Mr. President, Marines Still Use Bayonets

[Shelzin]

I think my point is that, ultimately, it comes down to the grunt on the battlefield, not the technology.

Want to argue with that one?

Yes. Morbidly stupid. You're insane for thinking that.

Screw battleships... Nukes.. Whatever. Just the accuracy and reliability of today guns from 100 years ago is crazy better. You aren't talking about anything that you know anything about.

Feel free to have an opinion. But they aren't created equal.

We don't need soldiers on the ground anymore?

Did I say that?

Why did we send people into Afghanistan and Iraq if technology has replaced the infantry grunt?

See... This is why you are an idiot. Nobody said they weren't needed. It was said that technology... *ponders* Pfft.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Good day to you.

 

[Shelzin]

Yes. Morbidly stupid. You're insane for thinking that.

Screw battleships... Nukes.. Whatever. Just the accuracy and reliability of today guns from 100 years ago is crazy better. You aren't talking about anything that you know anything about.

Feel free to have an opinion. But they aren't created equal.

We don't need soldiers on the ground anymore? Why did we send people into Afghanistan and Iraq if technology has replaced the infantry grunt?

OK....body armor, NV goggles, Kevlar Helmets, camels instead of canteens, weaponry advances, hand held GPS, armored transports instead of making them hike for 25 miles/day to get them to the battlefield without fatigue....that's just off the top of my head....technological advances.....Just for the grunt you mentioned. Never mind that before the grunt goes in, we take the skies away from our enemy, tenderize the **** out of them with artillery, cruise missiles and smart bombs. Oh....let's not forget the advance scouts that hide in the shadows that tell the drone operators where to deliver their ordinance.

I never seen someone defend an indefensible position like you are. Where did anyone say we didn't need infantry? Where did anyone say that manpower isn't necessary? No one did. Only you.

I think it pretty telling that right wingers are deflecting about ******* BAYONETS.....when in the last bayonet charge was in 1951. Are they useful? hell yes....are they great to have? yep. Are they used much in combat? No. Even the guy in Afghanistan that people have mentioned took his opponent out with a rifle, not a bayonet.

Look....I know you don't like Obama....I get that.....and I know you don't like it that he made your boy look bad. But you trying to come up with your "you didn't build that" moment to get all outraged about only makes you look stupid and stubborn and, quite frankly....a little nuts.

gotta go to work....to be continued, I'm sure.

There you go. If I would have read the thread I just would have quoted this.

 

[daveman]

Great...let's subsidize Germany and Japan's military budget with our tax dollars....wonderful point.

Are you willing to make the case that we don't need a presence in Japan and Germany?

That's not what I said....Are you willing to make the case that we need to fund their military?

That's not what I said. Our presence in those countries is primarily to protect our interests.

 

[daveman]

And where is the Navy going to come up with the money for toys they don't need?

We operate more Aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, and most of those countries are out allies.

It's kind of silly for us to spend 6% of GDP on defense when Japan and Germany are spending less than 1% and investing the monies saved into infrastructure and education that make them more competitive.

One F-22 Raptor costs more than the entire PBS Subsidy. And yet we have never deployed the Raptor to a combat zone.

Boys and their toys.

Whiny little bitches don't get to decide what assets we need to defend this nation and her interests.

And just so's you know, moron, Japan and Germany don't have to spend much on defense due to our presence in their nations.

So why is it in our interests to spend money we can't afford to spend to defend Japan and Germany?

Why isnt it their interests to spend money to defend us, or, at least, defend themselves?

Why is it in our interests to spend money we can't afford to repay Democratic Party donors (Solyndra, the UAW)? Why is it in our interests to spend money we can't afford to support Democratic Party special interest groups?

Let me guess -- that's different. Somehow. It just is.

Right?

 

[del]

Obama is not a Military Strategist. Far from it.

and mitt is?



c'mon

 

[del]

fewer...how hard is that concept?

incredibly ******* difficult, apparently

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you willing to make the case that we don't need a presence in Japan and Germany?

That's not what I said....Are you willing to make the case that we need to fund their military?

That's not what I said. Our presence in those countries is primarily to protect our interests.

And what are our vital national interests in those countries, specifically?

2nd question, so you can dodge in one stroke,

What other nations around the world need to have major military presences in foreign countries to protect their interests?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think before Mitt Romney makes any more attempts to regale us with his self-styled expertise on sea power and naval deployments,

he ought to learn where the Persian Gulf is.

I think that if anything goes down the Persian Gulf will be cut off. It will be a death trap. I think you know that too. Grow up.

Romney didn't know that Iran had a southern coastline on the Persian Gulf. shut up.

 

[Borillar]

Soldier who led Afghanistan bayonet charge into hail of bullets honoured
The Telegraph ^ | Sept. 28, 2012 | By Telegraph Reporters

Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 225 AM by Brad from Tennessee

Corporal Sean Jones, 25, of 1st Battalion The Princess of Wales's Regiment, "reversed a potentially dire situation" when his patrol came under attack in a carefully planned ambush in October last year.

Firing a rocket at one of the insurgent positions, Cpl Jones ordered three of his men to fix bayonets before breaking cover and leading them across 80 metres of open ground raked by enemy fire. .


Soldier who led Afghanistan bayonet charge into hail of bullets honoured - Telegraph

You do realize that Cpl Jones is a Brit and not an American soldier? Their kit and ours are not the same.

Repugs seem to be having a hard time understanding that military weapons and tactics have evolved since WW1. Bayonets and horses may still have some utility today in certain situations, but they aren't the primary tools of war anymore.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes. Morbidly stupid. You're insane for thinking that.

Screw battleships... Nukes.. Whatever. Just the accuracy and reliability of today guns from 100 years ago is crazy better. You aren't talking about anything that you know anything about.

Feel free to have an opinion. But they aren't created equal.

We don't need soldiers on the ground anymore? Why did we send people into Afghanistan and Iraq if technology has replaced the infantry grunt?

OK....body armor, NV goggles, Kevlar Helmets, camels instead of canteens, weaponry advances, hand held GPS, armored transports instead of making them hike for 25 miles/day to get them to the battlefield without fatigue....that's just off the top of my head....technological advances.....Just for the grunt you mentioned. Never mind that before the grunt goes in, we take the skies away from our enemy, tenderize the **** out of them with artillery, cruise missiles and smart bombs. Oh....let's not forget the advance scouts that hide in the shadows that tell the drone operators where to deliver their ordinance.

I never seen someone defend an indefensible position like you are. Where did anyone say we didn't need infantry? Where did anyone say that manpower isn't necessary? No one did. Only you.

I think it pretty telling that right wingers are deflecting about ******* BAYONETS.....when in the last bayonet charge was in 1951. Are they useful? hell yes....are they great to have? yep. Are they used much in combat? No. Even the guy in Afghanistan that people have mentioned took his opponent out with a rifle, not a bayonet.

Look....I know you don't like Obama....I get that.....and I know you don't like it that he made your boy look bad. But you trying to come up with your "you didn't build that" moment to get all outraged about only makes you look stupid and stubborn and, quite frankly....a little nuts.

gotta go to work....to be continued, I'm sure.

All that, and it still comes down to the guy on the ground, not the ships that sink.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

fewer...how hard is that concept?

We have more, how hard is that to grasp?

 

[Plasmaball]

The British? the same ones who are famous for the charge of the Light Brigade?

no Polish, i said POLISH.....jesus stop changing the subject....moron.

You seem upset, does your brain hurt?

yes from your stupidity. I've never seen someone double down on the stupid like you. Even LGS has enough common sense to ditch the thread...

 

[regent]

When rifles carried one bullet it was a different war. One can imagine massed bayonet charges and the massed bayonet charges could carry the day with single shot rifles. When machine guns were added to the mix, the bayonet charges were now useless and obsolete, but the military continued to use them because that's what they have been taught. By WWII the bayonets should have been removed from the kits, but no, that's what they had been taught, so here we are almost 100 years later still talking of the use of bayonets. The military is always prepared to fight the last war or in some cases the wars of 100 years ago.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes. Morbidly stupid. You're insane for thinking that.

Screw battleships... Nukes.. Whatever. Just the accuracy and reliability of today guns from 100 years ago is crazy better. You aren't talking about anything that you know anything about.

Feel free to have an opinion. But they aren't created equal.

We don't need soldiers on the ground anymore?

Did I say that?

Why did we send people into Afghanistan and Iraq if technology has replaced the infantry grunt?

See... This is why you are an idiot. Nobody said they weren't needed. It was said that technology... *ponders* Pfft.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Good day to you.

The analogy Obama was trying to draw is that technological advances have changed the way we fight war. It really hasn't, other than making it easier for the grunts on our side to survive. Every single bit of technology you can name that is applied to war was imaginable in 1916, and most of it was supposed to make war impossible. Yet, no matter what, without a guy who is willing to get on the ground and use a knife, we would loose every time. In fact, the reason we are losing in Afghanistan is Obama isn't willing to send in enough troops to get the job done, they have more knives than we do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Soldier who led Afghanistan bayonet charge into hail of bullets honoured
The Telegraph ^ | Sept. 28, 2012 | By Telegraph Reporters

Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 225 AM by Brad from Tennessee

Corporal Sean Jones, 25, of 1st Battalion The Princess of Wales's Regiment, "reversed a potentially dire situation" when his patrol came under attack in a carefully planned ambush in October last year.

Firing a rocket at one of the insurgent positions, Cpl Jones ordered three of his men to fix bayonets before breaking cover and leading them across 80 metres of open ground raked by enemy fire. .


Soldier who led Afghanistan bayonet charge into hail of bullets honoured - Telegraph

You do realize that Cpl Jones is a Brit and not an American soldier? Their kit and ours are not the same.

Repugs seem to be having a hard time understanding that military weapons and tactics have evolved since WW1. Bayonets and horses may still have some utility today in certain situations, but they aren't the primary tools of war anymore.

Do you realize that the US Army has 600,000 bayonets in stock? That is not counting the ones actually issued to troops.

Idiots in general seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that Obama is wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When rifles carried one bullet it was a different war. One can imagine massed bayonet charges and the massed bayonet charges could carry the day with single shot rifles. When machine guns were added to the mix, the bayonet charges were now useless and obsolete, but the military continued to use them because that's what they have been taught. By WWII the bayonets should have been removed from the kits, but no, that's what they had been taught, so here we are almost 100 years later still talking of the use of bayonets. The military is always prepared to fight the last war or in some cases the wars of 100 years ago.

That would have been a much more profound statement if there wasn't a successful bayonet charge in 2004.

 

[del]

We don't need soldiers on the ground anymore?

Did I say that?

Why did we send people into Afghanistan and Iraq if technology has replaced the infantry grunt?

See... This is why you are an idiot. Nobody said they weren't needed. It was said that technology... *ponders* Pfft.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Good day to you.

The analogy Obama was trying to draw is that technological advances have changed the way we fight war. It really hasn't, other than making it easier for the grunts on our side to survive. Every single bit of technology you can name that is applied to war was imaginable in 1916, and most of it was supposed to make war impossible. Yet, no matter what, without a guy who is willing to get on the ground and use a knife, we would loose every time. In fact, the reason we are losing in Afghanistan is Obama isn't willing to send in enough troops to get the job done, they have more knives than we do.

you're in tm territory now.

nice work

 

[Borillar]

We don't need soldiers on the ground anymore?

Did I say that?

Why did we send people into Afghanistan and Iraq if technology has replaced the infantry grunt?

See... This is why you are an idiot. Nobody said they weren't needed. It was said that technology... *ponders* Pfft.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Good day to you.

The analogy Obama was trying to draw is that technological advances have changed the way we fight war. It really hasn't, other than making it easier for the grunts on our side to survive. Every single bit of technology you can name that is applied to war was imaginable in 1916, and most of it was supposed to make war impossible. Yet, no matter what, without a guy who is willing to get on the ground and use a knife, we would loose every time. In fact, the reason we are losing in Afghanistan is Obama isn't willing to send in enough troops to get the job done, they have more knives than we do.

Not enough knives? That's why we are losing? Well shit! Give each soldier a dozen knives and a sword then. Maybe a couple spears for backup. We'll kick their asses then!

 

[bodecea]

Soldier who led Afghanistan bayonet charge into hail of bullets honoured
The Telegraph ^ | Sept. 28, 2012 | By Telegraph Reporters

Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 225 AM by Brad from Tennessee

Corporal Sean Jones, 25, of 1st Battalion The Princess of Wales's Regiment, "reversed a potentially dire situation" when his patrol came under attack in a carefully planned ambush in October last year.

Firing a rocket at one of the insurgent positions, Cpl Jones ordered three of his men to fix bayonets before breaking cover and leading them across 80 metres of open ground raked by enemy fire. .


Soldier who led Afghanistan bayonet charge into hail of bullets honoured - Telegraph

You do realize that Cpl Jones is a Brit and not an American soldier? Their kit and ours are not the same.

Repugs seem to be having a hard time understanding that military weapons and tactics have evolved since WW1. Bayonets and horses may still have some utility today in certain situations, but they aren't the primary tools of war anymore.

You realize that you have now been put on ignore by LadyGunSlinger so that she doesn't have to face the OBVIOUS Truths in your post.

 

[bodecea]

When rifles carried one bullet it was a different war. One can imagine massed bayonet charges and the massed bayonet charges could carry the day with single shot rifles. When machine guns were added to the mix, the bayonet charges were now useless and obsolete, but the military continued to use them because that's what they have been taught. By WWII the bayonets should have been removed from the kits, but no, that's what they had been taught, so here we are almost 100 years later still talking of the use of bayonets. The military is always prepared to fight the last war or in some cases the wars of 100 years ago.

That would have been a much more profound statement if there wasn't a successful bayonet charge in 2004.