Mr. President, Marines Still Use Bayonets

[Quantum Windbag]

yeah....until you big bags of douche changed the goal post a couple of dozen times.

I never moved the goal post, my position is still that Obama made a fool of himself by trying to say that we didn't have aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916.

Ok...Morten Fucking Anderson.....Change the goalpost again.....show me ONE post in this thread that you ever mentioned aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916....in fact....show me where Obama said we didn't have aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916...... and by the way, we didn't have aircraft carriers in 1916....we did have submarines though....although at the time, we considered them ineffective and Germany was.much more enamored with them.

I have been through this multiple times, here is my position as I laid it out early in this thread.

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?

Still waiting for anyone to actually take Obama's words in context and prove he wasn't trying to make Romney look like he is out of touch, and that he didn't lie when he did it. all the moving goal posts have been from the defenders of the liar who doesn't know how the military works.

 

[idb]

I never moved the goal post, my position is still that Obama made a fool of himself by trying to say that we didn't have aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916.

Ok...Morten Fucking Anderson.....Change the goalpost again.....show me ONE post in this thread that you ever mentioned aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916....in fact....show me where Obama said we didn't have aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916...... and by the way, we didn't have aircraft carriers in 1916....we did have submarines though....although at the time, we considered them ineffective and Germany was.much more enamored with them.

I have been through this multiple times, here is my position as I laid it out early in this thread.

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?

Still waiting for anyone to actually take Obama's words in context and prove he wasn't trying to make Romney look like he is out of touch, and that he didn't lie when he did it. all the moving goal posts have been from the defenders of the liar who doesn't know how the military works.

When you completely mis-represent him, what does context matter?
Here's your post;

He argued that we now have to use horses and bayonets because we have things called aircraft carriers, and ships that go underwater.

That's a novel take on his position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok...Morten Fucking Anderson.....Change the goalpost again.....show me ONE post in this thread that you ever mentioned aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916....in fact....show me where Obama said we didn't have aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916...... and by the way, we didn't have aircraft carriers in 1916....we did have submarines though....although at the time, we considered them ineffective and Germany was.much more enamored with them.

I have been through this multiple times, here is my position as I laid it out early in this thread.



Still waiting for anyone to actually take Obama's words in context and prove he wasn't trying to make Romney look like he is out of touch, and that he didn't lie when he did it. all the moving goal posts have been from the defenders of the liar who doesn't know how the military works.

When you completely mis-represent him, what does context matter?
Here's your post;

He argued that we now have to use horses and bayonets because we have things called aircraft carriers, and ships that go underwater.

That's a novel take on his position.

How, exactly, did I misrepresent him by quoting his exact words? Is this the same process that I used to misrepresent him about the you didn't build that quote?

 

[The Rabbi]

yeah....until you big bags of douche changed the goal post a couple of dozen times.

I never moved the goal post, my position is still that Obama made a fool of himself by trying to say that we didn't have aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916.

all you ever do is move goal posts

With any luck they'll be moved up your ass.

 

[Borillar]

I thought the discussion was how stupid it is to assume that we can rule the world using horses and bayonets.

yeah....until you big bags of douche changed the goal post a couple of dozen times.

I never moved the goal post, my position is still that Obama made a fool of himself by trying to say that we didn't have aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916.

We didn't have aircraft carriers in 1916. Our first carrier was the USS Langley, built from a converted collier in 1920. We did have submarines though.

The point is that Military technology and tactics have evolved since WW1. Just because we had X number of ships in 1916 or 1945 doesn't mean we have to have the same numbers or types today. Our current Navy is still the world's largest and most capable.

 

[konradv]

I never moved the goal post, my position is still that Obama made a fool of himself by trying to say that we didn't have aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916.

all you ever do is move goal posts

With any luck they'll be moved up your ass.

What is it with CONs and their preoccupation with ass?!?!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

yeah....until you big bags of douche changed the goal post a couple of dozen times.

I never moved the goal post, my position is still that Obama made a fool of himself by trying to say that we didn't have aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916.

We didn't have aircraft carriers in 1916. Our first carrier was the USS Langley, built from a converted collier in 1920. We did have submarines though.

The point is that Military technology and tactics have evolved since WW1. Just because we had X number of ships in 1916 or 1945 doesn't mean we have to have the same numbers or types today. Our current Navy is still the world's largest and most capable.

The first aircraft launched from a ship was in 1910 off the USS Birmingham. The first landing aboard a ship was in 1911 when the same pilot landed a plane on the USS Pennsylvania, he then took off again and flew back to land. The Royal Navy launched the first modern aircraft carrier in 1914. Landing planes on ships was a proven concept by 1916 because the Navy had been doing it for years. Thanks for trying to defend Obama, but you aren't any better at history than he is.

 

[Borillar]

I never moved the goal post, my position is still that Obama made a fool of himself by trying to say that we didn't have aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916.

We didn't have aircraft carriers in 1916. Our first carrier was the USS Langley, built from a converted collier in 1920. We did have submarines though.

The point is that Military technology and tactics have evolved since WW1. Just because we had X number of ships in 1916 or 1945 doesn't mean we have to have the same numbers or types today. Our current Navy is still the world's largest and most capable.

The first aircraft launched from a ship was in 1910 off the USS Birmingham. The first landing aboard a ship was in 1911 when the same pilot landed a plane on the USS Pennsylvania, he then took off again and flew back to land. The Royal Navy launched the first modern aircraft carrier in 1914. Landing planes on ships was a proven concept by 1916 because the Navy had been doing it for years. Thanks for trying to defend Obama, but you aren't any better at history than he is.

The Birmingham was a cruiser. The Pennsylvania was a Battleship. They weren't aircraft carriers. Just because a ship may have carried a couple float planes didn't make them aircraft carriers. Today's Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers may also carry helicopters. That doesn't make them Aircraft Carriers either.

 

[The Professor]

Ohhh OOOPSIE.. US Military SpecOps Led Afghanistan Invasion on Horses – Monument at WTC: Bayonets Still in Use: Biden Failed Status of Forces Agreement | Maggie's Notebook

In October 2011, a monument to Special Forces who led the Afghanistan invasion on horses was preparing for the final touches before finding it’s resting place across from the World Trade Center site. The Unit, known as the “Horse Soldiers” were awed by what they were doing on that day. ✔Obama isn’t known to spend much time at the 9/11/01 Memorial.

So now the ASSCLOWN doesn't even know we still use horses as well???????????????????????????

Bwhahahahaha I LOVE IT!

Good thing fewer doesn't mean none then. ASSCLOWN

As a former Marine, let me break it down for the simple-minded folks (not you!!). Close combat is a reality. Duh. It may not be the ideal situation, but it is often an UNAVOIDABLE situation. If I have a knife and you don't, I own your ass. If I have knife on the end of my rifle and all you have is a knife, I still I own your ass. Get the picture???

Any man sent into combat without a bayonet is a victim waiting to happen.

Some of you people really make me laugh.

Those of you who think that bayonets are - or will ever will be - obsolete can kiss my aged USMC ass. I am convinced that for every combatant, there must be at least one close combat weapon. Until someone comes up with a better idea, I think that a bayonet is a mighty fine idea.

As for you fucking fools who ridicule bayonets, please tall me what you would prefer to be armed with if you were in a close combat (hand-to-hand) life or death situation?

Combat ain't no pillow fight ladies and gentlemen. A soldier needs ALL the weapons at his disposal to protect himself while trying to destroy the enemy.

If you don't want your soldiers to be properly armed, then fuck you.

 

[hazlnut]

Mr. President, Marines Still Use Bayonets - Marines - Fox Nation



How frightening that the CINC doesn't even know what kind of weapons his very troops use??! More proof this plastic President is TOTALLY CLUELESS!

Are they fighting each other?

Or did GumSlinger get off work early and head for the redneck bar to run her mouth while getting shitfaced with the boys.

If you blow your paycheck, don't worry, black dudes love to buy Big Bottom Gals like you a drink.

 

[bodecea]

I thought the discussion was how stupid it is to assume that we can rule the world using horses and bayonets.

yeah....until you big bags of douche changed the goal post a couple of dozen times.

I never moved the goal post, my position is still that Obama made a fool of himself by trying to say that we didn't have aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916.

He said that?

 

[ABikerSailor]

yeah....until you big bags of douche changed the goal post a couple of dozen times.

I never moved the goal post, my position is still that Obama made a fool of himself by trying to say that we didn't have aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916.

He said that?

Actually, Obama said we had more bayonets and ships in 1916 than we do today.

He then went on to explain that tactics have changed because we now have carriers and subs.

 

[The Professor]

The bayonet is still standard issue military equipment for the U.S. Marine Corps starting at basic training. Marines train in how to use the bayonet in close combat warfare.

According to the Marine Corps website, “attach the OKC-3S Bayonet” to your rifle and it is an effective close combat weapon.

“The OKC-3S is the weapon of choice when shots can’t be fired,” according to the website.

Good point !!!!

You know that and I know that. Only fools who have never heard of the concept of close combat (hand to hand combat) would argue with you. In such situations, a bayonet is indispensable. If I have a knife and you have nothing, I own your ass. If I have a bayonet at the end of my rifle and all you have is a knife, I own your ass. Get it?

The problem is that no one in a combat arena can know exactly if and when they will be exposed to circumstances where they have no close air support, no artillery, no armored support and no ammunition. A soldier without a bayonet is a fatality waiting to happen.

All you armchair soldiers make me laugh.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Poor liberals having to walk it back now.. ROFL!!!!!!!! The IDIOT Barry wouldn't know a weapon if it hit him in his pointy head!

Incorrect the weapons barry knows about are the weapons I and you own, those he said he would take with an assault weapons ban if he gets one to sign.

 

[regent]

So how many casualties are the result of bayonets today, or even yesterday? Are there any statistics that show their effectiveness or lack thereof?
At one time the bayonet was essential as a backup to the one-shot rifles, and the massed infantry assaults. With the machine gun, however, the bayonets were pretty much dated, dated, but not with some generals, they still ordered massed infantry assualts with horrendous casualties. Casualties caused not by by the bayonet but by the machine guns. Bayonets are still an impressive weapon, sort of a showboat weapon, on unarmed crowds or even unarmed military. The Japanese used them on prisoners. But how many casualties do they cause today? Are we still preparing for the last war, or the Civil War?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Obamination's lame ass prepared remark is among a long line of stupid remarks.

He has also claimed the DoD budget cuts were ok with the DoD, afterall they don't want to ask for more money according to him. The "evil" GOP is forcing weapon systems and more spending on the military.

Who is insane enough to believe the military would say "NO" to more stuff????

Uh, Obamination is that insane.

 

[idb]

Obamination's lame ass prepared remark is among a long line of stupid remarks.

He has also claimed the DoD budget cuts were ok with the DoD, afterall they don't want to ask for more money according to him. The "evil" GOP is forcing weapon systems and more spending on the military.

Who is insane enough to believe the military would say "NO" to more stuff????

Uh, Obamination is that insane.

So which is it?
Are the DoD not asking for more money, or are actually they saying "no" to more money?

You changed your claim in two paragraphs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We didn't have aircraft carriers in 1916. Our first carrier was the USS Langley, built from a converted collier in 1920. We did have submarines though.

The point is that Military technology and tactics have evolved since WW1. Just because we had X number of ships in 1916 or 1945 doesn't mean we have to have the same numbers or types today. Our current Navy is still the world's largest and most capable.

The first aircraft launched from a ship was in 1910 off the USS Birmingham. The first landing aboard a ship was in 1911 when the same pilot landed a plane on the USS Pennsylvania, he then took off again and flew back to land. The Royal Navy launched the first modern aircraft carrier in 1914. Landing planes on ships was a proven concept by 1916 because the Navy had been doing it for years. Thanks for trying to defend Obama, but you aren't any better at history than he is.

The Birmingham was a cruiser. The Pennsylvania was a Battleship. They weren't aircraft carriers. Just because a ship may have carried a couple float planes didn't make them aircraft carriers. Today's Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers may also carry helicopters. That doesn't make them Aircraft Carriers either.

Obama said "We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them." Those actually existed in 1916,despite your insistence that they did not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

yeah....until you big bags of douche changed the goal post a couple of dozen times.

I never moved the goal post, my position is still that Obama made a fool of himself by trying to say that we didn't have aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916.

He said that?

You tell me.

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.

Go ahead, try to tell me that he didn't say that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I never moved the goal post, my position is still that Obama made a fool of himself by trying to say that we didn't have aircraft carriers and submarines in 1916.

He said that?

Actually, Obama said we had more bayonets and ships in 1916 than we do today.

He then went on to explain that tactics have changed because we now have carriers and subs.

Actually, that is not what he said.