Mr. President, Marines Still Use Bayonets

[bodecea]

Why do Romney and the OP want to waste taxpayer money buying more bayonets?

OMIGOD! It's a Bayonet Arms Race!

 

[del]

The attack against Obama is an attack of his use of semantics in a presidential debate. If you're going to sneer at somebody and bring up the "fact" that we no longer need navy vessels because we have fewer bayonets, you'd better be sure that we have fewer bayonets.

He made an idiotic parallel, and he got called on it, as he should be. The man is an arrogant, and ignorant, piece of shit. And people realize it more more every time he opens his idiotic cock sucker.

LOL!! Well said!!

i can see why you'd think so.

maybe think is overstating it.

 

[RDD_1210]

Again the Obama ass kissers are working overtime to explain why what he REALLY meant.

Actually, no effort or work is needed since it's completely obvious.....to anyone with an ounce of intelligence or honesty. Neither of which you have any shred of apparently.

It is obvious. Which is why the leftards have posted about a dozen threads trying to dismiss it.

The racist is here. Let's all stop everything to hear his valued opinion.

 

[del]

Again the Obama ass kissers are working overtime to explain why what he REALLY meant.

that's because the romney asskissers, like you, are so stupid that it requires explaining.

 

[westwall]

Oh look.. it's the so called Independent who runs to every thread about Obama to cover for him..

Your link showed and said NOTHING about the true number of bayonets today.. NOT ONE NUMBER. As usual , your blabber is just that.

I am an independant. I support Romney and I have his back everytime I can. Yes, his shit was blabber

Do wither of you morans even know the difference between a bayonet used in 1916 versus one today?

I do! The ones used back in 1916 were better made and around 8 inches shorter than those used today.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TRR: Obama Sticks it to Romney on Bayonets - Washington Times

Smarmy Obama doesn't know SQUAT about his own military.. ALONG with his liberal Zombie posse.. Old SeaWytch claimed otherwise, NUMEROUS times yesterday.

LOL

This is deranged, pathetic, rightist desperation.

 

[OODA_Loop]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The attack against Obama is an attack of his use of semantics in a presidential debate. If you're going to sneer at somebody and bring up the "fact" that we no longer need navy vessels because we have fewer bayonets, you'd better be sure that we have fewer bayonets.

He made an idiotic parallel, and he got called on it, as he should be. The man is an arrogant, and ignorant, piece of shit. And people realize it more more every time he opens his idiotic cock sucker.

he never said we don't need a navy.

you people really are simpleminded.

He used horses and bayonets to try and prove the point we don't need a lot of navy ships. Which simply is not true. we have 11 carrier groups and need at least 16. We have a need for 2 carriers in the pacific, 1 in the atlantic , 1 in the med, 1 in the Indian ocean and 1 in the gulf with at least 2 more as back up. At least half our carriers are not available at any one time for deployment. You do the math.

More carriers means more cruisers, more destroyers and more support ships.

 

[OODA_Loop]

 

[OODA_Loop]

 

[The Rabbi]

The attack against Obama is an attack of his use of semantics in a presidential debate. If you're going to sneer at somebody and bring up the "fact" that we no longer need navy vessels because we have fewer bayonets, you'd better be sure that we have fewer bayonets.

He made an idiotic parallel, and he got called on it, as he should be. The man is an arrogant, and ignorant, piece of shit. And people realize it more more every time he opens his idiotic cock sucker.

he never said we don't need a navy.

you people really are simpleminded.

He used horses and bayonets to try and prove the point we don't need a lot of navy ships. Which simply is not true. we have 11 carrier groups and need at least 16. We have a need for 2 carriers in the pacific, 1 in the atlantic , 1 in the med, 1 in the Indian ocean and 1 in the gulf with at least 2 more as back up. At least half our carriers are not available at any one time for deployment. You do the math.

More carriers means more cruisers, more destroyers and more support ships.

Terms like "more" and "fewer" are confusing to Del, who cannot post more than 2 sentences in any response. Try using "big" and "not big" instead.

 

[Plasmaball]

The attack against Obama is an attack of his use of semantics in a presidential debate. If you're going to sneer at somebody and bring up the "fact" that we no longer need navy vessels because we have fewer bayonets, you'd better be sure that we have fewer bayonets.

He made an idiotic parallel, and he got called on it, as he should be. The man is an arrogant, and ignorant, piece of shit. And people realize it more more every time he opens his idiotic cock sucker.

he never said we don't need a navy.

you people really are simpleminded.

He used horses and bayonets to try and prove the point we don't need a lot of navy ships. Which simply is not true. we have 11 carrier groups and need at least 16. We have a need for 2 carriers in the pacific, 1 in the atlantic , 1 in the med, 1 in the Indian ocean and 1 in the gulf with at least 2 more as back up. At least half our carriers are not available at any one time for deployment. You do the math.

More carriers means more cruisers, more destroyers and more support ships.

We have plenty of ships. The advancement of technology means we need less ships.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, no effort or work is needed since it's completely obvious.....to anyone with an ounce of intelligence or honesty. Neither of which you have any shred of apparently.

It is obvious. Which is why the leftards have posted about a dozen threads trying to dismiss it.

The racist is here. Let's all stop everything to hear his valued opinion.

Are you really going to trot out that shit? Again? You get your ass kicked every time. And yet you insist on doing it over and over whenever I've obviously out classed you. Which isn't hard.

 

[RDD_1210]

This picture is obviously from 1916, so what's your point?

 

[RDD_1210]

It is obvious. Which is why the leftards have posted about a dozen threads trying to dismiss it.

The racist is here. Let's all stop everything to hear his valued opinion.

Are you really going to trot out that shit? Again? You get your ass kicked every time. And yet you insist on doing it over and over whenever I've obviously out classed you. Which isn't hard.

Weird how one minute you're racist, the next minute you claim not to be, then you are again. Are you racist AND bipolar? Or just racist?

 

[OODA_Loop]

He used horses and bayonets to try and prove the point we don't need a lot of navy ships. Which simply is not true. we have 11 carrier groups and need at least 16. We have a need for 2 carriers in the pacific, 1 in the atlantic , 1 in the med, 1 in the Indian ocean and 1 in the gulf with at least 2 more as back up. At least half our carriers are not available at any one time for deployment. You do the math.

More carriers means more cruisers, more destroyers and more support ships.

Cruisers are going away. More destroyers. Go to Bath, Maine on google earth there are 5 Burkes being laid down as we post. They also have some being laid down in Mississippi.

 

[The Rabbi]

he never said we don't need a navy.

you people really are simpleminded.

He used horses and bayonets to try and prove the point we don't need a lot of navy ships. Which simply is not true. we have 11 carrier groups and need at least 16. We have a need for 2 carriers in the pacific, 1 in the atlantic , 1 in the med, 1 in the Indian ocean and 1 in the gulf with at least 2 more as back up. At least half our carriers are not available at any one time for deployment. You do the math.

More carriers means more cruisers, more destroyers and more support ships.

We have plenty of ships. The advancement of technology means we need less ships.

Thanks for your professional opinion, Admiral.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He used horses and bayonets to try and prove the point we don't need a lot of navy ships. Which simply is not true. we have 11 carrier groups and need at least 16. We have a need for 2 carriers in the pacific, 1 in the atlantic , 1 in the med, 1 in the Indian ocean and 1 in the gulf with at least 2 more as back up. At least half our carriers are not available at any one time for deployment. You do the math.

More carriers means more cruisers, more destroyers and more support ships.

Cruisers are going away. More destroyers. Go to Bath, Maine on ggogle earth there are 5 Burkes being laid down as we post. The also have some being laid down in Mississippi.

We have a super advanced ship that is called a destroyer but is 600 feet long, has cutting edge tech through out. Unfortunately no one wants to pay for it so we will only build ONE.

 

[OODA_Loop]

He used horses and bayonets to try and prove the point we don't need a lot of navy ships. Which simply is not true. we have 11 carrier groups and need at least 16. We have a need for 2 carriers in the pacific, 1 in the atlantic , 1 in the med, 1 in the Indian ocean and 1 in the gulf with at least 2 more as back up. At least half our carriers are not available at any one time for deployment. You do the math.

More carriers means more cruisers, more destroyers and more support ships.

Cruisers are going away. More destroyers. Go to Bath, Maine on ggogle earth there are 5 Burkes being laid down as we post. The also have some being laid down in Mississippi.

We have a super advanced ship that is called a destroyer but is 600 feet long, has cutting edge tech through out. Unfortunately no one wants to pay for it so we will only build ONE.

Zumwalt. Ticonderogas are aging built on Spruance hulls. SPY-1 AEGIS fits in a Burke and can DO IT ALL. See my post with the 3 Burkes underway. The Somali prirates were taken out from the decks of a Burke.

 

[MikeK]

Poor leftists.. WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING..

Obama Flubs: U.S. Has More Bayonets Today Than in 1916 | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier

Aside from accommodating the Military Industrial Complex I can't understand why the contemporary military needs so many bayonets. The only purpose I can think of is crowd control, which is something to think about.