LadyGunSlinger
Conservative Babe
- Feb 6, 2011
- 19,589
- 3,348
- 280
- Thread starter
- #481
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks for your professional opinion, Admiral.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.
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?
Weird how one minute you're stupid, the next, you're still stupid. OK, it isn't weird.
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.
While I agree with you, the point I'm trying to make is to show just how far the Republican party has fallen that THIS is what they have to focus on after a debate with "America's worst President!"
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.
While I agree with you, the point I'm trying to make is to show just how far the Republican party has fallen that THIS is what they have to focus on after a debate with "America's worst President!"
The Republicans are not the ones that are focusing on it.
Thanks for your professional opinion, Admiral.We have plenty of ships. The advancement of technology means we need less ships.
im here to educate you dumbasses
Did I say that?
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!
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!
You're proposing an arms race?
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
Poor leftists.. WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING..
Obama Flubs: U.S. Has More Bayonets Today Than in 1916 | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier
The election is not about bayonets. The military jsut discontinued bayonet training, as I understand it. But that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Obama's foreign policy is a record of failure unrivaled by any president in my lifetime.
Kennedy had the Berlin Wall. Johnson had Vietnam, Nixon went to China, Ford had lust for the Polish people, Carter had detente, Reagan had the implosion of the Soviet Union, HW Bush had the Gulf War, Clinton had Bosnia, W had the Iraq War. Obama has nothing but failure.
President Obama said during Monday night's debate that the U.S. Army has fewer horses and bayonets than in the past.
That's true. Although Army Special Forces were on horseback in Afghanistan when they helped defeat the Taliban in 2001, the Army's horses are now used only for ceremonial occasions.
As for bayonets? The last bayonet charge was during the Korean War in 1951.
The bayonet has somewhat gone the way of the horse cavalry, as far as the Army is concerned (although Marines still use bayonets in training).
Two years ago, bayonet training stopped for new recruits, under orders from Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, then head of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command. Sergeants instead focused on more practical skills like hand-to-hand fighting.
"What's interesting," Hertling told The Christian Science Monitor at the time, "is if bayonet training is that important and it's the centerpiece of everything we do, why is it the only place it's taught is at basic training? If it's that important, you'd think all the operational units would have bayonet assault courses."
Horses, Bayonets And The Modern Military : It's All Politics : NPR
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?
Do we wither?? No, I don't believe either of us wither.
Lastly, who gives a rats behind?? Your boy Obama said there were less bayonets today in the military then in 1916.. He said it with CONTEMPT, DISRESPECT.. That's what he gets for being a jerk, UNPRESIDENTIAL.
Don't you as an Independent have better things to do than carry Obama's nuts around in your mouth all day?
While I agree with you, the point I'm trying to make is to show just how far the Republican party has fallen that THIS is what they have to focus on after a debate with "America's worst President!"
The Republicans are not the ones that are focusing on it.
right.
Thanks for your professional opinion, Admiral.
im here to educate you dumbasses
Simply not possible. You have nothing to teach anyone.
NOTE: Mindlessly repeating leftist nonsense is not "teaching".
right.
Outside of this bard no one is even talking about it. You might think this is the entire universe, I don't.
you don't think, period.