Mr. President, Marines Still Use Bayonets

[NYcarbineer]

Defense was about 1.25% of GDP pre=WWI.

If Romney wants to return to that, I'm with him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

His exact words?

Gee, look at that, I was right, he was trying to portray Romney as not understanding how the military works today. In the process he lied about the fact that sequestration was proposed by the White House, not Congress, he lied about the year Romney is using as a baseline, and he lied about the fact that the Navy specifically thinks it needs more ships than we have.

Want to try and tell me about Obama's exact words and how I am misrepresenting his intention again?

Please try to make your desperate attempts at obfuscation shorter, if you don't mind. If you're going to be stupid, the least you could do is be brief.

You claimed the president said we never use bayonets any more. He didn't. You lied. He didn't.

Now go back and answer my question.

No, I said he tried to paint Romney as out of touch with how the military works. In the process, he mentioned three things we thought we no longer use, battleships, horses, and bayonets. He was wrong about two of them.

\

How many fucking times would we have to repeat his verbatim quote that proves that he never said we never use them, before you would accept it?

Give us a number, so we at least have something to work towards.

 

[idb]

He was trying to paint Romney as old fashioned by saying he doesn't understand how the military works now by pointing out two things the military doesn't use any more. He failed.

So the president's actual words show hold less weight than what the anti-Obama people on the internet would like to believe he said?

Let me ask you. How many ships do you think we should have, based on your opinion that we don't need any government at all?

His exact words?

Bob, I just need to comment on this. First of all, the sequester is not something that I proposed. It’s something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen. The budget that we’re talking about is not reducing our military spending. It’s maintaining it. But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You — 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 — (laughter) — 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.
And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships. It’s — it’s what are our capabilities.
And so when I sit down with the secretary of the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home. And that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you’re putting forward, because it just don’t work.

Gee, look at that, I was right, he was trying to portray Romney as not understanding how the military works today. In the process he lied about the fact that sequestration was proposed by the White House, not Congress, he lied about the year Romney is using as a baseline, and he lied about the fact that the Navy specifically thinks it needs more ships than we have.

Want to try and tell me about Obama's exact words and how I am misrepresenting his intention again?

So you're saying that the US has more bayonets and horses than 1916?

 

[ABikerSailor]

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

Quick question.................what part of the U.S. Military has a Prince of Wales Regiment?

Prince of Wales's Regiment is a title that has been carried by many regiments of the British, Indian, Australian and Canadian armies and may refer to:

Contents
[hide] 1 British Army


2 Indian Army


3 Australian Army

4 Canadian Army

Prince of Wales's Regiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll give you a hint...............it's none.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Defense was about 1.25% of GDP pre=WWI.

If Romney wants to return to that, I'm with him.

Total spending was about 2.5% of GDP, lets go back to that too.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please try to make your desperate attempts at obfuscation shorter, if you don't mind. If you're going to be stupid, the least you could do is be brief.

You claimed the president said we never use bayonets any more. He didn't. You lied. He didn't.

Now go back and answer my question.

No, I said he tried to paint Romney as out of touch with how the military works. In the process, he mentioned three things we thought we no longer use, battleships, horses, and bayonets. He was wrong about two of them.

\

How many fucking times would we have to repeat his verbatim quote that proves that he never said we never use them, before you would accept it?

Give us a number, so we at least have something to work towards.

Apparently I have to repeat it more than the one time I already did.

Bob, I just need to comment on this. First of all, the sequester is not something that I proposed. It’s something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen. The budget that we’re talking about is not reducing our military spending. It’s maintaining it.

But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You — 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 — (laughter) — 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.

And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships. It’s — it’s what are our capabilities.

And so when I sit down with the secretary of the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home. And that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you’re putting forward, because it just don’t work.

Show me how I am misquoting his words, or how I am using them out of context. Obama was trying to show how out of touch Romney is, and ended up showing how out of touch he is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The entire issue needs to reset with the only relevant question.

Why would we need so much more navy?

Okay, more than one question:

How does Romney plan to pay for it? Where, exactly, would the money come from for a massively expensive expansion of the navy.

IOW

1. Precisely define and justify its mission.

2. Precisely account for its cost.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So the president's actual words show hold less weight than what the anti-Obama people on the internet would like to believe he said?

Let me ask you. How many ships do you think we should have, based on your opinion that we don't need any government at all?

His exact words?

Bob, I just need to comment on this. First of all, the sequester is not something that I proposed. It’s something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen. The budget that we’re talking about is not reducing our military spending. It’s maintaining it. But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You — 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 — (laughter) — 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.
And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships. It’s — it’s what are our capabilities.
And so when I sit down with the secretary of the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home. And that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you’re putting forward, because it just don’t work.

Gee, look at that, I was right, he was trying to portray Romney as not understanding how the military works today. In the process he lied about the fact that sequestration was proposed by the White House, not Congress, he lied about the year Romney is using as a baseline, and he lied about the fact that the Navy specifically thinks it needs more ships than we have.

Want to try and tell me about Obama's exact words and how I am misrepresenting his intention again?

So you're saying that the US has more bayonets and horses than 1916?

Yep, that's what I said.

 

[idb]

His exact words?

Gee, look at that, I was right, he was trying to portray Romney as not understanding how the military works today. In the process he lied about the fact that sequestration was proposed by the White House, not Congress, he lied about the year Romney is using as a baseline, and he lied about the fact that the Navy specifically thinks it needs more ships than we have.

Want to try and tell me about Obama's exact words and how I am misrepresenting his intention again?

Please try to make your desperate attempts at obfuscation shorter, if you don't mind. If you're going to be stupid, the least you could do is be brief.

You claimed the president said we never use bayonets any more. He didn't. You lied. He didn't.

Now go back and answer my question.

No, I said he tried to paint Romney as out of touch with how the military works. In the process, he mentioned three things we thought we no longer use, battleships, horses, and bayonets. He was wrong about two of them.

Please point out the exact phrase where he states that you no longer use horses or bayonets.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please try to make your desperate attempts at obfuscation shorter, if you don't mind. If you're going to be stupid, the least you could do is be brief.

You claimed the president said we never use bayonets any more. He didn't. You lied. He didn't.

Now go back and answer my question.

No, I said he tried to paint Romney as out of touch with how the military works. In the process, he mentioned three things we thought we no longer use, battleships, horses, and bayonets. He was wrong about two of them.

Please point out the exact phrase where he states that you no longer use horses or bayonets.

I suggest you go read the full quote in context, then come back here and tell me I am misrepresenting his intent so I can laugh at you.

 

[Plasmaball]

Here is a picture of US Army forces in 2001.

awesome picture, it really proves nothing at all. You want a picture of some guys in a tank?

It proves that the US Army used horses in combat in 2001, something High Gravity said he missed in basic.

nobody said they didnt dipshit...You made a moronic point, again. You really should try to stop.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Our Military still uses horses to charge into battle? I must have missed that part of my basic training.

Looks like you absolutely did..

Let's Not Forget The Reasons Why The Military Still Has Horses (And Bayonets) - Business Insider

And??

Most notably horses saw use in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, when Special Operations soldiers rode them into combat with the Northern Alliance, against the Taliban

Ok I didn't know about that.

Hey HG, those were Special Forces operators who were going into Afghanistan ahead of the regular Army (some SEALs were part of those groups as well). As far as I'm aware of, only Special Forces (who don't usually fight conventional warfare) are the ones that have used them. Never heard of an entire regiment charging into battle in a LONG time.

But..............that's not what President Obama said, he stated that we have fewer horses and bayonets than what we had back in 1916. What else was happening around 1916? Oh yeah.........WW I, where fixed bayonets were part of BOTH the Army AND the Marines training. Several posters who have served in the Army said that they've never used bayonets in recent years. Obama wasn't just talking about the Marines alone, he was talking about the whole of the Armed Forces, meaning Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard.

Sorry, but Obama's statement is correct.

 

[High_Gravity]

Looks like you absolutely did..

Let's Not Forget The Reasons Why The Military Still Has Horses (And Bayonets) - Business Insider

And??

Most notably horses saw use in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, when Special Operations soldiers rode them into combat with the Northern Alliance, against the Taliban

Ok I didn't know about that.

Hey HG, those were Special Forces operators who were going into Afghanistan ahead of the regular Army (some SEALs were part of those groups as well). As far as I'm aware of, only Special Forces (who don't usually fight conventional warfare) are the ones that have used them. Never heard of an entire regiment charging into battle in a LONG time.

But..............that's not what President Obama said, he stated that we have fewer horses and bayonets than what we had back in 1916. What else was happening around 1916? Oh yeah.........WW I, where fixed bayonets were part of BOTH the Army AND the Marines training. Several posters who have served in the Army said that they've never used bayonets in recent years. Obama wasn't just talking about the Marines alone, he was talking about the whole of the Armed Forces, meaning Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard.

Sorry, but Obama's statement is correct.

Oh yeah I knew those weren't your regular Army infantry grunts, horses are used mainly in special circumstances like the pic above.

 

[idb]

His exact words?

Gee, look at that, I was right, he was trying to portray Romney as not understanding how the military works today. In the process he lied about the fact that sequestration was proposed by the White House, not Congress, he lied about the year Romney is using as a baseline, and he lied about the fact that the Navy specifically thinks it needs more ships than we have.

Want to try and tell me about Obama's exact words and how I am misrepresenting his intention again?

So you're saying that the US has more bayonets and horses than 1916?

Yep, that's what I said.

OK, I just wanted to be clear on that.

 

[Plasmaball]

His exact words?

Gee, look at that, I was right, he was trying to portray Romney as not understanding how the military works today. In the process he lied about the fact that sequestration was proposed by the White House, not Congress, he lied about the year Romney is using as a baseline, and he lied about the fact that the Navy specifically thinks it needs more ships than we have.

Want to try and tell me about Obama's exact words and how I am misrepresenting his intention again?

Please try to make your desperate attempts at obfuscation shorter, if you don't mind. If you're going to be stupid, the least you could do is be brief.

You claimed the president said we never use bayonets any more. He didn't. You lied. He didn't.

Now go back and answer my question.

No, I said he tried to paint Romney as out of touch with how the military works. In the process, he mentioned three things we thought we no longer use, battleships, horses, and bayonets. He was wrong about two of them.

Sigh, he never said we no longer use them. He said Fewer, FEWER, FEWER.

You ignorant sack of shit, words mean things. you are wrong, LGS is wrong, the right is wrong on this and once again miss the whole point of what obama was trying to get across.

 

[Plasmaball]

No, I said he tried to paint Romney as out of touch with how the military works. In the process, he mentioned three things we thought we no longer use, battleships, horses, and bayonets. He was wrong about two of them.

\

How many fucking times would we have to repeat his verbatim quote that proves that he never said we never use them, before you would accept it?

Give us a number, so we at least have something to work towards.

Apparently I have to repeat it more than the one time I already did.

Bob, I just need to comment on this. First of all, the sequester is not something that I proposed. It’s something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen. The budget that we’re talking about is not reducing our military spending. It’s maintaining it.

But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You — 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 — (laughter) — 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.

And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships. It’s — it’s what are our capabilities.

And so when I sit down with the secretary of the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home. And that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you’re putting forward, because it just don’t work.

Show me how I am misquoting his words, or how I am using them out of context. Obama was trying to show how out of touch Romney is, and ended up showing how out of touch he is.

i see you are cherry picking and using the goal posts to cover your ass. you stated this:

In the process, he mentioned three things we thought we no longer use, battleships, horses, and bayonets. He was wrong about two of them.

note the bold part. that is wrong, he never stated this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

awesome picture, it really proves nothing at all. You want a picture of some guys in a tank?

It proves that the US Army used horses in combat in 2001, something High Gravity said he missed in basic.

nobody said they didnt dipshit...You made a moronic point, again. You really should try to stop.

HG admitted he was wrong because he forgot about the horses, yet you are still attacking me.

I wonder why.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please try to make your desperate attempts at obfuscation shorter, if you don't mind. If you're going to be stupid, the least you could do is be brief.

You claimed the president said we never use bayonets any more. He didn't. You lied. He didn't.

Now go back and answer my question.

No, I said he tried to paint Romney as out of touch with how the military works. In the process, he mentioned three things we thought we no longer use, battleships, horses, and bayonets. He was wrong about two of them.

Sigh, he never said we no longer use them. He said Fewer, FEWER, FEWER.

You ignorant sack of shit, words mean things. you are wrong, LGS is wrong, the right is wrong on this and once again miss the whole point of what obama was trying to get across.

Again, I challenge you to parse the entire quote and prove I am misinterpreting him. I posted it twice now, it should be easy for you to find.

 

[del]

His exact words?

Gee, look at that, I was right, he was trying to portray Romney as not understanding how the military works today. In the process he lied about the fact that sequestration was proposed by the White House, not Congress, he lied about the year Romney is using as a baseline, and he lied about the fact that the Navy specifically thinks it needs more ships than we have.

Want to try and tell me about Obama's exact words and how I am misrepresenting his intention again?

Please try to make your desperate attempts at obfuscation shorter, if you don't mind. If you're going to be stupid, the least you could do is be brief.

You claimed the president said we never use bayonets any more. He didn't. You lied. He didn't.

Now go back and answer my question.

No, I said he tried to paint Romney as out of touch with how the military works. In the process, he mentioned three things we thought we no longer use, battleships, horses, and bayonets. He was wrong about two of them.

he never said never.

ever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

\

How many fucking times would we have to repeat his verbatim quote that proves that he never said we never use them, before you would accept it?

Give us a number, so we at least have something to work towards.

Apparently I have to repeat it more than the one time I already did.



Show me how I am misquoting his words, or how I am using them out of context. Obama was trying to show how out of touch Romney is, and ended up showing how out of touch he is.

i see you are cherry picking and using the goal posts to cover your ass. you stated this:

In the process, he mentioned three things we thought we no longer use, battleships, horses, and bayonets. He was wrong about two of them.

note the bold part. that is wrong, he never stated this.

He mentioned three things he thought we no longer use, he was wrong about two of them.

Guess what, I am still right.