rightwinger]

So can everyone else.

Your point?

<Whispers to mudwhistle: Can a 1916 ship move faster than a fully armed jet aircraft?>

How much faster can ships be? The point is getting in range to launch.

Carriers cruise at 22 knots. That's not much faster than the Titanic.

Yes...but there is a factor of we know where you are and you have no idea where we are until we are in visual range. A carrier would hunt down and kill every ship in a 1916 Navy. Wouldn't even take a carrier....a modern Destroyer could do it

 

[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.

I doubt that was a coaching move. Romney was actually onto something, rhetorically speaking. Obama just made an excellent out-manuveur.

No...it was a snarky ilinformed attempt to belittle Romney. It overlooked the context and made Obama look like a smart-ass.

 

[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.

I doubt that was a coaching move. Romney was actually onto something, rhetorically speaking. Obama just made an excellent out-manuveur.

No...it was a snarky ilinformed attempt to belittle Romney. It overlooked the context and made Obama look like a smart-ass.

Nahhhh...it was Romney trying to get one in on Obama....but instead he opened a door and Obama slammed it in his face.

 

[mudwhistle]

<Whispers to mudwhistle: Can a 1916 ship move faster than a fully armed jet aircraft?>

How much faster can ships be? The point is getting in range to launch.

Carriers cruise at 22 knots. That's not much faster than the Titanic.

Yes...but there is a factor of we know where you are and you have no idea where we are until we are in visual range. A carrier would hunt down and kill every ship in a 1916 Navy. Wouldn't even take a carrier....a modern Destroyer could do it

At a million dollars a pop. And a Destroyer can't wipe out an entire fleet. Especially when the President cut their funding in half.

 

[clevergirl]

I doubt that was a coaching move. Romney was actually onto something, rhetorically speaking. Obama just made an excellent out-manuveur.

No...it was a snarky ilinformed attempt to belittle Romney. It overlooked the context and made Obama look like a smart-ass.

Nahhhh...it was Romney trying to get one in on Obama....but instead he opened a door and Obama slammed it in his face.

Making Obama look like a condescending asshole...no matter that it's a natural look on him

BTW-We don't use fewer bayonets and our Navy corpsmen are not corpses...

 

[mudwhistle]

I doubt that was a coaching move. Romney was actually onto something, rhetorically speaking. Obama just made an excellent out-manuveur.

No...it was a snarky ilinformed attempt to belittle Romney. It overlooked the context and made Obama look like a smart-ass.

Nahhhh...it was Romney trying to get one in on Obama....but instead he opened a door and Obama slammed it in his face.

More like slammed it on his own dick.

Those in the know spotted it for what it was.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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 doubt that was a coaching move. Romney was actually onto something, rhetorically speaking. Obama just made an excellent out-manuveur.

No...it was a snarky ilinformed attempt to belittle Romney. It overlooked the context and made Obama look like a smart-ass.

Actually, it was Romney who overlooked the context. Yes, we may have fewer ships now, but that tidbit by itself does not present an accurate context of our military strength in comparison to that of 1916. The fact of the matter is that the fighting strength of our military today is at it's highest point in history.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

"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."

While the types of ships of today are different from those prior to World War I, there are certain laws of physics that have not changed. And one of those is that, no matter how much cyber capability or space capability may exist, a ship can still be only in one place at any one time. Thus, whether it is battleships or aircraft carriers, whether it is nuclear-powered submaries or biplanes, each system can only be in one place at any given time. And a shortfall of naval vessels, such as now exists, means that there will be times and places where there will be fewer ships than U.S. Navy analysts and officers deem appropriate and necessary.

The idea that better cyber capabilities can substitute for physical capabilities constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of how military forces operate. Of course, it hasn't been helped by the dismissive attitude assumed by President Obama's first Secretary of Defense about how the U.S. had excessive numbers of aircraft carriers, as though the proper state of American security is to have parity with potential foes, rather than clear superiority.

Dean Cheng, Research Fellow, Asian Studies Center

The fact that the left does NOT UNDERSTAND military capability and strategy is not a unique revelation. Let's remember that the left absolutely HATES the military, detests those who serve and demean the concept of serving a higher purpose. The posts on this thread are incredible examples of the lack of knowledge that one day WILL cost this nation dearly IF these cuts proposed by Obama are implemented.